nancylebov is trying to check a story that weapon checks were canceled at the Obama rally. If you've got any info, please comment on her post.

I'm keeping this journal politics-free, but anyone interested in local Texas politics might want to check out my report on a meeting of Citizens Against Forced Annexation.

I've started a new journal for my political posts at libertarianhawk. selenite will continue for my posts on my personal life, technology, and gaming.

Plus the occasional silly meme, of course.

The Corps of Engineers is about to release its environmental impact statements on the Trinity Uptown project. They're going to approve it, of course. The impact isn't on endangered critters, it's people getting whacked. Specifically the owners, employees, and customers of the eighty-plus businesses about to be turned into a floodplain.

Of course, that's just necessary for the fancy economic development plan, not flood control. The Corps figured out how to handle floods without ruining anyone's property, but Project backers rejected that alternative because they want to remove the earthen levees that have long obscured river views. And how much of the value of those improved views are going to go to the people getting foreclosed on? Not much, I'd expect. Big businesses with influence on the city and county governments are going to collect a lot of those benefits.

What I'd like to see in this sort of situation is a sort of auction process. Present several options--the default flood cure with no economic improvements, the TRV proposal above, and some other ones with different neighborhoods selected to be the new flood plains. Offer a compensation package for the first neighborhood to vote in favor of being bought out. If nobody goes for it, the city can offer more--if this project is so valuable--and other proponents can put more money in the pot. Either a fair portion of the project benefits will go to the people being displaced, or the backers will have to admit that it's not worth doing at a fair price. Right now it's only moving forward because land is cheap when the government confiscates it.

Somebody in this is missing brains, and I don't think it's the zombies . . .

There's a review in Slate of a horror show tonight on Showtime. Dead troops from Iraq rise as zombies and start eating Republicans. The reviewer thinks "my guess is that most members of the military would get a kick out of this flick that praises the troops in Iraq". I don't know what he's basing that on--earlier in the review he says "zombies are the perfect metaphor for our soldiers in Iraq: They're shell-shocked, anonymous, and aren't asked to make very many decisions." That ain't praise in my book. He also says of the troops "we don't really have a clue as to what's on their minds." Apparently something as bold as asking them hadn't occurred to that reporter.

I took another look at the Sen. McCain speech I linked last week:
we should at last face facts and increase the standing size of the U.S. Army. It takes time to build a larger army, but had we done so even after our invasion of Iraq, our military would have more soldiers available for deployment now.

I wonder if this translates as "When I'm President I want enough divisions to invade two countries at once, so let's get started." More fodder for 2008 speculation.

I just got a call from Congresswoman Granger's office. They wanted to let me know that next week the house would be voting on a $50-70 billion budget cut, affecting both mandatory and discretionary spending. Granger supports that, but doesn't want to cut the $1m for economic development in Fort Worth next year. The problem with cutting that project is that the money wouldn't be cut from the budget, just transferred to another state that wants it. I complained about that as a "small government conservative" and got some sympathy. Apparently it's the "system" that drives it.

I'd have more respect for that argument if the system for appropriating that money wasn't under the control of the Congress. But they made it and they can fix it. If it's easier for them to go after the entitlements and do across-the-board cuts than give up single projects, great, but I'd like to see some real progress and it's usually easier to tackle small targets than large.

It is nice to get a response. The grassroots pressure must be really building up if they're taking visible action like that. On the other hand, the "Porkbusters" term wasn't recognized so there's not that much impact from the bloggers yet.

Here's hoping those cuts actually get passed next week.

I just discovered a post that eloquently describes a fear I've been grappling with for years now. The level of vitriol the liberals and conservatives are flinging at each other keeps growing. I was worried about that before the 2000 election and it's kept getting worse since. There's less and less tolerance of people in the middle. If these keeps getting worse, where will we end up? Possibly in a civil war, right here in America.

rjlippincott thinks cycles of history make this civil war inevitable. I sure as hell hope not. Our system does seem to reward the factions for upping the pressure, so we may need to make some structural changes to fix thing. Proportional representation, instant runoff voting, and none-of-the-above could all adjust elections to give people options other than Good vs. Evil (as defined by whichever circle of friends you've landed in). The other option would be finding a centrist leader who can pull off a win in the current system. There's clearly a hunger for that--the votes for Ross Perot, John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzenegger show that. It's so strong that Kinky Friedman is being forced to take his own campaign for governor seriously, because so many people want him to be the alternative they're looking for. But the way the system is built it'd take a real hero to beat it, and I don't see an obvious one out there.

Last week I mentioned contacting my Congresswoman as part of the "Porkbusters" effort. This weekend I got a form letter discussing relief for Katrina victims but not mentioning my question at all. So I've added the Trinity River Vision project to the Porkbusters database.

Cleaning up after Katrina is going to be expensive, even if we don't try to play King Canute with New Orleans. Adding that on top of all the money Congress is already wasting is going to hurt the budget. Various people are pushing a "Porkbusters" meme, asking Congressmen to cancel their pork projects to compensate for the costs of Katrina repairs.

To do my part I started digging through the web site of our Congresswoman, Kay Granger. So far the best bet for expendable pork looks like the planning funding for the "Trinity River Vision" project. She doesn't seem to have much in the way of specific line-item projects, her announcements are about defense contracts and grants. You'd think someone on the Appropriations committee could bring home more bacon. Possibly she's honest. Or the pork goes to swing states.

Anyway, from what I've heard about the TRV I'm not that fond of it anyway. They're announcing well in advance which areas will be affected, so when they actually try to claim them through eminent domain the "fair market value" will be rock bottom. The picture above is an example. The yellow region is part of Fort Worth near downtown that's slated to be part of the new flood plain. Too bad for anyone who'd invested in property or a business there.

The TRV is mostly future-vision at this point, there's not much going on except some studies. Rep. Granger announced the 2005 budget would have "$500,000 to continue improving neighborhood access to the Trinity River and $725,000 in economic development funds to go towards design and construction. The bill also includes $950,000 for the Corps of Engineers’ Upper Trinity River Basin study. Much of this funding will provide for design, planning, and completing the environmental impact statement for the Trinity Uptown Project." (see 11/30/04 press release at this link).

So I sent this email:

Dear Congresswoman Granger,

I'm very concerned by the damage done by Hurricane Katrina and want to help the victims. At the same time, the expense of the repairs could hurt the economy if it drives the federal deficit up. So I'm one of many people urging that less urgent programs be cut back to offset the cost of Katrina relief.

Would you be willing to sponsor a reduction or postponement of the $2,000,000 FY2005 appropriation for Trinity River Vision design and studies, with the money being shifted to Katrina relief?

Thank you for your time,

Karl Gallagher
Saginaw, TX

No answer yet, though I did get a press release that she's been appointed to the committee investigating the response to Katrina.

Update: Lack of answer here.

Hat tip to dbroussa

You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (80% permissive) You are best described as a: Capitalist Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating

Nice quiz, actually. Open about its bias and (unlike PoliticalCompass.org) can apparently tell the difference between a libertarian and an anarcho-syndicalist. I think of myself as a little more "socially permissive" than that, but the questions were vague between "I think people should be legally allowed to do X" and "Doing X is really stupid." One nice feature they had was showing where Bush and Kerry voters were on their coordinates:


That's Bush voters in red and Kerry ones in blue, for those fortunate to have purged their memories of the "red-blue" maps. Not surprised to find myself on the border.

What's the best thing we can do for poor people in the Third World? How about buying what they grow or make:

Bush Urges End of Trade Tariffs, Subsidies

That's also a really bold move on the domestic front. The various farm subsidies an inexcusable drain on the budget, but nobody's ever had the clout to eliminate them. It's a classic "tragedy of the commons" problem. The benefit of a subsidy goes to a few people who'll fight hard. Canceling it would benefit everyone else, but not enough for it to be worth the work to make it happen. Wiping out all of them at once, that might be doable. Especially with a global agreement hanging on it.

On the global level, not only will this let people work themselves into prosperity, but with luck free trade will support the trend toward other freedoms as well.

Katrina Will Shape Military Debate
Army Has Resisted Proposal For Guard Disaster Units; Short of People, Equipment
By GREG JAFFE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, September 12, 2005; Page A5

WASHINGTON -- Before Hurricane Katrina, the Army fiercely resisted the idea that it should set aside big National Guard units that would specialize in homeland security and disaster relief.

But that resistance will be tested by the government's tepid initial response to Hurricane Katrina. So will some new ideas on how National Guard units might move closer to the front lines of disaster response. Both will be part of a seemingly inevitable debate that is almost certain to be fierce.

The wrenching pictures of hurricane victims pleading for help may have raised the issue for most Americans, but in some circles the search for a broader military role has been under way much longer. Earlier this year, the Rand Corp., a government-funded think tank, proposed that the Pentagon create 10 new 900-soldier battalions from the National Guard that would focus exclusively on homeland defense.

Instead of training for war, these units would train with state and civilian authorities. They would be positioned in each of the 10 regions into which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has divided the nation. They would craft disaster relief plans and help ensure communication systems were robust enough to survive catastrophes. When disaster hit, these soldiers would be the first to flow into the stricken areas, providing the core of a headquarters for other National Guard units to link up with and build on.

"The Army's view was that they wanted Army combat units to be trained, ready and available for all things," says Lynn Davis, a senior analyst who played a role in developing the Rand concept. "We argued that the problem with that is many units may not be [trained] and ready quickly enough to do things at home."

The response to Hurricane Katrina could change that thinking.

[snip discussion of the Army wanting to focus the NG on overseas combat duty, equipment shortages among non-deployed units, and Pentagon resistance to using active-duty units for disaster work]

In recent months, the National Guard has carved out some very small units for homeland defense missions. It recently formed 55 Weapons of Mass Destruction civil-support teams whose mission is to help state authorities if there is a chemical or biological attack. Each of the units has only about 25 soldiers. But siphoning off more soldiers solely to the homeland defense mission would create big strains on the active force, say Army officials.

daveamongus proposed solving this problem by creating a separate organization. Doesn't look like the government is headed that way yet, but there are some people considering the problem.

I've been slow to react to the story of the rave bust in Utah, because first reports are often wrong. But they're being confirmed. For those who haven't heard, a legal music concert on private property was busted by 90 cops, with lots of reports of excessive force. Since "raves" are known for attracting drug users, the organizer had security guards confiscating drugs from attendees. So the cops busted the guards for possession.

That illustrates why I think the "War on Drugs" is the biggest threat to our freedom. None of the complaints I've heard about the PATRIOT Act come up to the level of what happens routinely in prosecuting drug offenses. At least when counter-terrorism ops get the wrong guy they're trying to stop a real danger. The drug cops are prosecuting doctors for writing legal prescriptions and store clerks for selling legal products. Once the police start going after people for doing things in private that no one else is harmed by, there is no stopping point. Any association with a "bad" chemical becomes a crime.

Not only are the drug warriors hurting innocents on purpose, they're creating access for terrorists. Drug smuggling raises money for terrorists and having lots of well established smugglers makes it easy to sneak bombs or worse into this country. Bringing all narcotics into the above-ground economy would make it much tougher for infiltrators (they'd still have the illegal immigrant channels, but that's another rant).

Pushing back on the drug "war" is the best way I can think of to protect our freedom. It's the best way to get my vote. If anyone wants it.

I'm still keeping an eye out for a political group I could call home. There's definitely others who agree with me, including other self-proclaimed libertarian hawks, the Anti-Idiotarians, and the Party of the West (I think this is the best summary of the principles we agree on). The last link also has some discussion on how to organize, but the consensus seemed to be that none of us had the time/energy to take that on.

There are some groups that have a presence in the primaries without taking social-conservative stances, such as CLOUT and the Club For Growth. Unfortunately they seem to be single-issue groups on cutting taxes. Club For Growth says they're for "limited government" but I couldn't find anything on their site taking a stand on the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. I'm sure taxes could get really low if the government just paid people by handing them fully built houses confiscated from former owners. I think "expanding freedom" is a better focus than lowering taxes.

One place where I might find like-minded people is in the movement to draft Condi Rice as a presidential candidate. Those seem to be folks who want an aggressive war policy but less government interference in our personal lives. Now whether Secretary Rice agrees with that domestic agenda is an unknown. It's also not that likely that she'll run, no matter how hard people try to draft her. Secretary of State is a full-time job, she'd have to quit to run a campaign. She's never run for an elected office before and would probably make some rookie mistakes. There's also going to be an incredible amount of personal abuse, at least an order of magnitude more than she's already gotten.

On the other hand--if she's running with Bush's blessing as his successor she might get the Republican nomination with a minimum of nastiness in the primaries. There'd be a Christian fundamentalist running against her which would probably make her look even more like a centrist. Imagine a centrist running for President--might even be the first one in twenty years to get more than 52% of the vote. The results depend on who the Dems nominate, of course. But that could lead to another lovely scenario--if Senator Clinton gets the nomination the US gets its first female president whoever wins.

I’m unhappy with both political parties. I was clear on my vote in November but that was mostly a case of "the other guy will be worse." abovenyquist once commented "You only like Bush on defense" and my response was "No, I have a lot of gripes about Homeland Security. I only like Bush on offense." But whenever I start to feel a tiny bit comfortable with one of the parties it does something to make me want to run screaming away. I’m not a "moderate" as it’s typically defined. If you draw a line from a cut-all-taxes-mandate-prayer-in-schools conservative to an outlaw-SUVs-teach-condom-use-in-fourth-grade liberal the "moderates" are the guys in the middle of the line. I’m way off to the side, wanting the government to minimize its meddling in every aspect of our lives, social and economic.

The Libertarian Party was created for that point of view, but a 50%+1 election system is rough on third parties. Unless they get a big boost up front they’ll be perpetual losers. If I lived in a country with a proportional representation system, say Germany or Israel, I could cast a vote for the Free Democrats or Shinui and get someone elected. Here a vote for the LP is just symbolic. Not that it stopped me—the LP was my "none of the above" vote in 1996 and 2000. That ended in 2001. The world is too small a place for isolationism, and freedom should not be a privilege reserved for Americans. This made me a lousy fit with people who consider death from a terrorist bomb a small price to pay for avoiding a more intrusive state.

"None of the above" was fine for the lazy days of interns and stock options but now things are too serious for me to throw votes away. (I’d keep voting none of the above if it meant "both of you go back to the primaries and come up with better candidates than these two, and we’ll do this again in a few months" but that’s not happening here any time soon) Unfortunately the Libertarian Party isn’t serious either. So I’ve been stuck with voting for the less bad of the two major parties. That lets me have influence on the issue I care the most about, but every other issue is getting ignored.

I’m not alone in my opinions. "Libertarian Hawk" is a label several of us came up with independently. Another like-minded group is pushing the term Neolibertarian which sounds awful to me but I’d accept worse. They’ve got a blog and a newsletter, but a group blog does not a political party make. Nice logo, though—that’s the icon for this post.

One approach I’ve seen discussed is organizing as a caucus within the Reps or Dems. That lets you compete in the primaries so you’ve got a much smaller group of people to convince. In my area you’d want to be part of the Republicans, since the Democrats are marginalized to the point where no one competent enough to hold office is foolish enough to accept their nomination. There’s a group called the "Republican Liberty Caucus" which advocates libertarian thinking within the Republican Party. Sounded like what I was looking for, so I checked out the local chapter. Guys—free hint. "Impeach Bush" is not a winning slogan in a Texas Republican primary. They seem to be having the same problems as the Libertarian Party, just with a different registration.

So I’m not sure what the heck to do now. It’s an off year, which means mayors and city council members are up for election. After the eminent domain decision those are people who libertarians should care about. But unless a likely candidate shows up I’m not sure I’ll have anybody I’ll want to vote for. Possibly something will start coming together for the 2006 elections. In the meantime I’ll be keeping an eye on the Neolibertarians and other "moderate" groups. For example, new group blog just popped up called Donklephant, which you should check out just for the picture of their mascot.

Anybody have suggestions?

EDIT: Follow-up on suggestions is here.

That was a busy weekend. Gaming Friday night with the Dallas Browncoats. Fun crew. I have to get them to come over more, I'm too old to make hour-long drives at 3am. ORAC meeting on Saturday. That was lots of fun for Maggie and Jamie as they played with the other kids. We got home a little later than we'd planned, our friend Brandy was coming over and she got to the house a few minutes before we did. For the 4th we had sandy_tyra and family over. I grilled burgers, Sandy made corn, and we generally stuffed ourselves. Then we had the traditional readings of Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" speech and the Declaration of Independence, followed by watching 1776. (I wonder if anybody's showed that to the Iraqi constitution-writing committee? Might be useful perspective for them.)

I also got a few chores done--putting up pictures, trimming weeds, etc. One was taking bumperstickers off the cars. That grated on me. Not the McCain sticker, that's several elections ago, and it was time to get rid of it (if I wait for somebody I like more to run I'd probably never take it off). But back in 2003 I got fed up with the "No Blood For Oil" bumperstickers all over Los Angeles and decided to answer them. There weren't any good pro-war stickers I could order, so I went down to Kinko's and laminated printouts saying "FREE IRAQ" in big letters. That's been on the cars since.

That was a very clear message before the invasion. But the problem with bumpersticker slogans is they can mean something completely different if you change the context. Now there's lots of lefties waving "Free Iraq!" signs, but they mean "Pull US troops out now" instead of "Get rid of Saddam and build a democracy", which is what I meant by it. And at this point the new meaning's common enough that people seeing my bumpersticker assume I'm using the lefty meaning (which may have protected the car in the UU parking lot, but never mind). So I scraped them off. Not that I've changed my mind, or don't want to announce my beliefs, but I don't like being misinterpreted.

Still bothers me.

Turns out Justice O'Connor's resignation is effective when the Senate confirms her successor. So I guess she is going to serve out the lifetime appointment after all . . . .

Safer Vehicles for Soldiers: A Tale of Delays and Glitches

The NYT is covering the saga of trying to get better vehicles for the troops in Iraq. The interesting part to me is what they left out--namely, why has the procurement process become so horribly cumbersome? The article considers it a force of nature, or an accidental by-product. Nope.

Every problem in there is a product of a Congressman trying to bring pork barrel dollars to his constituents while keeping them from going to another Congressman's district. All of those things--extra tests, drawn out selections, delays in payments--come from laws passed by Congress. Pentagon bureaucrats can work around some of the obstacles, but they know a Congressional committee will call them in front of the TV cameras for a whipping when something goes wrong. And something will. New system development is always error-prone, wars are even more so.

So how do we fix it? Simple. Give the people in charge of procurement the authority to make decisions, access to the people who know what's needed, and forgiveness for the inevitable percentage of mistakes they'll make. Even if that means a contract goes to the district of a junior Congressman of the minority party, or even ::SHUDDER:: buy it from foreigners. All that's needed is for Congress to pass one law giving up their ability to grab pork from the defense budget.

Or maybe the pork will fly away on its own.