The rancor that Democrats everywhere exhibit when the topic of voter identification arises is enough to make one’s head explode. Bill Hobbs notes the potential for mass voter fraud in the wake of the theft of complete voter records from the Davidson County Election Commission. Such is a legitimate concern. Even without that example of the most unbelievable gross negligence by the Commission, the case for a voter identification card is a sound one.

The Indiana law requiring voter identification cards is currently pending in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. A similar law in Georgia, which was struck down at the district level but upheld by the Eleventh Circuit, is not before the court, but will certainly be affected by the high court’s ruling.

The argument advanced by some here in Tennessee is that such a vote will “depress turnout”. And they’re right - it will depress turnout of those who shouldn’t be voting in the first place. If the argument is simply that presently reliable Democrat voting blocks aren’t motivated enough to go get a voter identification card once every five years, paid for by the government, I extend my deepest sympathies to Democrat politicians everywhere who are going to have to find new, more dynamic groups to pander to. That is a disingenuous argument.

Another argument against the law is that it is unfair to the homeless, and is a new version of the “poll tax”. Too bad there is no cost to the card, thus no tax, and no argument. Both the Indiana and Georgia law contain indigency provisions for the identification card, simply requiring that one be able to prove who they are. The further argument that obtaining a birth certificate, which is valid over one’s entire lifetime, to prove one’s identity is too onerous, seems especially overboard to me.

A third argument against the voter identification law is that there are practically no instances of fraud reported, so there is no need for a voter identification card. A simple question for those making that argument - how do you know? Right now most states have the barest minimum identification process for voting. There is no way to check anyone’s identity. For instance, in a special election in Memphis, Tennessee, for a vacant state senate seat in 2005, the margin of victory was less than the number of eventually confirmed dead people who voted. Unfortunately in Memphis, the dead didn’t vote provisionally, which is allowed by both the Indiana and Georgia law for those lacking identification at the time they cast their ballot. But the dead vote often.

The prospects of a law having a certain political effect doesn’t not make it invalid. Besides, one cannot make the argument that the status quo is the right way to do things simply because it is the status quo. A “progressive” position would be ensuring every vote is valid. One would think rabid Democrats still suffering the 2000 hangover would be among the first to demand integrity at the ballot box.

A lesson has been learned. The lighter, faster response military model advocated by Donald Rumsfeld has it’s place, but not when dealing with a vicisously sectarian, force focused culture. In other words, Bush’s surge is showing consistent, trend-worthy results, not least in the area of record low American casualty figures

Of the 21 fatalities this month, 14 have been combat related. Since the surge, even Iraqi security force fatalities are signficantly down. al Qaeda is disbanding, and American, Iraqi and coalition losses are shrinking. Hopefully, with increasingly more breathing room, the Iraqi politicians can produce some statesmen, and establish a working federal government.

The most impressive part of the new information coming out of Iraq is the utter and nearly total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, and even more encouraging, that American officials are convinced that al Qaeda, not sectarian violence, is presently the main concern in the country. Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war. It is not Vietnam. In fact, the dissimilarities have been there since the beginning. Unless, of course, you were a bit slow on the uptake, and part of the Democrat leadership. Harry Reid, circa February, 2007

After months of heated rhetoric slamming President Bush’s Iraq policy, the Senate’s top Democrat moved into new terrain by declaring the Iraq war a worse blunder than Vietnam.

“This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”

“So we should take everything seriously. We find ourselves in a very deep hole and we need to find a way to dig out of it.”

Asked whether he considers it a worse blunder than Vietnam, Reid responded, “Yes.”

Comparisons to Vietnam are nothing new, but a “worse than” designation from a top lawmaker is.

Reid never supported the surge, by the way.

When Iraq’s government is stable and fully functioning, Joe Lieberman will be the only Democrat to thank. And for a time, even he was kicked to the curb.

As a side note to the topic of winning in Iraq, do you really want to vote for “abandon the world, now” Ron Paul? Or, for that matter, the apologizing Mike Huckabee, who wants to further destabilize Pakistan, and now fears a Pakistani immigrant invasion?

Foreign policy is too important in 2008 to not occupy billing number one on everyone’s political radar - well, it’s always too important, actually. It’s the lack of a foreign policy as the discussion de jour in the nineties that has exacerbated some problems in the 2000s.  Even with Paul and Huckabee, and Obama, it’s not the lack of foreign policy experience that bothers me about them, but more so an apparent lack of judgment.

From the penumbral and ideologically decadent pages of the Huffington Post, we are given a summary of the goings-ons of the major conservative think tanks.

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. There are fewer worse ideas out there than socialism, and the concept of a living wage is just plain silly. I wish someone, anyone, on the Left would go to the trouble to take one simple basic economics course.

Ah, but with a literary wag of my finger, I warn you that correspondence classes with the University of Moscow do not count.

Economist Bruce Bartlett (no liberal, by any stretch) comes out with a fourteen page offensive demonstrating the many drawbacks to the Fair Tax. Among the many problems noted by Bartlett, these struck me as the most notable. My summary, in order of importance:

1. Prices and wages can be sticky. The implementation of the 22% (or 23%, or 30% - see below) sales tax will be immediately felt in an inflationary way, even though, from a balance sheet perspective, the elimination of the income tax should result in an eventual wash. In the meantime, until wages fall and reach the new equalibrium of the post-income tax world, we have a significant problem.

2. There’s no guarantee the federal reserve can manage the money supply sufficiently to ward off the deleterious effects noted above.

3. The actual Fair Tax rate is more like 30%, not 23%. Bartlett notes the discrepancy in salesmanship this way

Unfortunately, the Fair Tax rate is not really 23%. It’s actually 30% when thought about the same way we think of state sales taxes. The 23% figure is what is known as the tax-inclusive rate; the 30% rate is called the tax-exclusive rate. Think of the difference this way: You go to the store now and buy something for $1.00. The FairTax adds 30 percent for a total price of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, this is where the 23 percent figure comes from.

It’s in the details, but you never hear about. The new, revised sales tax rate is now at 31.27%.

4. The inclusion of state and local governments as part of the tax base is deceptive. Any increase in the costs to local governments will necessarily be borne by the tax base under their respective jurisdictions. This means, on average an average increase in local sales taxes by 80%. If you take the governments out of the tax base, the actual rate of the national Fair Tax increases to absurd levels. Further, the rebate portion of the plan is accounted for as an expansion of the tax base, not government spending, which it is.

There are many more holes in the concept. Read the Bartlett article in its entirety for the rest of the skinny. Ilya Somin has a brief summary here.

If you notice that the highways are unusually empty this evening and the crowds have emptied out of the stores having their after-Christmas sales, don’t be alarmed.  I know the reason.

In about two hours, everyone will be glued to their TVs to watch a monumental clash of the titans that could only happen in the renowned Emerald Bowl (Who needs the Rose Bowl?  This game is sponsored by people who sell nuts!  Beat that, USC!  And, much healthier than steaks, Tennessee!).

My Maryland Terrapins will be taking on the Oregon State Beavers for the bragging rights that come when the game clock winds down and only one team is given the honor of raising that bronzed statue of a giant almond.  I am getting emotional just thinking about it.

Come on, Terps!  Let’s finish a season of disappointing mediocrity with a marginally acceptable performance and return to the East Coast with a victory!

There is a smattering of new laws going into effect in Tennessee come January 1, 2008. Always the most interesting to me, considering what I do on a daily basis, are the new criminal statutes. The Crooks with Guns law, as it has been entitled, drastically increases the punishments for gun related crimes associated with the commission of certain enumerated “dangerous felonies”. I have uploaded a quick outline summary I did of the law this morning here (the entire statute can be found here). The operative elements of the new TCA 39-17-1324 are as follows:

(a) Possessing a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony

(b) Possessing a firearm during

1. the commission of a dangerous felony;

2. an attempt to commit a dangerous felony;

3. flight or escape from the commission of a dangerous felony;

4. flight or escape from the attempt to commit a dangerous felony.

The teeth are in the sentencing. If the defendant has a prior felony conviction, the law creates a new class of felony, essentially a “Super C Class” and a “Super D Class”. Violations of subsection (b) are deemed a Class C felony, but demand a mandatory minimum ten (10) year sentence with zero release eligibility, and no option for supervised release. However, the standard Class C felony for a Range I offender is three (3) to six (6) years. The new law stands alone at a minimum of ten (10) years, regardless of the range of the offender (this isn’t problematic with Range II offenders, where the range itself is six (6) to ten (10) years, where the minimum simply becomes the maximum already allowed in the range). A violation of subsection (a) is a Class D felony, with a minimum sentence of five (5) years if the defendant has a prior felony conviction. Without a prior felony conviction, the minimums are six (6) and three (3) years, respectively.

As well, jail credit is tweaked with the new law. In Department of Correction custody, one typically qualifies for “good time”, which is usually getting three days of credit against your sentence for every two you serve (standard in local Davidson County custody, which is for sentences under six (6) years, is two days for every one day you serve). The Crooks with Guns law largely eliminates such good time - akin to federal sentencing rules, you can complete your sentence no earlier than after having served 85% of it.

One aspect of the proposed change in the gun laws puzzles me, however, In amending TCA 39-17-1307, possessing a deadly weapon that is not a firearm in the commission of a “dangerous felony” as listed in the Crooks with Guns law is a standard Class E felony. That part makes sense, and would apply to knives, pool cues, baseball bats, etc. However, possessing a firearm in the commission, attempt to commit or escape from a non-dangerous “offense” (note, not felony) is a Class E felony. A Class E felony entails a one (1) to two (2) year sentence for a Range I offender. So, in essence, if you possess a firearm while committing the least serious misdemeanor, you could suffer a felony conviction (think Driving on a Suspended License because of unpaid tickets, or Criminal Trespass, both Class C Misdemeanors - and the way it is written, possessing a valid concealed carry permit wouldn’t matter a lick).

To me, this part seems to be an overreach of the law, and would operate entirely outside the spirit of the Crooks with Guns law. Hopefully the amended wording won’t be enforced in that manner, but with the way the legislature wrote it, my reading certainly confirms the new law would allow it.

A new ad from John Edwards entitled “Time for Truth”

“These big corporations, in their greed — they are stealing your children’s future.”

The link to view the ad is here. Yes, big corporations, and their greed. Sigh. Has anyone actually, empirically, without the use of populist tripe, ever shown how big business hurts the economy? I have yet to come across anyone employing a populist screed like John Edwards back it up with anything but a higher decibel level, which ironically, is what Edwards does at the end of this thirty second spot. The Breck girl is certainly in fine form.

Just the facts, m’am - just the facts.

Bill Richardson’s response to Benazir Bhutto’s assassination? Pour fuel on the fire

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called on President Bush to force Musharraf to step down. Until then, Richardson said the U.S. must suspend military aid to the Pakistani government.

“A leader has died, but democracy must live. The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan’s return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence,” Richardson said.

Then again, he never developed into a serious candidate in the first place.

UPDATE Somebody named Joe Biden blasts back.

“It’s almost a perfect storm, in a very bad sense.” Fred noted that this is a blow to Pakistani democracy, and a threat to Pakistan’s stability, emphasizing the potential negative fallout from loose nuclear weapons.

He is hoping that Musharraf will not crack down, or declare martial law.

“This is part of a bigger problem. This is not a part of a criminal investigation…this is a war.”

I wished to transcribe more, but my typing skills only go so far.

Captain’s Quarters has assembled world reactions to Bhutto’s assassination

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner: “[T]his horrible act … reaffirms France’s commitment to the stability of Pakistan and its democracy.”

India: “[W]e must express our deep concern at anything that disrupts and disturbs the even keel of democratic governance in Pakistan.”

Iran: “We hope the Pakistani government will identify and bring to justice those behind such a criminal act and restore tranquility to the country.”

Russia: “We strongly condemn this terrorist act, present our condolences to the family and friends of Benazir Bhutto and hope that Pakistani authorities will provide for national stability.”

India’s further reaction will be interesting to watch, as well as the prospects of increased Iranian interference in internal Pakistani affairs.

I’ll have more thoughts on it later, more related to how the presidential candidates respond throughout the day than how things are evolving on the ground in Asia. As usual, the best place on the web to follow developments is Drudge.

Pakistan was already a mess. Now it’s a nuclear empowered bigger mess. I don’t think there’s much more expert analysis needed, and I’m not one to offer it. Muslim fundamentalists executed a pro-Western, female candidate for prime minister, largely because she was female, and had threatened to do so multiple times before. I’m not among the surprised.

UPDATE More from Bob Krumm

Byron York opines on the potential political fallout of the Bhutto assassination. He contends that this hurts Iowa frontrunners Huckabee and Romney, helps Giuliani and McCain, and would help Fred Thompson if more people were paying attention to him. By the same logic, someone else it helps is Hillary. That’s because we will be reminded that very recently Obama had some very naive things to say about Pakistan.

Add this to the recent Iowa polling, and Michelle Obama may prove to be quite the distinguished prophetess.

Apparently, Barack Obama is drafting black South Carolina ministers into compulsive service

Earlier this month, Obama’s campaign released a list of what it said were nearly 130 senior pastors in South Carolina endorsing his run for the Democratic nomination. But when contacted by The Associated Press, several ministers said they have yet to decide who will get their vote and were unclear how they ended up on the Illinois senator’s list.

“I really haven’t decided to endorse him yet. I was thinking about it,” said the Rev. Clifford Gaymon of Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church in rural Clarendon County.

…

But some ministers said their names were used without their permission. Gaymon, mistakenly listed as retired on the Obama list, said he’s been to campaign events to find out more about the Illinois senator, but did not receive a phone call about making an endorsement.

The Rev. Michael Blue of Door of Hope Christian Church in Marion was added to the list without permission and has asked the Obama campaign to take his name off the list, said church spokesman Ronnie Green.

Apparently, Hillary has had a similar problem. No word yet on whether the ministers who have requested removal from Obama’s list have pooled enough money to get on Mike Huckabee’s.

Fred Thompson had this stinger to offer Hillary Clinton

“There is no woman on the horizon that ought to be president next year, let’s all agree on that.”

I’ve said it before,  and I hope through next year I remain right. Both the first black president and the first woman president will both be Republicans. Count on it.

From Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy (one of my favorite blogs)

Nanosolar promises solar power at lower cost than coal, Gristmill’s David Roberts reports. If they can deliver — and the commenters are quite skeptical — it would be a major milestone. Indeed, if solar and other renewable power sources could compete with carbon-based energy sources, it would make a transition to a low-carbon economy relatively easy– and if such power sources are cost-competitive, the transition will occur without need for government subsidies and mandates. So, the question is whether Nanosolar and the like can deliver.

If you want the Kyoto Protocol enacted, invest in Nanosolar.  As always, capitalism, working through the free market, will find a way.

Two posts today struck me as worthy of further mention. One was Ben Cunningham’s commentary regarding the causes, solutions and anti-solutions, to poverty. The other is a comment that feeding government largess is, in fact, biblically dictated and moral. Cunningham writes

What, if anything, should be done about income disparity? Nothing. Income disparity is neither evil nor a sign of injustice; it causes neither unemployment nor poverty in the United States. Bad habits and poor life choices cause poverty, not rich people with expensive houses, luxury cars, and country club memberships.

If one examines disaggregated poverty figures carefully, several things jump out. First, most of the poor are unmarried women with children. Second, many are poorly educated, having left school without graduating. Again, poverty in the United States, like poor health, is most often a result of bad habits and poor choices.

Southern Beale believes that taxation is synonymous with Christian morality

This is where taxation comes in. For people of faith, a more equitable tax structure that asks the wealthy and corporations to contribute more fairly and create revenue for social programs is Biblical. Not this feel-good, conscience easing “tough love” taxation of the Reagan and Bush years. The poor should not pay 11 cents on every dollar while the rich pay just four cents. That is immoral and un-Christian.*

Indeed, it makes complete, coherent, indelible sense. Coercive charity is spiritually hollow - it’s not charity at all. Without delving into a deeper theological discussion, Christian charity comes from the heart, not from the cold, alabaster laden bureaucratic rectory of Washington, DC. No matter how many buzzwords (”fair”, “equitable”, etc.) you throw into the stew, one cannot justify taking care of one’s brother by forcefully taking from one’s neighbor, especially on a Christian basis - no blessing comes of that. Wealth redistribution is an entirely secular exercise.

On the contrary, convincing your neighbor to take care of his brother is an entirely legitimate course of action, because it interjects a component of free will. Alas, for the bulk of the Left, that appears to be too much work.**

Both Ben’s and Beale’s posts lie in a similar vein, as they are studies in contrast. Cunningham is correct. Poverty is not an effect of societal inequality, it is a sum of bad decisions. There is really not much argument as to what the causes of poverty are - if you complete your education, get married after the age of twenty-five, and then wait until after marriage to have children, you are practically guaranteed a life outside poverty. Some people don’t do that. I’m happy to help steady the ship - some. To compel help on a limitless basis, however, erodes society of its underpinnings. The key to increasing one’s standard of living is increasing one’s productivity. And despite forty years of utter failure in depending on that hamlet on the Potomac for a solution, there is a significant segment of the electorate that still does not realize there is no other way.

In closing, the term “inequality” is one of the Left’s most divisive electoral carrots, not different in any meaningful way from certain sand-laden dictatorships blaming certain minorities for their society’s ills. Liberals blame the wealthy and successful for the same purpose - solution deflection and political support. No one wants to make the children of irresponsible adults suffer, but what is the real solution? Personally, I find wealth distribution immoral, counterproductive, and constitutionally without merit. Further, wealth redistribution is pointless if incentives remain the same. And somehow, for some reason, every time a liberal discusses wealth distribution, the incentives of the beneficiaries are never expected to change, baiting individuals with false hope, and then never helping them be self-sufficient. Now that is an immorality of the highest order.

* The numbers cited are incorrect, least because there is no frame of reference. The top 10% carry the most burden. The top 25% carry nearly all the burden. Sure the poor pay some taxes, but no income tax, and besides, no one should be free of all taxation. Further, any tax on corporations functions as an inflationary tax. The increased costs are passed entirely onto the shareholders and consumers. To rub salt in this author’s wounds, if I could pay 11 cents on every dollar I’d be dancing in the streets, and that wouldn’t be pretty.

** it’s always easier to dictate a result than achieve it. This dovetails as well with the concept of “negative freedom”, which would really get me going, and is more suitable for a different post.

Bob Krumm is suffering the wrath of the Huckaphiles.

Politico has a roundup sorta post on Barack Obama’s developing populist persona (forgive the colloquialism - I was simply following Obama’s script, which you can see if you click through).

Populism as a strategy certainly feels good in the short term.  Huckabee is all over it. Obama is pushing it. Edwards started it. Ron Paul is a short lived phenom because of it.  But on a national level, over the long hall, it never works. Not since 1828, anyway.

Howard Dean waxed populist in 2004, and it was a scream.  Al Gore went that route in 2000, and almost covered by stealing Florida. One has to go back aways from there to see a truly populist centered campaign.  But unless you count Jimmy Carter in 1976, no one has won in that particular style, and even that was only on the heels of the most devastating presidential scandal since Teapot Dome.

Every time I hear Obama, Edwards and Huckabee speak, my thoughts drift, wondering which one of them will be the first to do a “cross of gold” campaign spot - Huckabee came close. Unfortunately, white crosses don’t count.

Obama is the populist to watch, though. Channeling legendary progressive Henry Wallace, and lifting some of his mid-20th century copy, Obama now seems set to ride out Iowa on niche populist issues, employing a two-forked message focusing on agricultural subsidies and protectionist trade policies. If it works, we may be in for a treat - Obama’s first five year plan would likely be unveiled in New Hampshire.

John Kerry takes on the NFL Network.

Before Catherine was born, Nathan and I agreed upon a fair division of sports allegiances that we would try to impart upon our daughter. Nathan gets the Tennessee Titans and the Atlanta Braves. I get the Maryland Terrapins for both basketball and football (sorry, Catherine … it’s not looking so good these days). We share the Nashville Predators and Sounds.

I have tried to play along, even purchasing a generic Titans jersey for my daughter (as seen in this photo taken several months ago).

I want the Titans to make the playoffs, as this will make my husband happy. However, in the unlikely event that both the Steelers and Titans proceed far enough into the playoffs to face each other, I may have to sneak a Steelers t-shirt under Catherine’s jersey. That way, when the Steelers roll over the Titans with a convincing victory, Catherine can reveal the black and gold with pride. The girl needs something since my pathetic Terps are 6-6 so far this season, including two losses at home against non-ACC opponents. Maybe our baseball team is good this year …