Category Archives: Politics

Constitutional Repair

In another blog, by the estimable Citizen Tom, I engaged a pretend conservative who regularly haunts that site. The discussion post, entitled What Do We Need to Do?, raised the issue I wrote about yesterday: How do we fix the current political problems that arise from erosion of the Constitution? Citizen Tom later promoted this comment to its own blog post.

Before we get into my reply to faux conservative “scout,” let’s talk about other alternatives: Continue reading

Constitutional Concerns

The US Constitution does not need to be replaced or scrapped, as a number of folks on the left have suggested going back to President Woodrow Wilson. It does not need to be cured of its fatal flaws, so that Obama can implement redistribution of wealth and “break free” from the negative liberties placed by the founding fathers to prevent this, as Obama said in 2001.

Nevertheless, there are major problems with our current government. Some examples after a design overview: Continue reading


Google Immemorial

They were briefly shamed into it, but for most of Google’s existence this anti-US, stridently left-wing organization has refused to commemorate anything to do with the United States military.  They’ll celebrate other US holidays (see below), though often grudgingly. For example, they used the lyrics from the famous communist Woody Guthrey for Independence Day. That’s fairly excusable, as most Americans don’t realize the song’s origin, nor are they aware of other (socialist flavored) lyrics of the piece.

This  year, they’ve covered themselves by adding a tiny Memorial Day logo down the page.


It has no link, and might not even be noticed by most users. But now, technically, they can say “We DID celebrate it! What’s your problem?” No “Google Doodle” of course, and nothing like their treatment of Really Important Events like Andy Warhol’s birthday. Perhaps I should be grateful for this small morsel, and consider myself satisfied.

I’ve written about this Google peculiarity on previous occasions. The latter link busts the notion of Google skipping US holidays because they are “international.”

And in  November of 2006, I wrote about their political leanings:

Google’s givers go Democratic:

Google employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates for last year’s elections, up from just $250 in 2000 when it was still a start-up. And 98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors, a new USA TODAY campaign finance analysis shows.
* * *
But Google giving could soar. The Silicon Valley company’s initial public offering last August minted scores of millionaires among its 3,000 workers, giving them more to lavish on politics. That makes Google a Capitol Hill force, with sharply different implications for the two main political parties, says Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics.

It seems likely to me that this is not a coincidence. I wonder if Google’s staff, when they saw the article, might have decided to hunt down that 2%. Of course, they might have been Green Party..

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


Public and Private

Heinlein once wrote, commenting wryly on Hugo de Grotius:

There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the doctrine of Divine mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. “The Almighty,” he explained, “finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores.”

Some of my “official” work, what I must write to comply with regulations, feels a bit like that dichotomy. For example, I recently helped write an application for a concession in our National Park Service. Now, by regulation, you are not even allowed to submit such an application unless you pay appropriate homage to the gods of global warming and promise to make the appropriate sacrifices at their altar. For example, you must demonstrate how much carbon you are going to save, how many plastic bottles you are going to eliminate, et cetera.

Amusingly, the NPS goes on at some length about how important it is not to allow guests to feed the animals, because when you provide handouts to a population you harm them by turning them into dependents. Amusingly, the rest of the government has no qualms about doing exactly this to their human constituents. Of course, the bears do not vote, so … no handouts for them.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


Heartbleed, Personal

I had a bit of a health scare last week — and survived it, thanks to the wisdom of two doctors who are also friends.  Other doctors were involved in supporting roles; I appreciate them as well.

I’d been feeling bad for a while; the loss of my Lady and other factors had wrecked my digestion. Ten days ago (Thursday April 18), I had blood tests done. The results came back Monday, when the lab calling me to say that I needed to do the tests over again, they could not trust the results. I was feeling worse, and suspected that the anomalous results were not wrong. Continue reading


Ideologically Stunted

A follow-up to the posts here and here on the Carney/Shipman home decorations.

Is it a requirement that the home show patriotic posters and books. No. That would have been nice, and of course unsurprising in the home of someone on the Bush or Reagan teams. But the absence of this would not have been a problem. Had Carney’s walls and bookshelves been decorated with anything else, French paintings to European classical works, this whole situation would have been unremarkable.

In the Bush and Reagan administrations, the people they surrounded himself with were a mixture of dedicated public servants, bureaucrats, and folks who genuinely love and appreciate their country. They blend into each other.

Obama has the first two categories, of course, but instead of the third, he has surrounded himself with people whose perception of America ranges from mild disdain to outright detestation and hatred. To some of them, it is possible to fix it, to remake it into a Utopian paradise in their statist model, but for others the collapse of the country into a global society is the goal. They’ve made this clear in their writings — and Obama has made clear that picking such people, after their writings make their goals evident, bothers him not at all.

Sometimes, when politically expedient, Obama will abandon a choice — but he’s unhappy about the complaints, not the America-hatred thus exposed in the candidate. From Anita Dunn to Van Jones to Debo Adegbile, Obama sees nothing wrong with his choices. And Carney and Shipman, here, saw nothing wrong with their pro-Soviet bias. It did not even occur to them that this could be an issue.

But the Obama crew is ideologically stunted in many other ways, as well.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle