Back again, but no one is listening

So, on the Johannes Mehserle trial, interestingly enough he testified on my birthday, the anniversary of another "black" man being killed - Michael Jackson. The reason I bring this up is because of the charge of second degree murder.

Murder in the California penal code is defined as follows:

187. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

Obviously, the statute has been amended to account for lawful termination of a fetus with the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", and that is not part of the discussion.

First and second degrees are differentiated as well. Malice can be expressed or implied, with expressed being the deliberate intention to unlawfully take a life, and implied being without provocation or when circumstances show an "abandoned or malignant heart"

First degree is deliberate and premeditated or done in the pursuit of a number of other felonies. All other murder is second degree. Under this definition, what Mehserle did could be considered 2nd degree murder, but it will be difficult to prove the abandoned or malignant heart. The attorneys should be going for the "without provocation" angle, because he shot the guy in the back when he was no apparent threat. That would be easier to prove, because just proving he was mad is not enough to be "malignant". If it was, spousal abusers would not get manslaughter, nor would people who stabbed someone in a bar fight. Clearly, the weapon in a bar fight can kill and to stab someone while you are angry generally means you want them dead. That is still only manslaughter (heat of passion is how it is generally referred to).

Voluntary manslaughter is the "heat of passion" or in a "quarrel" while involuntary is in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, or a lawful act that results in an unlawful death or without caution and circumspection.

So while he could be guilty of 2nd degree murder, and depending on the evidence may be convicted thereof, it is more likely that he is guilty of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, especially given the tack that the prosecution is taking.

The fact that the judge instructed the jury to consider lesser included charges is probably the best thing. I am sure the defense did not want this, because if they only had 2nd degree murder to choose, they would either acquit or be a hung jury.

Which brings me back to Michael Jackson. Much is being made of a Bart officer shooting an unarmed black man in the back (as much should be made of this - not because of his race but because of his unarmed and non-threatening status at the time), and in large part it is because a "white" officer is shooting a "black" man. The fact that Bart officers are notoriously under-trained and do not deal with stressful situations well is not being taken into account because of the racial undertones.

However, a much more credible case could be made for prosecuting Michael Jackson's doctor for murder - he was supplying him illegally with drugs that he knew were both illegal and life-threatening in the dosages and manner in which he prescribed them. Any reasonable person with the amount of training of a doctor should know exactly what those drugs do, that they are illegal for the purpose which he was prescribing them, and that the loss of life was an inevitable outcome from continued prescription of said drugs. An argument could be made that, since death is a reasonable outcome from these drugs, that injecting Michael Jackson with them amounts to "circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned or malignant heart".

Obviously, this is a bit of a reach, and the charge of manslaughter in this case is also more appropriate, but a trained physician with a syringe and a lust for money from famous people is a dangerous commodity as is an untrained, armed officer. The fact that the Michael Jackson probably requested the shot is what likely makes the difference to most people, and race ceases to be a factor. I would argue that it should not be a factor in either case, as Mehserle, in all likelihood, was so poorly trained that given a similar situation with a white, Hispanic, or Asian offender, it is highly probable that the same thing would have happened.

The real tragedy is that this gives the Oakland community one more reason to not trust the police, and thus makes Oakland, ultimately, a less safe place - if you don't trust the police, you don't report crimes. Gangs and criminals know this and exploit it.

My next two blogs, hopefully soon, will encompass the following topics:

• Legalizing marijuana - why I believe it is a bad idea (and, no, it is not a moral argument against intoxicants, marijuana is likely innocuous enough in that regard, nor will I use a "gateway" drug argument)
• A dream that I had the morning of June 20th. I only slept for about 2 hours that night (the 19th, Sunday night) and I had a dream so vivid and memorable it was like watching a movie, or watching one of the GMs game come to life - in fact there were elements of sci-fi and "Star Fleet" from our game involved. This may bore you, but probably no more so than anything else I write. Supergoober and the GM both figured prominently in it for a while, and it was like we were all characters in a game.

You Can't Legislate Morality... Except Mine

No, I am not referring to MY morality in the title of the blog, but I am referring to a pervasive attitude on the left and right, though, of course, given my own inclinations, I will tend to indict the left a bit more in this blog. What really crystallized this thought in my head was something that theacupuncturist said in our last gaming session, when we started talking about torture. TheGM's response was logical as ever, mine was noncommittal at times, and Devil's advocate at times (big surprise) but tended to agree with the pragmatic view of theGM, while sympathizing and, in many ways, agreeing with, theacupuncturist.

But here is the thing, theacupuncturist stated that it was categorically wrong to torture, and any gain is essentially mitigated by the moral loss (you did not use the word moral, but I can't remember the word you did use, sorry). That is what started my train of thought, and I am not faulting you, acupuncturist. To my knowledge, you have never used the "you can't legislate morality" line, nor do I think you believe it (I don't know for sure, sorry if the attribution is incorrect). But the Left does state that torture is wrong - there are no excuses or mitigating circumstances. I have, in fact, heard this from people who have used the aforementioned quote on morality. This opposition to torture is, in fact, purely a moral stance.

And as I thought more, I was struck by the fallacious reasoning of both the Left and the Right. If a person is "pro-life" they are likely to be attacked as "forcing their morals" on others, "not living in the real world", or "not understanding the plight of women". Of course the pro-life person will stick up for their moral cause, defining their position as morally superior.

Now on the left, someone may be opposed to torture. The right will indict that person as not "understanding the realities of the situation", "not living in the real world", or "not caring about the soldiers at risk". The anti-torture person will, of course, feel morally superior (but in most cases not identify it as such, because the left is largely secularized) and stick up for their moral cause.

And this caused me to think even further. Most of the Left's positions are actually moral stances - in fact, Supergoober, I recall you talking about our moral imperative to assist the poor and downtrodden, and I made a flippant comment about "legislating morality" (around the last presidential election, if you recall). I thought of it then but have given it more thought of late. The left does essentially demonize anyone who does not buy in to their agenda as lacking "compassion" and "not caring". Of course, the agenda is purely a moral one - if there is no moral obligation to help the poor, why should we do it? There are no rational reasons to help the poor; in fact, purely rational thought without regard to human dignity would conclude - "exploit the poor" - something both capitalism and socialism have done (though I would argue that lightly regulated capitalism favors freedom and human dignity far more than socialism, but that is for another blog). Of course the key phrase above is "without regard to human dignity", and the left might counter with the fact that the reason for their stance on poverty and assistance is because of human dignity.

Of course, I would counter with the fact that "human dignity" is a moral concept - try to "prove" it rationally - it is, I think, impossible, because you have to differentiate humanity from nature in order to do this, because the natural order in both plants and animals is "kill or be killed". The lion does not recognize the inherent dignity of the gazelle, or even of the other lions (a pride leader will kill cubs from any other male to ensure only his survive). Yes, there are symbiotic and/or mutualistic relationships in the animal kingdom, but these do not arise out of the "dignity" of any creature. Dignity is a purely moral concept, and therefore, I would argue, most of what the left does is actually legislate morality.

I do not believe this is wrong - you must, on some level, legislate morality, and laws are an attempt to get people to adhere to a certain common moral and legal structure. I just find that the left seems to be very disingenuous about this, probably even with themselves.

The real problem is that not all morality can be legislated, and it is much easier to prohibit bad behavior (murder and rape, for example) that to mandate good behavior or thought (caring and charity, for example). This is where religion is eminently useful in a society. The government can enforce a certain type of morality banning extremes, but cannot make people be good, or even teach them what good is in many cases.

For example, it is understood that it is good to be polite and respectful of ones elders. You cannot pass laws that mandate this, but religion is really useful in passing on these good behaviors. Of course, families are adept at transmitting these values as well, but the underlying structure of a religion serves to reinforce these rules and social mores. The mistake most atheists and atheist philosophers make is that they forget that they and their fellow human beings are raised in societies with these social structures firmly in place - they think that the religion is merely a vestige and that the moral stability of the individual can survive intact without it. And it probably can, for several generations. But without the underlying structure to reinforce this form of morality, it can easily degenerate or pervert to unrecognizable states. Think of how common pressuring a girl into sex is nowadays - it was always something boys tried, but their used to be social regimes in place that discouraged that behavior. Now, I think it is more common for young girls to feel guilty for not "putting out" - an outgrowth of the "sexual revolution". I am not trying to say that promiscuity is evil or that adults engaging is consensual sex should be prohibited, I am just trying to pin down the negative effects some seemingly liberating movements can have.

I have gone rather far afield here, and have probably rambled more than usual - I am on some pain medication right now (cyclobenzaprine), see I was watching the Giants game in my garage, while doing some cleaning. After a disastrous seventh inning that saw the two run lead turn into a one run deficit, I wanted to shut of the game. I left it on, however, and continued to work on cleaning. In a few minutes I heard a crack of the bat, and the announcer shouting - so I looked up and saw a two run homer for the Giants. I was uncharacteristically excited about this and jumped up into the air for some silly reason (those of you who know me know that I seldom get excited about such things). Of course, I was standing right under the metal track for the garage door, the far end of which is quite sharp, and about 6' 5" off of the ground. Since I am about 6' 2" or so, my leap caused me to collide with this rail, cutting my the top of my head open, and snapping my neck back - after a couple of minutes of dealing with the pain and bleeding, my vision started to blur and I got really nauseous - this only lasted about a minute, then my wife (who I had called in the intervening minutes) got there and took me to Kaiser emergency - I was admitted and treated very quickly, the whole thing being over about an hour and a half after I got there, ending with me with a tetanus shot and seven staples in my head.

I am officially an idiot :)

Just a quick blurb...

...about the new home buyers $6500 tax credit. First and foremost, it shows that the Democrats concede that tax cuts can stimulate an economy, but that notwithstanding, it is not the greatest idea, and it will not stimulate the housing market long term. All you have to do is know how people think and work to understand that.

And this is the downfall of many economic thinkers - they fail to see the ramifications of how people react to changing situations. All economic systems have people at their heart, and people do interesting (and, at times, predictable) things. Having this tax credit for new and repeat home buyers (that was added in the last extension, with some wording to head off people buying investment property) expire on May 1st shifts the dynamics of the real estate market. Of course people are clamoring to buy right now - there is a huge incentive. Remember, this is a tax credit, not a write-off... the $6500 comes off of what you owe, not off of your income to calculate what you owe, which means that many people will be getting $6500 more on their tax returns.

But that sounds great, you say, and I say "Nay, nay". The problem is multifaceted now. You have shifted the buying trend, so don't be shocked if the summer (a traditionally good time in real estate) has a sharp decline in sales - people shifted their buying window forward slightly, this did not mean that more people necessarily are buying homes, and it did not make those homes more affordable. In fact, given the stringent lending requirements now, I would warrant that only upper-middle class to wealthy people can cash in on this credit. It might help some in the middle class, but it certainly does not make the homes more affordable to the poor (this is just an impression - I do not have the stats to back it up, but it seems to make logical sense - not that this program really is targeting the poor, I believe it is intended to help the middle class, but my impression is that it will only help the upper-middle to upper class groups).

Also, this will artificially boost home prices - people are fighting to get into homes and get them closed by the end of May (the closing deadline in the law). All that this will do is artificially inflate home prices and cause a "mini-bubble" in price. Again, don't be surprised to see home values fall (slightly) the two quarters after the program ends. Of course, the government could continue the program, but that still delays the inevitable and tries to artificially prop up home values.

Of course, this ultimately hurts the consumer, the lender, and the market. With values artificially high, more people will get into the homes at an inflated price and be shocked when the value falls. Lenders will have assets that do not match the values (not as big a concern because they are doing less "sub-prime" lending (sub-prime refers to the credit of the borrower, not the type of loan - "sub-prime" borrowers have credit that makes them a risky investment for the bank)), and if someone forecloses, the banks are stuck with a home that does not match the value of the loan that it made. Of course, the market suffers because the manipulations by the government will (and are) cause large fluctuations in the market, leaving investors, buyers, and sellers in a state of shock.

The best thing the government could do is to stay out of housing, let the home values correct on their own (of course, this doesn't account for the other silly program forbidding banks from foreclosing on properties until it is verified that the homeowners don't qualify for federal assistance - that won't hurt a bank's liquidity or willingness to loan money, will it? (note heavy sarcasm)), and allow the consumers who have been smart with their money to benefit, rather than bailing out people who have foolishly flung money down a rat hole.

Of course, this means that some people will be upside-down in their loans, but why is that a problem. Long term the value will go up and correct, but even if it doesn't you ultimately own an asset, free and clear. If you paid too much, too bad. You will be paying far more than the value of the home in interest anyway, and nobody makes noise about that (which is essentially the same phenomenon - paying more than the value of the property). And why isn't anyone up-in-arms about being upside-down in their car loan? You are upside-down in that the moment you drive off the lot. Shouldn't we have a federal program to rectify that? What if I wreck my car and I am not as lucky as Supergoober? Shouldn't the rest of you bail me out?

Of course not, but we have sentimentality (understandably so) attached to home-ownership. The fact is, however, that even with this sentimentality, we can incentivize home-ownership without destroying the market. Give the tax write-off that we currently get and the market will (ultimately) do just fine. If you want lower-middle class (and lower income) people to own property, federal subsidies will work, but you must make sure that the subsidy is not in the form of a loan that the person can never pay back and that there is still the perception that the person is spending a significant amount of his/her own money to purchase the residence (to instill pride in ownership - if that is lacking, well, that is another blog, now isn't it?). trying to get everyone to own is foolish, our system is supposed to guarantee opportunity, not outcome - that can never be guaranteed (see the next blog). And yes, we should work to provide people with opportunities, but people have to fend for themselves and deal with the consequences of being a living agent with free will. Sorry, but life is not perfect, nor will it ever be.

Boy the internet sucks...

Well, I just was roaming briefly on the Internet, looking up a couple of things by a profile that I have been using off-and-on for years... johndrake6. The not so obvious reference is to a combination of the Prisoner and Danger Man - like many Prisoner fans, I believe that number six is actually John Drake from the series "Danger Man". Imagine my surprise in finding out I am no longer unique.

As near as I can tell, there are two new "Johnny come lately" upstarts with that profile name - using it much more pervasively (and it might just be one person, I did not pay that close attention). Ironically enough, the person is of nearly opposite political persuasion (which I, of course find ironic considering that #6 is a "Man vs. Society" themed character that doesn't fit with the big government liberalism that the other JD6 espouses - of course, he would see me, a conservative as a big government represser of people's rights, and we are probably in our own ways, both right).

Of course, I have a romantic idealised vision of myself as an independent thinker not constrained by societal or governmental norms - (s)he probably has the same idealized vision of him/herself (one can never be assured of gender just by screen name). Clearly we would have different ideas of what this ideal embodies (given some blogs on the huffington post on how Dems should dare Reps to filibuster health care reform, etc), but it is interesting to have one's semi-uniqueness copied. And I say semi-uniqueness because I obviously took the idea from somewhere else, but when I did, I did not see anyone else on the net that had that screen name anywhere on any search... and now I do, and it's not me :(

I guess I'll just start using the moniker jonathanE

ah... Rollerball and James Caan - another rugged individualist who triumphs against a repressive society - how I wish I could be that ;)

Well, writing every day didn't work out...

So I am back a few days later. Just a quick little blurb on the proposed budget. I am no fan of George W. Bush; some of his policies were okay, some were not, but he was what I like to call a "big government" conservative... to my mind that is not a conservative at all. But the proposed budgets by Obama dwarf the big government Republicanism of the Bush era.

And I can hear the hue-and-cry now: We inherited this mess, it takes time, etc, etc, etc. The plain fact is that Keynesian economics does not work. It did not work to get us out of the Great Depression; it did not work in the seventies for Nixon, Ford, or Carter; it did not work for Japan in the nineties; it does not work in a boat; it does not work with a goat... it does not work, Sam-I-Am.

Whether or not the mess was inherited (and I can point out, and have in previous blogs that both the Dems and Repubs in congress are really to blame by setting up Fannie and Freddie the way they did, and I laid all that out in a previous posting) the solutions being posited make things worse, not better. Bailing out companies that are "too big to fail" rather than letting them file for bankruptcy and renegotiate contractual obligations sets up scenarios like we have now with AIG. They paid out $100,000,000 in bonuses to about 200 people this year - which means the average bonus is $500,000 - and there is much uproar about the ridiculousness of this act when they are still on the hook for $182,000,000,000 of taxpayer money (incidentally, the bonuses amount to about 1/2 of a percent of the money the Fed gave them - apparently the "it is such a small fraction of the money in play" argument only works for bills and earmarks in Washington DC). Honestly, the bonuses are not really that big a deal, but if AIG had filed for bankruptcy, restructured, and renegotiated contracts, everything would likely have been sussed out by now. The same goes for GM, etc.

But because of the Keynesian ideology, that is that the government makes jobs, these idiotic moves were made, along with a number of other "stimulus" ideas, all of which were as dumb as mailing out $300 refund checks to everyone. At least the B.S. Bush "stimulus" treated everyone fairly... the Democrat stimulus paid off unions (if GM doesn't restructure, unions don't have to take a contract hit, though I don't know why AIG is being paid off). And, effectively, AIG is being paid off (I know I shouldn't refer to a parenthetical idea in a non-parenthetical follow up, but what the hell) - Obama wants to tax deposits in banks that have paid back all the TARP money, but doesn't want to hold AIG to any account, despite the fact that they are not even close to paying off their debts...

But back to the budget - this was supposed to be quick, but my fertile (or was that febrile) mind wandered off again - this budget is approximately 25% of GDP, and the future expenditures laid out in this budget are projected to be in the range of 23 to 25% for the following two years. At his most profligate, FDR never exceeded 12.5% of GDP. Expenditures this high are completely unsustainable, and this does not even include "Health Insurance Reform".

And the basis for this thought is ludicrous - the Keynesian economic theory is pure sophistry, even one of the key advocates in FDR's administration admitted it didn't work after seeing it in play for eight years (his name eludes me now, but I will find it, and the quote and put it up later). Government cannot create wealth or jobs - it can merely shift wealth. The only way that a government job is created is by taking the money from the private sector. This is not to say that we should have no government jobs - clearly many are necessary - but piecemeal public works projects do nothing to stimulate the economy long term, they simply take money from a nervous private sector, and shift it into temporary projects - the private sector does not want to invest when the outlook is risky and they face an increase burden of taxation, and the worker in the temporary government job does not want to spend money because s/he knows her job is temporary.

An what is worse, the Democrats have tacitly admitted that tax cuts work in stimulating the economy - why else would they have a tax credit for new homeowners. This is saying that they believe that a tax cut will stimulate activity in that market. If they believe that this is true in one case, why do they shy away from it elsewhere? The answer, of course, is simple. To do tax cuts right requires careful analysis (of which I am not sure that anyone in Washington is capable), and it does not seem to be the populist idea that sells easily to voters.

Oh, and BTW, that no tax increases on the middle class that Obama promised is B.S., too. By letting tax cuts lapse, you increase taxes, and all it will take is you doing your taxes to see that the hit goes to the middle class more than it goes to the rich. Also, the tax on deposits in banks - gee, who makes those deposits, and I wonder if the bank will just send in the money to Washington without increasing fees? That seems likely (note: HEAVY SARCASM). And, of course, if health care legislation passes, your health plan (if you have one, and you are not a member of the right union that can strong-arm the president) will be taxed, too. Yep, he's definitely looking out for the little guy.

Not to mention that mandating that people buy health insurance upon penalty of fine and eventually imprisonment for continued non-compliance is grossly unconstitutional, makes a crime out of simply being alive (if you choose not to buy insurance), and ... no, wait ... that topic is for another day, I've been sitting here way too long, but that stuff is in the Senate version of the bill.

Trying to jumpstart my writing

So I am going to try to post once a day, whether I have anything to say or not (and, if you've read previous blogs, you might maintain that "not" is more often the case). Right now, I feel like addressing the capital punishment issue that The Acupuncturist raised on our last gaming session.

I have been personally reconsidering my opinion on this for several years, and I have not come to a satisfactory conclusion as yet, but my process has (essentially) been a moral one. I would say that taking a life in general is a morally reprehensible act, but one that is, at times, necessary. In many ways this feels like a moral "cop-out", but it is one that is essential to maintaining social stability (not in regards to the death penalty, but just in regards to appropriate use of force). There are times when a morally evil act can shift to morally neutral (I would maintain that it could never be morally good). For example, if your life is threatened and you take the life of the person who is trying to take yours. This is not a good act - though the end is good, the preservation of a life (yours), nor is it an evil act, assuming you had no recourse other than to defend yourself, and that your intent was not principally to take a life but rather to preserve a life.

Obviously, this is the case with self defense, and while there are nuances to the argument of the ability to defend oneself and the amount of force one should use in said defense are open to debate, I would think that this is a fairly sound line of reasoning. Of course, one could go to absurd extremes in justifying defense and try to distort the argument to absurdity, but this is fairly difficult to do. I believe that choice is inherent to a good or evil act, and when choice is limited, acts become, effectively, less good or evil. For example, if someone makes you punch a child in the face because they have a gun to your head and you believe they will kill you, is that evil. I would say probably not. It is certainly less wrong than making a choice to punch a kid in the face because they are annoying you. Likewise, if the tax man threatens to incarcerate me because I haven't paid taxes that go to good social programs, I have done no good by paying my taxes - the end results (helping the poor) may be good, by I cannot claim any responsibility for the good act - I was forced to do it.

So I have often argued from the "morally evil, but socially necessary" standpoint, which seems a bit weak to me, because, while still having a moral absolute (killing is wrong), it becomes very easy to slip into moral relativism, so I feel that any such argument should have sound precepts behind them. I am still marginally in favor of the death penalty, especially in particular cases, but I will not maintain that it has a deterrent effect, nor will I maintain that it is the "right" thing to do. It may, in rare cases, be the necessary thing to do for the well being of society, but it should be a last resort. That is where I am right now, but I am continuing to research, contemplate, and revise my thinking.

As to the point you made, Acupuncturist, I mentioned this on last Saturday - I do not think that the statistics on the disproportionate executions of the poor or minorities is a cogent argument. It is, without a doubt, persuasive, precisely because few people want to be perceived as racist or classist, so the argument uses spurious logic and guilt to manipulate people into adopting your side, and I feel that this is little better (if it is better at all) than using a scare tactic to intimidate people into being pro death penalty (e.g. if we don't kill the killers, they will be freed to kill more people - maybe you!). Here is the problem - it does not address whether the act of execution is right or wrong, it merely states that we execute a lot of poor people and minorities relative to the overall population. The main issue is that the poor to middle class commit more capital crimes than the rich. There are more of them, and they are in circumstances, in many cases, where crime seems like a reasonable option - whether this is gang violence, drug abuse that leads to murder, or whatever. Also, this line of reasoning can be extended to the absurd - not enough middle class whites are being imprisoned for burglary, so we should not arrest anyone for burglary until this injustice is fixed. What we need to do is address the reason why at risk communities commit more crimes, and as a result are punished more for them.

I could also say that there are a disproportionately high number of white male serial killers who have been executed - stop executing them until we find more poor minority serial killers to execute. This is, of course, an absurd statement, because for whatever reason, serial killers are mostly white, educated, lower middle class to affluent males. Because this is not a demographic that has been traditional discriminated against and who is not "at risk" in the conventional sense, it does not tug at any heart strings like the other argument does. (I actually have a theory about why serial killers are almost exclusively from this demographic, but I will address that in a later blog - plus it is pure speculation)

In short, we cannot arbitrarily mete out any punishment, nor can we establish quotas on who has committed a crime. All we can do is seek to punish criminal in a uniformly just fashion - something that our system has a bit of a problem with, but I believe that our system does a remarkably good job, despite some inadequacies - and we continue to seek to improve it.

Maybe this is too idealistic, but I am in a mood where I want to drag myself out of a funk, so I am forcing optimism on myself :)

Kudos to a Democrat

What a coincidence, the day after a new post complaining about lack of leadership on the Democrat side, one senator steps up and convinces me he actually believes in what he is doing. (Actually, I'll be convinced if he moves in the senate the way he talks on the news - no offense, I have heard enough on both sides of people saying the right thing in public and doing the opposite on the job to be a bit wary)

The person in question is Senator Ron Klink (Dem, Pennsylvania, I think) - and, in brief, here is what he said. I won't include quotes because it isn't a direct quote, but I will capture the idea of what he said:

We have to realize we have the House, Senate, and Presidency. This bill is good for America, and we have to push it through, even if it takes an extreme measure like reconciliation. Even if it costs us politically, it is the right thing to do.

That is the gist of what he said, and I laud him for actually believing in what he is doing. I happen to think that he is dead wrong about what the bill will do, but at least he seems to believe in what he is doing. And of course, it should be no surprise that I believe he is wrong - he is a left-leaning Democrat (and did not shy away from saying so - more kudos in order) and I am a right-leaning Republican. It is just nice to see a person who actually appears to believe in what they are doing, rather than adopting a position that is politically advantageous for them (this applies to the right and the left).

I'll end with something he said that also echoed my sentiments - We have to have the courage to lead, even if it costs us politically. I think that this is an important thought - leading takes courage, and ignoring the political fallout when you are right is a difficult, but important thing to do.

Of course the problem comes up when a leader has courage but has ideas that are not right - as I would argue about health care, the economy, etc., and the Left would argue about George W. Bush. He clearly had the same idea, that it was better to be right than popular, and the Left stridently believes that he was not right, just as I stridently believe this bill is not right. I can respect the Left who take this position - recognizing that a person has the courage of his/her convictions, but that those convictions are incorrect, rather than labelling someone as evil or stupid, etc. I don't think that Ron Klink is stupid, I think he has a fundamentally different belief system then I do, and this is because of his education and experience, just as mine comes from my education and experience.

That's all folks.