Working its way through the Israeli Knesset is a bill declaring Jordan as the Palestinian nation. It has nearly half of the parliament’s support. If passed, the bill would have West Bank Palestinians choose between Israeli or Jordanian citizenship. What’s unclear to me is the status of West Bank land under this plan. That’s irrelevant though, if you follow the Christian Science Monitor’s opinion that the idea is crazy. Now the CSM doesn’t say that directly, but read this article and try not to notice how they paint the proposal as madness.

Is it madness? Geert Wilders doesn’t think so. Although I can see how he can be dismissed. He’s not the right sort, so there’s no need to pay attention to his opinion. Don’t remember who he is? I’ll help. Geert Wilders is the head of the Freedom Party, the third largest political party in the Netherlands, and just came off a strong electoral showing. That’s a little hard to translate into American terms, since we don’t have a parliamentary system. I guess Wilders would be similar in stature to a powerful senator. Yet despite being chosen by a significant portion of the Dutch electorate, Wilders should just be ignored because he doesn’t have the right kind of opinions. He’s a right-winger. Oh he’s a neo-fascist. Nevermind that a large chunk of the Dutch electorate voted for him. He’s clearly a crazy person on the fringe.

We can ignore Wilders, but Camie Davis has dug up some choice quotes on the topic.

• “We are the government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine.”
  - Prime Minister of Jordan, Hazza’ al-Majali, 23 August 1959
• “Palestine and Transjordan are one.”
  - King Abdullah, Arab League meeting in Cairo, 12 April 1948
• “Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate.”
  - Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2 February 1970
• “Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine, but rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations.”
  - Jordanian Minister of Agriculture, 24 September 1980
• “The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.”
  - King Hussein 1981

Should King Hussein and King Abdullah be ignored? Who wants to dismiss them as people who know nothing about Middle Eastern history and politics?

This is why history is important. Israel should be throwing these quotes in the face of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Arab League and the EU. Force all of them to publicly abrogate these ideas and explain why, before any movement on negotiations happen.

Americans need to know that Mr. Obama, whose coolness can seem like detachment, is engaged. This is not a mere question of presentation or stagecraft, although the White House could do better at both.

A NY Times editorial gives voice to progressives’ frustration at Pres. Obama, yet it’s so much more. On the surface it’s an essay complaining that the president has been too detached from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although it still tries to carry a little water (Bush gets blamed for the world’s economic collapse. Between controlling Earth’s economy and sending Hurricane Katrina directly into New Orleans, is there anything he can’t do? He’s like Bizarro Superman!), I assume, to reassure Times readers the author hasn’t gone completely off the reservation.

What we’re reading here is the birth of a progressive myth. Obama’s presidency is failing and it looks unlikely to turn around. Progressives aren’t going to allow their idology to be tainted by Obama’s personal failure. The cover is going to be that Obama was personally unlikeable. He was too cerebral. Just look at how this criticism is framed:

• “His inclination to hold back, then ride to the rescue…”
• “It certainly should not have taken days…”
• “…he should have moved a lot faster…”
• “It took too long for Mr. Obama to say…”

It’s all about the president’s speed. He’s taking too long to get things done. It’s just that “the contemplative nature that was so appealing in a candidate can seem indecisive in a president.” It’s not that Obama is too slow because he’s lazy, incompetent or just doesn’t care.

Barack Obama was unable to meet the leadership image of the common American because he was far too meditative and because of that, he was unable to make the case for a new progressive America. The problem is never that progressive ideas are unwanted. No, no, no! It’s just the messenger’s fault.

And so the progressives can move on to find another they will anoint as their standard bearer; A new messiah who can show the glories of progressive governance to those damn troglodytic idiots who keep rejecting socialism regular, everyday Americans. What’s the alternative? Recognizing you have some bad ideas? Not likely to happen.

For as long as Ted Kennedy’s name is remembered, it will be marred by Chappaquiddick. Up until today I never realized what a heinous story it is. I knew it involved a drunk Ted, a car crash and a girl dying. It sounded like a tragic and irresponsible accident to me. What I learned today is how callous and vile Ted behaved. Carl Cannon wrote a great narrative of the events on that night. I definitely recommend reading his post along with the Wikipedia entry, but I’ll summarize the key points in bullet form for the impatient.

Teddy Kennedy met up with friends and some girls at a party in a cottage on tiny Chappaquiddick Island, off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. It wasn’t a huge crowd. It was a small get-together for Ted’s friends and the “Boiler Room Girls”; some women who worked the phones for RFK’s presidential campaign the year before. Kennedy decided to leave the party and the following events become murky.

• Kennedy claims he left the party at 11:15 pm and Mary Jo requested he drive her back to town. A local cop saw Kennedy’s car at 12:40 am. No one at the party knew Mary Jo left with Teddy, and she also left her purse and hotel key at the party.
• Kennedy leaves his chauffeur at the cottage and ended up driving in the exact opposite direction from the ferry landing.
• Kennedy misses a turn in the road and drives into the water, flipping the car on to its roof. He manages to swim out of the car, but for some unknown reason Mary Jo cannot. Kennedy will later go on to say after he made it back to dry land, he jumped back into the water seven or eight times trying to find Mary Jo.
• Once Kennedy gives up on trying to locate Mary Jo underwater, he walks back to the cottage. He walks by four other cottages with working phones on his trip back.
• At the cottage, which also has a working phone, he told two of his friends about the accident. They returned to the scene and attempted to rescue Mary Jo. When that failed, they drove Teddy to the ferry landing where he swam back to town (ferry service ended at midnight). His friends would later claim they did not call the police because Teddy told them he would report this when he got back.
• Back in town, Kennedy returned to his hotel, which has a working phone, and went to sleep. During the night he would complain to the hotel owner about a noisy party that was keeping him up. In the morning he was seen chatting with a local about sailing.
• Kennedy’s two friends visit him at his hotel where they question why he didn’t report the incident. The three of them return to Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy is seen making several calls at a pay phone by the ferry dock, but none are to the police.

Here’s my guess on what really happened that night. Ted’s story was a cover for an extramarital affair. He couldn’t admit to that because it would ruin his career and humiliate his family. It also makes more sense to believe Mary Jo wasn’t going home for the night because she left her keys and purse at the party. Ted didn’t bring his chauffeur along to drive because who wants a third wheel around when you’re trying to have sex? Remember that if Ted was really trying to catch the last ferry back to Martha’s Vineyard (and the cop’s testimony makes this impossible too), his chauffeur would have been stranded at the cottage.

Ted Kennedy was a despicable human being for allowing a woman to die to preserve his privileged life. The police diver who was sent after two local fishermen reported the submerged car said Mary Jo’s body was pressed up against a part of the car where an air bubble would have formed. He estimated she lived for two hours down there. Two hours where Kennedy could have called for police from four houses in between the accident and the party cottage, or called from the cottage, or called from a pay phone at the ferry dock, or called from his hotel room. These lefty journalists I see on TV trying to wax poetic about the Liberal Lion are vermin. This man was scum and deserves no praise. If you think I’m exaggerating, check out this recording. “[O]ne of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself.” What a monster.

I’m pretty well disgusted with the health care debate we’re having in this country. Even though I totally disagree with the notion that health care is a right and the government should be providing it, I can understand the pro-side. We just have a difference of opinion about the shape society should take. What disgusts me is the elitism that is bubbling its way up to the surface thanks to common people voicing their opposition. Here are some choice bits.

1. Barbara Boxer says protesters are too well dressed to be legitimate.

This is the most obvious form of elitism. Sen. Boxer “knows” what a real protester looks like. If a person is neatly groomed and takes care to dress appropriately, clearly they cannot be one of the common folk. The senator knows commoners are a filthy lot, often wearing dirty rags and flip-flops. Anyone dressed decently must be a paid operative of those evil Republicans. Real people are probably too drunk to show up at a town hall meeting anyway.

2. Andrea Mitchell says we don’t know what’s good for us.

Mitchell has settled the debate. We regular people are just too retarded to know what’s good for us. If only we would shut up and let our social betters run things, everything would be glorious.

3. Barack Obama wants us to stop talking.

Shutting up, isn’t that what representative democracy is all about? What better way is there for an elected official to govern but for opposition to shut up and let you do whatever you want? I wish I had the Constitution better memorized because I’m having trouble remembering the clause where it says anyone who disagrees with the president should keep it to themselves. I know it must be in there since that’s what our president has told us to do.

Really though this all goes to the heart of Progressivism. That ideology treats common people as incapable of caring for themselves. Government, run by society’s best and brightest, must step in to care for them. Barbara Boxer, Andrea Mitchell and Barack Obama clearly feel they know how to run your life better than you do. Do you think they do?

This news is just too delicious to check. So far it’s an unsubstantiated, anonymous report on LiveLeak, but I hope it turns out to be so much more. According to this report, one of President Obama’s Secret Service security detail has been fired because he complained about the Obama family’s frequent gripes over certain demographics. The retarded part of this unsubstantiated story, and what makes me doubt its reality, is that the Secret Service Agent took his complaint directly to the president. Who does that? Unless you really hate your job and are looking to be fired, you don’t lecture your boss. I wish I could hear that conversation go down.

Incidentally I have no problem believing the Obama family is there badmouthing “certain demographics”, which of course means white people in flyover country. They’re wealthy, lefty, urbanites so naturally they can look down their noses at the little people. Actually this reminds me of a rumor floating around during the 2008 campaign. I forget where this allegedly happened, but at some campaign event the police providing security were told to keep out of sight of the Obamas at all times. The implication being that the Obamas were such super-liberals they refused to suffer the presence of any law enforcement. I can’t say that was true either, but it’s such a caricature that you want to believe its true. I have a feeling this story about the Secret Service Agent will go that way too; it will fade away for lack of evidence but will be remembered because its too much of a caricature to forget.

But pretending its true, and even though I would love to have some solid evidence of Obama’s elitism, it’s probably a bad thing for the country if the Secret Service Agent comes forward publicly with this news. You don’t want the Secret Service getting politicized, and you don’t want future presidents having to keep their guard up 24/7 around these guys. The right thing for this guy would have been to quietly request a transfer or resign. Complaining to the president was just idiotic.

With Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling the House and Senate, they own the legislative agenda. So it looks like no matter what we’re going to end up with a massive disruption to the health care industry. I was thinking about how our society will cope when government controls the health care of most Americans. One issue grabbed my attention: abortion.

Abortion was a huge hot-button issue in the 1990s. The media spent a lot more time and ink back then covering it, and while I don’t have any statistics on this I suspect there were more protests about it back then. Today the issue feels mostly settled. Conservatives don’t like it but they have seemed to accept that Roe v. Wade isn’t going to be overturned. When Obamacare comes into force I expect abortion will roar back as an enormous social issue. When the federal government becomes every citizen’s health insurer, conservatives will not be happy paying for abortions. With the government as insurer it will have to pay with money collected as taxes. Don’t think that abortion will be an “elective” procedure and not eligible for coverage. NARAL and NOW will never ever permit Democrats to do that. And so tax money will go to pay for abortions, and there will be much outrage and protest. If Republicans want to actually derail Obamacare they should bring this up. If the health care debate can be sidetracked into the abortion quagmire, it will come to a standstill.

The American Spectator is a conservative publication I don’t normally read, but I saw a link to an article where they had a different take on the issue. They found a different abortion pitfall for Obamacare. The Roe v. Wade decision that permitted abortion nationally could make any government involvement in health care decisions unconstitutional. Before I explain TAS’s reasoning you need to understand that a key part of Obamacare is the government’s ability to decide on what treatments you’ll be allowed to have. President Obama has been saying the cost of health care is rising so fast because doctors run too many tests and prescribe too many medicines to cover their asses from malpractice lawsuits. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats will decide what tests, surgeries and medicines you are permitted to have. They can overrule your doctor and yourself if they choose.

TAS sees two ways this conflicts with Roe v. Wade.

One: The State has a legitimate interest in keeping you healthy.

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

- Roe v. Wade Decision

Roe’s language is focused on pregnant women, but that can easily be extended to all Americans.  The Supreme Court decided that the government has an interest in protecting the health of Americans. How can the government live up to that if it is denying treatments to lower costs? How can the State ever deny a hip replacement surgery to a 90 year old? The government must protect our health, and doing that requires pursuing every treatment. Denying a treatment to save money would be negligent and the government would then be liable. So much for cost savings.

Two: The right to privacy excludes the government from intruding on the patient-doctor relationship.

The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

- Roe v. Wade Decision

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy and 9th Amendment’s support for individual liberty would exclude the government from the abortion decision. It’s easy to extend “women” to all Americans, and an “abortion” can be extended to all medical procedures. I would like to see the logic that says only women have the right to make a decision on abortion, but the government can decide everything else.

So TAS concludes either Roe or Obamacare has to go. It’s a rather fascinating result and I’m happy to hear any news that could undermine the government’s takeover of our health care system. However, if this legal logic is correct, how come point two hasn’t been used to slay the twin beasts of Medicare and Medicaid?

And another special election graces California. I really wish that “divide the state” proposal was on this month’s ballot. It would be perfect placement too because this election is the one where the state legislature gets cowardly and tries to get the public to cosign their budget compromise. I’ve never heard of a special election being needed to pass an annual budget, but hey, California is a trend setter. You other 49 states pay attention.

To my surprise it looks like there is some real anger brewing among the populace. The five ballot measures needed to pass the compromise budget are polling poorly. I actually had the impression people would blindly accept any budget after the long budget showdown we had a few months ago. Perhaps it has been the events at the federal level that have stirred up some anger, but it looks like Californians want to reject these measures altogether to send a message they’re tired of a state government that never stops growing. Remember a few weeks ago I wrote about California’s epic budget expansion? I guess I’m not the only one to notice an unending trend of higher government spending. Over the last ten years spending has risen 60%, but what has that gotten us? Did it really improve our lives, or didn’t you notice it? Why do you have to pay higher taxes and fees for that?

The prevailing sentiment among us angry taxpayers is that we should reject all five budget measures to send a strong message to the legislature. I agreed with that until I sat down to read the measures in my voter guide. Let’s look at these one-by-one.

Prop 1A: Changes to State Budget Process.

Remember how the legislature assured us all those tax hikes were ONLY for two years? This makes them last four years. It also performs a bunch of complicated adjustments to the rainy day fund, but the short version is that it expands it. Those complicated adjustments are probably just a ploy to give this ballot initiative a meaningless name like “changes to state budget process” instead of “raising your taxes even more”.

Prop 1B: Education Funding. Payment Plan.

This authorizes payments to schools from the rainy day fund starting in 2011. These payments are essentially repayments of budget cuts schools are getting now.

Prop 1C: Lottery Modernization Act.

This proposition would “modernize” the state lottery with higher jackpots and more advertising. Oh and it would also allow the state to issue bonds against future, expected lottery revenues, but pay no attention to that. That’s just a piddling little nothing provision that doesn’t matter at all.

Prop 1D: Protects Children’s Services Funding.

This protects funding for certain children’s services programs by cutting funding to other children’s services programs. Prop 98 established required spending rules for a program called First 5. This prop would permit the legislature to transfer money away from that to fund other social programs.

Prop 1E: Mental Health Services Funding.

This is similar to 1D except this involves mental health programs instead of children’s social services.

Prop 1F: Elected Officials’ Salaries.

This denies any pay raises to the legislature and any constitutional officers in deficit years.

As you can guess 1F is the outlier here. It’s not part of the legislature’s budget plan. Conservative rage is pounding the table over 1A through 1E and as I mentioned there is a ‘vote it all down’ movement brewing. I planned to take part in that as soon as I heard we would have a special election over the budget. Screw the legislature! I wasn’t going to let them pass the buck to me. Once I actually read these propositions I took a more nuanced view. Here’s what I voted on my mail-in ballot and why.

1A: No! I’m not going to vote to allow these idiot politicians to raise my taxes. The cycle of ever higher taxes needs to break somewhere.

1B: No! No! The school system should learn to tighten their belts just like everyone else. Repaying a budget cut is asinine.

1C: No! No! No! A thousand times NO! Borrowing against future lottery receipts is not reform. It’s just more of the borrow and spend policies that have ruined this state’s finances.

1D: Uhmmm, well, yea. I have always hated the many propositions that tie up California’s spending. We elect a legislature but can’t trust them to plan a budget? If you don’t think your representative is able, capable or trustworthy enough to make decisions on spending, stop voting for them. It’s an idiotic situation. I decided to vote yes because I’m happy to undermine this type of spending. Besides, it’s not a new tax. The legislature wants to shift spending from one program to another. I don’t object to that. It’s the sort of decision that legislators exist to make.

1E: Yes here too; Same logic as with 1D.

1F: Hell yes! I can understand the argument that this is pointless populism, but it won’t cause any harm and yet it will send a resounding ‘screw you’ to our elected officials.

I guess I’ve failed the purity test so there will be no GOP nominations for me. I’ll be happy to see props 1A through 1C fail, and I wouldn’t mind if 1D and 1E fail too. Right now the polls are in my favor but the ‘yes’ ads are starting on TV. I hope their repetition doesn’t hypnotize the population, but I fear it will. Something needs to be done to stop our tax and spend irresponsibility. The failure of these propositions will force the legislature to go back to work on the state budget. Either they will have to accept the blame for raising taxes again, or actually make serious budget cuts.

Or perhaps we can call it Coastalvania?

California is one of the biggest states in the US and I guess with that size comes a lot of proposals to divvy up the state. I just read about a new proposal in the Economist that would divide California along thirteen coastal counties; from Marin to Los Angeles. Those thirteen would become an unnamed new state, and the rest would remain California. Most of the past proposals would divide the state along north-south sections. This is the first I’ve seen that does it into east-west sections.

So what potentially will go? In the proposal brought forth by Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries, or their catchier name – Downsize California, this would include thirteen coastal counties: Marin, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Monterrey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles. Those counties have 18 million people, leaving California with 18.5 million. That’s a remarkably even split.

Coastalania is the most liberal and urban parts of California. That right there tells you why this movement is brewing. It’s the classic conflict between urban and rural ways of life. This secession movement really didn’t exist until Proposition 2 in the 2008 election. That proposition banned “tight” (probably as defined by some regulation) confinement for chickens, veal calves and pigs. It was a direct attack on how farmers see fit to run their farms and smacked of clueless liberals issuing more regulations from atop their pedestal. So the farmers became angry and began a secession movement.

It seems like a good idea to me. We’ll all be a lot happier separate from each other. Imagine if this coastal state already existed. It would easily be the bluest blue state in the US. I’d call it a one-party state for the Democrats, but honestly I bet the new state would get divided between Democrats and Greens. Imagine the progressive causes that the state could embrace. There would be no opposition to the state issuing laws banning oil and gas drilling off the coast. The new state could legislate the fishing industry out of existence. Gay marriage would be a lock. It would almost certainly pass some kind of universal health care law assuming that fails in the US Congress. The new legislature could declare the entire state to be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Oh and marijuana would instantly be made legal. Basically every pet liberal cause would come into force. Democrats should latch on to this plan because it will guarantee them two senators (or at least a friendly Green senator) in Congress forever. On the other side, downsized California will not become a Republican bulwark. Yes that place will start out redder, but with a stream of Mexican immigrants leaning Democrat, it will shortly be a purple state again.

What could this place really be named though? Coastalania is too ridiculous. I’d hate for some lame name like Pacifica to get considered, but I bet that would be one of the front runners. Maybe the old time baby boomers would want to name it Kennedy for their idol JFK. Personally I would like to see a name with some roots to the region. For instance, San Francisco’s original name was Yerba Buena. I think that would make a fine name for a state. We could also name it Fremont, after John Fremont who was at the vanguard of rebellion against Mexico. Nah, who am I kidding. No one here would support the name of a American army officer. It’s more likely the new state would be named for Che Guevara. Maybe we should just stick to a variation on California. How about Azul California, since this state will be primarily a seaside community?

If this proposal makes it on the ballot in 2012, I’m definitely voting yes. A clean break will be good for all of us.

Our president is “to challenge government agencies to cut costs,” in the words of Reuters. That makes a fantastic headline. Instead of being the profilgate spender, Obama is casting himself as a budget watchdog. If you take a moment to read the article you’ll see he’s calling on his cabinet to find $100 million in cuts. That’s $100 million out of $3.5 trillion. Put another way that’s $100 million out of $3,500,000 million.

Economics professor Greg Mankiw puts the proposed cut in even clearer terms.

[I]magine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Such bold action. Obama’s really going to tame that budget. In all seriousness, that’s not the point of this exercise. What will happen is that each cabinet department will cut tiny amounts from hundreds of programs. It will all be inconsequential sums but it will give Democrat pundits an important talking point. When they go on cable news or the Sunday morning public affairs shows, they can then say, “President Obama has cut thousands of government programs. He’s a fiscal hawk.”

My only guess on the timing is that the Tea Parties must have spooked the White House. Why else bother with creating the illusion of caring about the budget?

I saw this video this morning and man did I have to cringe while watching it. It’s South Carolina Congressman Gresham Barrett being lambasted by the crowd at the Tax Day Tea Party in Greenville, South Carolina. It’s merciless. People turned their backs to him. There was one guy who shouted “Go Home” during Barrett’s whole speech. Everyone in that crowded booed for 5 minutes straight.

What did Barrett do to desire this ire? He voted in favor of funding the $700 billion TARP program. Supposedly he’s going to run for South Carolina governor. I can’t see that contest ending well for him.