Minor Thoughts from me to you

Now this is interesting; famous pornography king Larry Flynt, publisher of such luminous periodicals as_ Hustler_, has offered up to $1 million dollars for documented evidence of an extramarital affair with any high-ranking political official in the U.S. - senators, congresspeople, mayors of big cities, and (naturally) presidential or vice-presidential nominees.

According to FOXNews, this isn't even the first time Flynt has placed a bounty on politicians' hanky panky; in 1998 (remember what happened that year?) he let out a similar net, and successfully caught a very big fish: Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., who - if not for having to fall on his sword when he learned Flynt was investigating him - would almost certainly have become Speaker of the House.

Every male has a little voice inside his head (Satan's, presumably) telling him that there must be some good in the pornography industry somewhere. Apparently this is it.

Is it really possible for France to have a robust foreign policy? Normally I wouldn't think so. But French President Nicolas Sarkozy has me intrigued. He has appointed Socialist Party member Bernard Kouchner as his new foreign minister. Who is Bernard Kouchner? Michael J. Totten provides in intriguing profile:

Dr. Kouchner had had it. He knew communism was a mendacious lie. But the idea of "Workers Without Borders" (which, as Paul Berman notes, is what "Workers of the World Unite" ultimately means) stirred his soul, even so. Workers didn't inspire him so much as the idea of the abolition of borders. So he formed his own revolutionary organization of sorts, and he called it Doctors Without Borders. Doctors Without Borders was what the Red Cross would have been if an anti-totalitarian Che Guevara had founded it. Its missions, Berman writes, "were no less dangerous than any guerilla struggle, no less frightening, no less difficult, but [they had] the great virtue, in contrast to a communist insurgency, of refusing to lie."

... So Kouchner and Doctors Without Borders rented a French vessel and rescued some of the boat people. Scooped them right out of the sea. Some of his left-wing comrades burned with volcanic rage "“ rage against Kouchner for saving people! American imperialists, not the Vietnamese communists, were the villains in their mental universe. Kouchner showed up their fantasy as a lie, and they hated him for it.

Later Jimmy Carter dispatched the United States Navy to rescue the rest of the boat people. Doctors Without Borders were followed by Sailors Without Borders. This, from the point of view of the formerly communist and anti-imperialist Kouchner, was nothing short of fantastic.

Little surprise, then, that Kouchner "“ unlike many of his former comrades on the left "“ favored the humanitarian rescue of Iraqis from the predatory regime of Saddam Hussein. From Workers Without Borders...to Soldiers Without Borders. He became frustrated, apoplectic actually, at what he saw as the Bush Administration's arrogance and incompetence. But he supported the war all the same, and he did so strictly on left-wing grounds.

Sarkozy and Kouchner are giving me lots of reasons to keep an eye on France in the coming months.

Today's Capital Times had a heartwarming little article about homeless activists and their endless crusade to wring money out of everyone else.

Members of the Tenant Advocacy Group, or TAG, already know about homelessness. Each was once homeless, or narrowly escaped being out on the street. "We learned these things from the inside out," said Cynthia Travis, coordinator for the group.

That's good. These people are uniquely situated to help the poor and the homeless. Their goals are absolutely praiseworthy. Unfortunately, their methods are not.

The group entered the fray of state legislative politics this year by sending a letter to Secretary of Commerce Mary Burke requesting a $1 million-a-year increase in state funding for homeless shelter and transitional housing services grants. The Commerce department administers the grant program, funding for which has been $1.5 million a year for some 15 years.

They even saw some initial success as Governor Doyle put an additional $1 million into his budget, for their cause. Then action stalled in the Joint Finance Committee:

As Joint Finance Committee actions on other issues proceeded, it unfolded that any additional funds for homelessness services would need to be funded through an increase in the real estate transfer tax. That didn't fly.

They decided to use an appeal to pity as leverage for their demands:

"I slept in a Ford station wagon for six months," Morris King recalled. The way to help unsympathetic legislators get their priorities in order, he said, is to ask them: "Do you want potholes? Or do you want people sleeping on the street?"

Here's the thing. The legislature doesn't hand out free money. Every penny that the legislature hands out has to come from somewhere and someone else. Increasing the real estate transfer tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to buy a home. Increasing the gas tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to drive. Increasing the sales tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to purchase everything. Increasing the ... well, you get the idea.

Every time the government increases taxes, it becomes more expensive for poorer people to survive on their own. For those living the closest to the financial edge, a tax increase may be the difference between survival and failure. Ultimately, these crusades are counter-productive.

It will ultimately prove fruitless to use the government to confiscate the resources of others and redistribute them to your group. You will merely drive up the cost of living in the State leading to an endless cycle of increases in government aid and increases in the cost of living. Focus on creating wealth that you can use to help others, rather than confiscating wealth.

Two stories caught my attention this morning. First, the current immigration bill would create a work database for all Americans.

The so-called Employment Eligibility Verification System would be established as part of a bill that senators began debating on Monday...

All employers -- at least 7 million, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- would be required to verify identity documents provided by both existing employees and potential hires, the legislation says. The data, including Social Security numbers, would be provided to Homeland Security, on penalty of perjury, and the government databases would provide a work authorization confirmation within three business days.

Even parents who hire nannies might be covered. The language in the bill, called the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act, defines an employer as "any person or entity hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment in the United States" and does not appear to explicitly exempt individuals or small businesses. (Its Senate sponsors did not immediately respond on Monday to queries on this point.)

Why is this considered a good idea? One screw-up by the government and American citizens will be legally barred from working. What kind of controls will there be on this database? How will you challenge a denial of your work authorization? How will you know that someone in Washington didn't put you into the database out of sheer spite? This is a bad, bad, bad idea.

Secondly, Ed Morrissey relays the story of a sex slavery ring that exploited illegal immigrants.

The women came mostly from Mexico and Central America.

When they arrived in Minnesota, the women had their passports and other identifying documents taken away and they were forced into a world of prostitution. In one night, two women serviced more than 80 men in a south Minneapolis house.

Ed has a solution for this problem:

This is a horrific case, and one which points out the need for strong border control. The men conned the women into crossing the border, and then they took advantage of their illegal status to force them into prostitution.

Sure, these women were conned and controlled because they were not legally allowed to work or live in the United States. Preventing them from coming here at all would have prevented their enslavement. On the other hand, allowing them to enter legally would have also prevented their enslavement. Placing high barriers to immigration increases the chances that people will be "helped" across the border, then exploited. Placing low barriers to immigration allows people to come to the U.S. in search of a better life, without fear of future enslavement. Why are we so eager to choose the first path and not the second?

I'm still ingtrigued by the possibility of a Fred Thompson candidacy. Here's why.

• This cover story from Knoxville's Weekly Pulse
• This video response to Michael Moore
• His strong defense of federalism
• This profile from the Washington Monthly
• This video interview
• This Washington Post profile

Once he declares and his campaign really starts, I'll be able to judge him a little better.

Earlier today, I received an e-mail from a friend:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

I know the liberals are screaming over this ... and I understand why -- but please for the love of god explain to me why this is in ANY WAY good from your point of view. Yes yes, I know easier way to help in situations of disaster, but I can see this being overly abused, how should one branch of the gov't be able to completely over rule every other branch - it just seems ripe for abuse! My tin foil hat is buzzing.... please prove me wrong.

Glady.

A quick trip the Democratic Underground ("Because we can't function above ground") and Daily Kos ("We're nuts, so you don't have to be") revealed that liberals are certainly buzzing over the new National Continuity Policy. Apparently, they're afraid that Bush will use any "emergency" -- big or small -- to declare himself a dictator.

Let me give you a preview of the first thirty minutes of the Bush dictatorship:

10:00am: My fellow Americans, to ensure the successful functioning of the U.S. government through 2009 and beyond, I am pleased to announce that I will be continuing as President indefinitely.

10:05am: Madame Speaker, I would like to introduce a bill of impeachment against President George Walker Bush, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Wherefore he is ignoring the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stated...

10:07am: The Bill of Impeachment passes, by a vote of 400-35.

10:12am: The Senate will now convene to hear the case of the People of the United States vs George Walker Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts...

10:20am: The Bill of Impeachment is sustained by a vote of 95-5...

10:30am: Mr. President, as Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it gives me great pleasure to arrest you for high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it, crisis averted. Does anyone seriously believe that men and women of the United States Armed Forces would support a President who ignored the Constitution in such a blatant manner? Or that Congress would ignore a dramatic usurpation of their rights and powers? Even the Republicans in Congress would be falling over themselves to condemn such a move.

For more on why the Kos Kids and DU nuts shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors, read on.

The Continuity of Operations Plan is designed to ensure that the American government can continue to operate in the event that the government is decapitated. We have had such a plan, in one form or another, since the end of World War II. Earlier this month, the Bush administration decided to revise the existing plan. Here's the relevant snippet from the end of the COOP:

Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

In other words, the plan that the Clinton administration established is going to be replaced by the Bush administration's plan. The Clinton plan supplanted the Bush '41 plan, which supplanted the Reagan plan. No big deal here.

Now, for the specifics.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President

This is a change. Formerly, the effort was coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Here's why one of the Kos Kids is worried:

So like I said, am I over reacting? Never said this was gospel. Some say yes, some so say, personally I am not a Constitutional Law lawyer, and wording in this directive just seemed oddly vague. And vague directives can lead to some pretty wild interpretations.

So can being off of your meds. Which seems to be the case here. Here's what the COOP says:

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator ... will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), ... The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

So, the directive is vague because it ain't the actual plan. The actual plan is still to come. This is just the outline of the project scope and requirements. Also, it's not like the Clinton plan was a model of specificity. It was just as vague. And the finished plan was never actually released to the American public either. This month's directive is just business as normal.

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So basically, when the next 9-11 or Katrina hits, the National Essential Functions goes into effect. But what about economy? Say the other international shoe drops and they change the petro dollar to the petro euro, does that count as a catastrophic emergency? What if China calls in our debt, does that count?

No, you dope. We've had one of these things for years. It's never gone into effect for such silly reasons before, even when we had gas lines and soaring inflation.

d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

So, another Class-5 hurricane comes to town, and this time it's looking at Miami, and snarling. This directive will go into effect.

Again, nope. This is a directive to ensure that we have a working government when the existing government has been decapitated. Hurricanes attacking Miami ain't gonna cut it.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

The President will lead all three branches? Really? Sounds like an emperor to me. And if you don't think that this cleverly worded paragraph does not mean that, think about the latest antics of one Alberto Gonzales.

Come on, please. Coordinate means coordinate. Not rule. Somebody's gotta take the lead in coordinating and since the executive branch already has the day to day responsibility for managing the federal government, it only makes sense that they take the lead.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

That is just a little bit disturbing. To say the least.

Why? The government is most likely to be decapitated by a suitcase nuke, detonated in Washington D.C. Given that reality, it only makes sense that the APHS/CT be the National Continuity Coordinator.

As the Washington Post points out:

The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the nation's capital, in contrast with Cold War assumptions that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.

"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order.

Not as the Democratic Underground thinks, taking out Congress. (Really guys, was the pharmacy out this week?)

I have to admit, I feel silly even responding to conspiracy theories this inane. But, you ask, I answer.

N.Z. Bear put the entire text of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 online. It is hyperlinked for easy access to specific sections and readers can leave comments about specific sections. This is a great way to read the bill and build citizen awareness of what Congress is trying to do.

Hugh Hewitt has been reading through the bill and offering his criticisms. Specifically, the bill apparently has a gaping loophole that would allow almost any existing illegal immigrant to gain a Z-visa without a full background check. Furthermore, the bill seems to assume that the Federal government has no chance of completing background checks on 12 million illegals and starts the blame game early. Finally, the bill would impose a huge hidden tax on businesses hiring immigrants.

So far, not so good.

However, John McCain says that the loophole really isn't a loophole.

I may or may not have further thoughts on this later. Mainly, I wanted to publish these resources for anyone that's more interested in them than I am.

Three months ago, I reported that Jim Doyle wanted to hike the hospital tax in order to give hospitals more money. Well, he still wants to. Only now we know that the amounts the hospitals will supposedly receive, is less than Diamond Jim hoped for:

UW Hospital had been projected to gain $23.3 million in Medicaid reimbursements over two years under the original proposal. Under the new calculations, it would receive about $11 million. Meriter, which had been projected to get almost $22 million, would receive about $14 million. The projected reimbursement for St. Mary's Hospital's increased by half a million dollars, to $4.8 million.

Oops. Of course, people not affiliated with the Doyle administration think that hospitals will actually lose money by being taxed, not gain it:

In March, the Wisconsin Hospital Association released an analysis showing hospitals would lose money in the next two years if the hospital tax is approved, not gain $283 million, as Doyle claimed. The group is still analyzing the new data, but remains skeptical.

Of course, it's not even a given that the hospitals will receive all of the money from the tax scheme:

"A large portion is diverted to other programs. ... It's difficult to say where the funds will ultimately be used," Quinn said.

Government efficiency, marching onward. Roll Wisconsin!

Welcome to Information Warfare 101. This is a topic that the American public desperately needs to know about. The war in Iraq is not just a war of bullets and bombs. It is a war of ideas and information. Right now, our enemy is better at fighting this war than we are. We must win this war through information and ideologies, not through strategic bombing campaigns or overwhelming force. While overwhelming force is effective, it is not sufficient to win the war by itself.

What is Information Warfare? According to Kim Taipale, "information warfare is the protection, monitoring, disruption, or manipulation of information and information flows to improve one's own decision-making process or to degrade that of the enemy." It is making the enemy see what you want him to see and hiding what you don't want him to see. Information Warfare is the art of making your enemy react in a way that you want him to react by feeding him information that you have manipulated in some way.

Our terrorist enemies are masters of this type of warfare. They know that they cannot defeat our forces in an open fight. They also know that we have proven vulnerable to information warfare in the past.

We lost our first major information battle during the Vietnam war. In January of 1968, the Communists of North Vietnam launched a surprise attack against American and South Vietnamese forces -- the Tet Offensive. Their main goal was to provide the impression that American forces were not winning (and could not win) a fight in Vietnam.

The actual attack was a disaster. The North Korean forces suffered 35,000 dead, 60,000 wounded, and 6,000 captured. The American and South Korean losses totaled around 3,900. The attack was not judged in military terms, however. It was judged in terms of perception. The American media and the American people perceived it as a devastating American loss, mostly due to the surprise of the attack and the wide-spread nature of the attack. The Tet Offensive marked the beginning of the end of American involvement in Vietnam.

The goal of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and other terrorist groups, is to duplicate the success of the Tet Offensive. They are willing to take large military losses if, in doing so, they can convince the American people that the terrorists are winning.

Judging by the media coverage of the Iraq war, we are losing the information war. That needs to change. We can win in Iraq, but only if the American people are willing and able to look past the misinformation, lies, and distortions of the terrorists.

I'm willing to spend my time pointing out exactly where and when we're being lied to. Are you willing you follow along with me?

Last week the Democrats in Congress decided how they'll spend your money. Surprisingly, they won't be letting you keep much of it.

Majority Democrats passed an important test Thursday with approval of a $2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for party priorities such as education and health care.

The budget blueprint sets a course to produce a small surplus in five years by assuming that many of President Bush's tax cuts would expire.

Ah, yes. They'll hit all of their spending priorities by taking more of your money. Makes perfect sense.

The House passed the measure by a 214-209 vote without a single Republican voting for it. The Senate quickly followed on a 52-40 vote; moderate Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joined with Democrats.

But deficits under the Democratic plan would be higher over the next two years than the $150 billion to $200 billion the Congressional Budget Office predicts for the current year. A $41 billion surplus is projected for 2012.

They noted it projects a surplus of $41 billion in 2012 by assuming that more than $200 billion worth of tax cuts over 2011-12 "” on income, stock dividends and capital gains, among others "” expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Yep. That makes sense. Increase the deficit in the hopes that continually increasing tax revenues will cover the spending spree. Also, assume that the American people will let you hike their taxes by $200 billion.

The budget plan sets the stage for an $850 billion increase in the national debt "” to $9.8 trillion. Under a House rule endorsed at different times by both Democrats and Republicans, adoption of the budget resolution means a separate debt limit increase bill is automatically passed and sent to the Senate.

You know, Congress has the same sense of fiscal responsibility that the Moellering's do. Joy.

Senator Fred Thompson recognizes that what the country needs is bipartisanship, not partisan sniping:

I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.

To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn't an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together "“ but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it.

I'm demanding it. (It's worth 2 minutes of your time to read the whole post.)

I continue to be interested in a Fred Thompson candidacy. Hopefully he declares soon, so we can see what he's actually made of.

The Senate appears to have reached a compromise on an immigration reform bill. Here's a list of links for your edification:

• Dafydd ab Hugh has an outline of what might be in the bill
• John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff don't trust the bill.
• Fred Thompson doesn't like the bill.
• Former Senator Bill Frist doesn't like the bill.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat encouraged that these folks don't like the bill:

• Hugh Hewitt really doesn't like the bill. (Also, here, here and here. Like I said, he really doesn't like the bill.)
• Michelle Malkin really doesn't like the bill.

Finally, Ed Morrissey doesn't really like the bill, but thinks it's the best that the Republicans are going to get and is a tolerable compromise.

Me, I'm still thinking. I'll let you know my feelings in a later post.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey defends the bill against Republican haters.

The Iranians have kidnapped another American. Noah Pollak, writing at Michael Totten's Middle East Journal, has the details:

Haleh Esfandiari is the director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, and in December of last year she traveled to Iran to visit her ailing mother. In a statement on its website, the Wilson Center explains that in late December, "on her way to the airport to catch a flight back to Washington, the taxi in which Dr. Esfandiari was riding was stopped by three masked, knife-wielding men. They took away her baggage and handbag, including her Iranian and American passports." Her visit to a passport office four days later instigated six weeks of interrogations. Last Monday, just over a week ago, she was arrested and taken to the notorious Evin prison, where she stands accused of being a Mossad agent, a U.S. spy, and of trying to foment revolution inside Iran -- the same charges that were leveled at the American embassy staff in 1979 when it was taken hostage.

Noah reports that the Washington Post has warned Iran that they risk losing the world's "respect". American politicians have been, if anything, less forceful:

Several politicians have also weighed in, and they haven't done any better. In a statement sure to send an ominous chill across the Iranian political establishment, Barak Obama announced that "If the Iranian government has any desire to engage the world in dialogue, it can demonstrate that desire by releasing this champion of dialogue from detention." Haleh Esfandiari's senators, Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, asked Iran to make a "gesture of goodwill" to the American people by releasing their latest hostage. Respect, dialogue, gestures of goodwill. I'll bring my acoustic guitar and some big fluffy pillows and we can do a sing-along for Ahmadinejad.

Noah ties the recent hostage taking back to the 1979 imprisonment of the American embassy:

And the hostage-takers and the government that sponsored them never paid a serious price for the ensuing fifteen-month humiliation of the United States. Iran has also never paid for its various assassinations and bombings in Europe, the murder of hundreds of American marines and French soldiers in Lebanon in 1983, the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people, its lavish funding of Hezbollah and destabilization of Lebanon, the abduction of the British sailors, its nuclear program, and so on. In other words, the Iranian regime, since the first day of its existence, has seen its every provocation go unanswered -- which has perfectly reinforced its conviction that the West, and America in particular, is a brittle facade, economically powerful and technologically sophisticated but weak-willed, indecisive, risk-averse, and easily intimidated.

Somehow, I don't think that a desire for "dialog" is what drives Iran. I think it's a desire for power. And no amount of talking is going to convince Iran to stop bombing, kidnapping, funding terrorism, or refining nuclear material. I don't want to rush to war -- our military is stretched thin enough as it is -- but we need to do something more than just "talk" at the Iranians. As you can see, that strategy has worked out so well already.

I'm of the opinion that politics should take a back seat to hard work when a natural disaster occurs. A tornado ripped through Greensburg, Kansas almost two weeks ago. The immediate focus of the state government should have been disaster recovery and cleanup. Governor Kathleen Sebelius chose to focus on politics first.

The rebuilding effort in tornado-ravaged Greensburg, Kansas, likely will be hampered because some much-needed equipment is in Iraq, said that state's governor.

Governor Kathleen Sebelius said much of the National Guard equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies is gone. She said not having immediate access to things like tents, trucks and semitrailers will really handicap the rebuilding effort.

Sadly, not only are her priorities wrong, so are her facts:

That brought an immediate response from Kansas Senator (and presidential hopeful) Sam Brownback, who observed that 88% of guard personnel were at home, and available to respond to the situation. The Pentagon and the National Guard Bureau (the military "headquarters" for Army and Air National Guard units across the nation) also offered clarification; spokesman for both DoD and the Guard Bureau indicated that the Kansas Guard has substantial assets on hand for the Greensburg operation:

The Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available and is working quickly and aggressively to save lives and reduce suffering, Guard Bureau officials reported. More than 6,800 additional Kansas Guard troops can be tapped, if needed, as well as more than 80,000 Guardsmen from surrounding states, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters today.

Kansas Guardsmen responding to the disaster have 60 percent of their Army Guard dual-use equipment and more than 85 percent of their Air Guard equipment on hand, officials said. Whitman reported a full range of Guard equipment on hand to support the mission. The Kansas Guard has 352 Humvees, 94 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks, 24 medium and light tactical vehicles, 152 2.5-ton cargo trucks, 76 series 5-ton trucks, 13 M916 tractors, 870 trailers, 52 Heavy Equipment Transport Systems, and 30 Palletized Load System Trucks.

In terms of engineering assets, the Kansas Guard has all -- and in some cases more than, -- its authorized vehicles. This includes five road graders, 15 bulldozers, eight scoop loaders and 72 dump trucks, he said. Whitman said he was unable to report which of these assets is undergoing maintenance and might not be immediately available to provide tornado relief.

Meanwhile, the National Guard Bureau is coordinating requests for additional support through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. This national partnership agreement paves the way for states to share resources during governor- or federally declared emergencies. "The states are poised to help one another when their own resources are overwhelmed," said Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

This is absolutely shameful behavior from the governor. When a disaster like this hits, let politics be your last concern -- not your first concern. Focus on helping the people in your state, not the advancement of your case.

From What special-ed cut means:

Several speech and language clinicians predicted some of the projected savings won't materialize.

Testing of children diagnosed with only speech and language disabilities will intensify, they said, in search of additional diagnoses -- such as learning disabilities, or emotional behavioral disabilities -- that would cement the need for a special education teacher's involvement.

"I have no doubt that additional labels will appear if you look hard enough," said Johnson [a speech and language clinician], who acknowledged that the current system made it more expedient to simply call upon the special education teacher without going through the process of amending a student's individual education plan.

If you subject children to enough tests and examinations, I'm sure you can manage to find something wrong with every one of them. That allows you to easily justify spending millions of dollars on special education teachers, thus preserving valuable teacher jobs and leaving no teacher behind.

It's no surprise that the head of the local teachers' union said the move appears to shortchange vulnerable students and subject the pared-down special education staff to burnout. It will also result in immense hardship for the 45 teachers and assistants that may have to find other work. But never, ever mention that. Keep all of the focus on the children and you may yet preserve your jobs.

For our troops fighting the war in Iraq, the number one threat isn't gun battles with terrorists, it's improved explosive devices left by the roadside. IED's cause fully 70% of American casualties in Iraq. This has been known for a while. What's also been known for a while is that Hummers do little to protect the troopers riding in them.

Unfortunately, most members of Congress have been too busy pointing fingers over the war to spend time figuring out how to help the military actually fight the war. Fortunately, it appears that some members of Congress are finally starting to see the light:

What my amendment will do is allow the military to put 2,500 more mine resistant ambush protected vehicles--known in the military by its acronym, MRAP--in the field by the end of this year. ... MRAP vehicles provide four to five times more protection to our troops than up-armored HMMWVs. That statement, that these MRAPs provide four to five times more protection than up-armored HMMWVs, is not my estimate. That is the judgment of our military leaders. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway, with whom I spoke as recently as this afternoon, wrote on March 1 to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said:

Multi-National Forces--West, that is, the Marines in Iraq [JK Background: specifically, in Anbar province], estimates that the use of the MRAP could reduce the casualties in vehicles due to IED attack by as much as 80 percent.

Let me explain the specifics of the MRAP. Each vehicle can hold 4 to 12 troops. Like the rhino, these vehicles have raised steel, V-shaped hulls and chassis. The raised hull is valuable because it gives the blast more time to expand, lessening the impact. The V-shape pushes the blast up the sides of the vehicle and away from the occupants. With an up-armored HMMWV or any humvee, the flat bottom sends the blast through the floor right into the occupants. In addition, the vehicles have side armor and bulletproof glass, and they also have tires that can be driven when flat.

Surprisingly, the person leading the charge on this issue is none other than Senator Joe Biden. While he often endures the nickname "Slow Joe", in this case he's faster out of the blocks than far too many of his colleagues. Good for him. Now let's work on getting some MRAP's over to Iraq.

I don't always agree with Capital Times columnist Mike Ivey, but I do today. He writes about WalMart's appetite for corporate welfare:

Wisconsin's largest employer draws more in corporate welfare than it pays in state taxes. Wal-Mart pocketed $852 million in net profits in Wisconsin off value-hungry consumers between 2000 and 2003. Over that same period, Wal-Mart paid only $3 million in corporate income tax here. That's a tax rate of 0.35 percent, a fraction of the 7.9 percent rate corporations doing business in our fair state are supposed to pay.

Pardon my West High math, but if Wal-Mart paid the going tax rate here it would have owed closer to $67 million. The Arkansas-based retailer has benefited from more than $20 million in public economic benefits in Wisconsin, according to one national study. Good Jobs First reported in 2004 that Wal-Mart stores and distribution centers in Baraboo, Beaver Dam, Menomonie, Milwaukee and Tomah received at least $21.75 million in local tax subsidies, the report says.

I'm a fan of WalMart and I applaud their efforts to bring lower prices to shoppers. But what they're doing in Wisconsin is neither "capitalism" nor "free enterprise". It's looting, pure and simple. The local governments that decided to give tax money -- taken from individuals -- to a big business should be vilified, demonized, and run out off office on a rail.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has a plan to give more money to hospitals. It's very simple -- in order to pay them more, he first has to tax them more. The Wisconsin State Journal gave a breakdown of the plan:

It works like this: The state imposes the tax on hospitals, leading to an increase in the cost of providing health services. The state returns the money raised by the tax to hospitals to help cover the costs of providing care to Medicaid patients. Then the state reports the increased costs of Medicaid to the federal government, which in turn increases its reimbursement to the state.

The state can then use the extra money for health care or other programs.

I'm reasonably certain that any private doctor, trying to increase Medicaid reimbursements this way, would be prosecuted for Medicaid fraud. Why are states are allowed to get away with such blatant fraud? Wisconsin isn't the only state doing this, but it might be one of the last:

"We have, as a state, been much less aggressive than other states in the use of these assessments," said Jason Helgerson, executive assistant and policy director for the Department of Health and Family Services.

Hospital executives say they understand why states are imposing such taxes. But they said the federal government is catching on to what states are doing and federal rules changes could limit Medicaid reimbursements and render the taxation strategy ineffective for states.

This whole scenario is a perfect example of government inefficiency and waste. Whatever faults private insurance might have, this kind of chicanery isn't it.

It looks like the State is getting behind the Wisconsin goat industry:

State officials are putting their support behind Wisconsin's growing goat industry.

About 260 farmers, processors, state officials and lenders are expected to attend a conference - "Focus on Goats: Milk and Meat Production in Wisconsin" - on Thursday in Barneveld.

... The program is an extension of the Grow Wisconsin Dairy project, which has put an emphasis on high-quality dairy products. "Goat cheeses and other goat products are really becoming more popular," [Jeanne Meier, a spokeswoman for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and a leader in the dairy goat initiative] said. "There's great demand in the U.S."

Based on the article, it sounds like the goat industry is really taking off. Lots of farmers have already made big money with goat cheese, goat millk, and goat meat. Many more farmers are eager to get into the industry. Here are the questions that the article raises in my mind: why does the State need to help out the goat industry? Why do Wisconsin tax payers need to pay for an already successful industry to become even more successful? At a time when Governor Doyle wants to tax the oil industry for being too successful, why is his administration paying for another industry to become more successful than it already is? At a time when the state faces a $1.6 billion deficit, why are we spending scarce tax dollars to help businessman who apparently don't need help?

Several weeks ago, the Isthmus interviewed my pastor, Chris Dolson, about the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment. The Amendment reads:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state and a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Here is the portion of the article that referenced him:

What about the evangelicals?

A survey released last month by Baylor University shows that evangelical Christians are far more likely than Catholics or mainline Protestants to have politically conservative views. But not all evangelicals lean to the right.

On one end of the evangelical spectrum is Ron Dobie, pastor of Stoughton's Christ the King Community Church and president of the Dane County Association of Evangelicals. With Appling, he serves on the advisory council of the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage, a group of religious, community and business leaders working to promote the amendment.

"I support marriage," he says. "When we went to no-fault divorce, we saw the divorce rate go up and the marriage rate go down, because it devalued marriage. This is another thing that says marriage is not important."

Dobie also condemns homosexuality. "The homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy lifestyle," he says. "Homosexuality has never been accepted by any society that I know of. [Gay marriage] would be a huge step away from what traditionally has been true. If we do that, I don't think we have any basis to say polygamy is wrong, or bestiality is wrong."

In principal, Dobie agrees it is healthier for gay people to be in committed relationships, as opposed to not, but says society benefits from the traditional definition of marriage. "Emphasizing marriage between one man and one woman is the best way to go," he says. "We should be promoting that, not doing anything to diminish it."

On the other end of the spectrum is Chris Dolson, senior pastor of Blackhawk Church, a west-side "mega-church" that packs in more than 3,000 worshippers each week. While he affirms that the Bible says the only appropriate sexual relationships are between married men and women, he says the amendment has not come up in his conversations, and he will not preach about it.

Like a growing number of evangelical preachers, Dolson believes church is not an appropriate place to discuss politics. "It's not an issue of this or that amendment," he says. "What's more important, following Christ, or following our Legislature?"

But Dolson encourages churchgoers to consider Christian ethics as they ponder the amendment's possible effects on the gay community. "Put yourselves in their shoes," he says. "Do you think it would be beneficial to them? The whole thing about people not being able to see their dying spouse because they're not married, to me that's not fair."