The Supreme Court ruling (6-3) that Oregon may continue to have Doctor-assisted suicide improves my humor, at least until I consider the fact that the ACLU is suing over wire-tapping, without an ounce of proof or even suspicion.

BUT BACK TO THE GOOD NEWS: Under The 10th Amendment, those subjects not defined by the Constitution are remanded to the States -- and I am deeply concerned that Justices Thomas, Scalia and Roberts all voted against the ruling.

They are SUPPOSED to be Constitutionalists, and while the subject of the Court challenge was a specific Congressional Act, the Constitution still rules.

Or at least it should!

The dissent should have CONSIDERED the 10th Amendment -- and on that issue, the "conservative" justices let their religious feelings overcome their Constitutional knowledge.

Too bad. But the results are good, nonetheless.

There are so many subjects about the Democrats, that I simply cannot comprehend.

As an example, Ted Kennedy is REALLY exercised about Judge Alito's membership in some Princeton Alumni Group that forbids both women and minorities -- hell, West Point and Annapolis did that as well as I recall!

Not only that, but the Democrats have a leading Senator from West Virginia who was the Grand Poo-Bah of the Klu Klux Klan, and Democrats are worrying about some Princeton alumni association?

Hell, many of us belonged to groups that banned women when we were younger -- groups like Kiwanis, Rotary...and in my case, the U.S. Submarine Force!

Given Kennedy's standards, (Kennedy has standards?) Jimmy Carter should have been banned as President because he went to USNA AND served in the Submarine Force...hmmmm, perhaps the world would have been better served by applying the "Kennedy Standard" to Carter...)

(I argued while on submarines that we should not ban women in submarines...in fact, I argued that each of us should be ISSUED one...)

There is just so much that I can get my synapses to snap about.

The mind boggles...I guess we earlier gradfuates of Service Academies are all ineligible for selection to damn near anything using the Kennedy Standard since we belonged to organizations that banned women...and certainly that ends any consideration of John McCain for President!

We are getting old, but is it age or are the Old Democrats going over the edge?

Ramsey Clark…as kookie as they come…is a good example of age and International Democrat/Socialist speech and behavior as exists.

Clark was the Poster Child for the Over-the edge members of the Elderly Leftist Wing of the Democratic Party…at least until Harry Belefonte became the darling of the Castro/Hugo Chavez International Socialists.

Leftist Harry spoke to Hugo on TV and said, "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution."

Harry was in Venezuela with another Democratic Party Hollywood leftist, Danny Glover, to support the "Revolution."

Since at least those two (Harry and Ramsey) are wannabe replacements for Jane Fonda as representative of the far left edge – and yet as members of the National Democratic Party – perhaps it is less age than their comfort with the Democratic Party that these people identify with International Socialism.

Many national Democrats probably very accurately feel that these nuts do not represent their national aspirations…but they do not publicly condemn these nuts, nor do they reject association with the only Socialist in the Congress – Bernie Sanders, who is permitted to join the Democratic Senate Caucus.

Nuts exist in both Political Parties – witness Pat Robertson – who qualifies both as Republican Party politically-oriented "nut" and age-wise as "Over-the Hill and Over-the Edge" – but he gets constant criticism from Republicans, and so the "preponderance of Evidence" for "NUTS" goes to the Democrats.

Age is apparently not a necessary criteria – I give you Michael Moore – but not only was his message warmly embraced by the Democrats, but his persona was as well. He is an anti-capitalist socialist who was actually seated next to former President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention.

Although Moore is being distanced by a chastened Democratic Party, the photo of Michael and Jimmy seated next to each other is better evidence than that of John Kerry seated two rows behind Jane Fonda since Michael had to be invited by Jimmy so as to clear Jimmy’s guards.

But this whole subject was occasioned by Harry Belafonte’ remarks…and I was just wondering if there are really of the "millions" who support Chavez’s Communist/Socialist Revolution?

I know we are all getting older, and 100+ channels of TV eats up a lot of writing and acting talent – but surely NBC has got to get some writers off the joy juice and/or Maui Wowee –

I give you the new NBC Show, according to TV News (John Crook, writer) in the San Diego Union…

Book of Daniel

"He is a compassionate, if free-thinking Episcopal Minister who steadfastly believes in Jesus and frequently sees and chats with him. He needs a shoulder to lean on at work, clashes with his conservative Bishop…especially now that a fortune in Church funds has gone missing, along with his sister-in-law’s shady husband. Things are nearly as demanding on the home front, where loving wife… offers support bolstered by her own fondness for mid-day martinis. Their oldest child, 22 year old Peter, is a discretely gay medical student, still struggling with the death of his twin brother. Enterprising, 16 year old daughter, Grace, has started selling pot to finance a career in computer animation, and adopted Chinese son, Adam, is a handsome jock with a very full date book. Small wonder then, that Daniel is popping Vicodin under the disapproving eye of Jesus, a supportive and surprising witty companion who pops in regularly …"

And for this, people spend $4,000 on HDYV?

I guess not just for that, but also to see up-close shots of baseball players spitting…

Hello, Earth?

If there ever was a proposal that called for the proponents to put up a performance bond, it is The Pre-School Initiative. This initiative should be dubbed "The Wing and a Prayer Initiative."

It is difficult to look at the failing California school system and not support almost any initiative that promises any improvement in educational performance, but one must ask if expanding an already failing system, adding population while diluting the quality of teaching still further, will actually improve the process.

If that works, it may be the first time in history. I don’t think that there is already a surplus of good teachers and up-to-date facilities – and if there is, why do our children vie with Louisiana and Arkansas for reading scores? (Worse yet, Louisiana and Arkansas beat us in the latest National Report Card! But then so did almost every State except Hawaii!)

Even assuming that we could expand a failed system while increasing the quality – this initiative would not be the vehicle to do so. First, as experience has taught us over and over, all government programs expand logarithmically and not arithmetically, and every proponent of a new program vastly underestimates the cost as approximating the low end of any prediction.

The pre-school initiative in Quebec estimated the cost would be $230 million after five years – the actual cost after eight years is $1.7 billion.

The benefits as predicted by the proponents are equally suspect. In Chicago, where a RAND study is used to predict great things, graduation rates have indeed improved but still do not reach 50% among minority students. The RAND study is based on information gathered by Arthur Reynolds at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in his 2001 paper.

Harvard University Civil Rights Project already puts California Black drop-out rates at 50% and there is nowhere in the RAND report any suggestion that rate will go higher. It didn’t in Chicago even with their pre-school program that lasted several times as long as the one projected for California, according to the Reason Foundation.

Then there is the inherent problem in setting a tax increase only on one segment of the California society – the wealthy. At the same time that the Alternative Minimum Tax is causing maximum heartache in the nations tax schedule, here comes another "soak the rich scheme."

Just in case you have not followed the arcane argument on the Alternative Minimum Tax, it is pretty simple to explain. The Alternative Minimum Tax was instituted in 1970s to get a few hundred rich people who were not paying their ‘fair share."

Viola! Here we are a few years later, and inflation has set in, and the "soak the rich" scheme may effect 17 MILLION taxpayers!

Similarly, any tax specifically on the wealthy will inevitably encompass many more people as time goes on, and that will necessarily be needed as the costs exceed the estimate.

The Law of Unintended Consequences has not yet been repealed.

This Pre-school concept needs to be examined in a light other than "ANYTHING for the children." We are a State, County, and City government in DEEP debt, and hardly in a position to take on more costly programs. The rich will not stand for being further taxed, because the concept "That which you tax you have fewer of, and that which you subsidize you have more of" is an economic law that has not also been repealed.

We are about to have fewer rich people in this state – and we need them, and their taxes for other things.
Taxing the rich may become such a slippery slope to fund desirable programs that we drive the rich further to their out-of-state homes.

I am sorry, but people react negatively to pain! Compulsory Utopians believe in static economics, while dynamic economics is the rule. Compulsory Utopians need to remember the ill-fated 1990s Luxury Tax on boats and airplanes -- it not only did not produce more tax revenue – it actually drove boat-builders and aircraft makers out of business with the associated loss of jobs. The boat-builders alone laid off more than 25,000 people!

The 1990 Luxury Tax, supposedly on the rich, not only did not produce more tax revenue – it was an economic disaster that Legislators rushed to repeal, but not until many were hurt.

Those who support this ill-conceived so-called education legislation should be required to put their retirement checks at risk through a performance bond – because you can bet the farm that the results will not be as good as predicted, and the costs will be horrendous!

The supporters must not be able to once again, simply shrug and say, "Well our intentions were good.’

This State has sufficient non-performing educational assets to last a millennium!

If there ever was a proposal that called for the proponents to put up a performance bond, it is The Pre-School Initiative. This initiative should be dubbed "The Wing and a Prayer Initiative."

It is difficult to look at the failing California school system and not support almost any initiative that promises any improvement in educational performance, but one must ask if expanding an already failing system, adding population while diluting the quality of teaching still further, will actually improve the process.

If that works, it may be the first time in history. I don’t think that there is already a surplus of good teachers and up-to-date facilities – and if there is, why do our children vie with Louisiana and Arkansas for reading scores? (Worse yet, Louisiana and Arkansas beat us in the latest National Report Card! But then so did almost every State except Hawaii!)

Even assuming that we could expand a failed system while increasing the quality – this initiative would not be the vehicle to do so. First, as experience has taught us over and over, all government programs expand logarithmically and not arithmetically, and every proponent of a new program vastly underestimates the cost as approximating the low end of any prediction.

The pre-school initiative in Quebec estimated the cost would be $230 million after five years – the actual cost after eight years is $1.7 billion.

The benefits as predicted by the proponents are equally suspect. In Chicago, where a RAND study is used to predict great things, graduation rates have indeed improved but still do not reach 50% among minority students. The RAND study is based on information gathered by Arthur Reynolds at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in his 2001 paper.

Harvard University Civil Rights Project already puts California Black drop-out rates at 50% and there is nowhere in the RAND report any suggestion that rate will go higher. It didn’t in Chicago even with their pre-school program that lasted several times as long as the one projected for California, according to the Reason Foundation.

Then there is the inherent problem in setting a tax increase only on one segment of the California society – the wealthy. At the same time that the Alternative Minimum Tax is causing maximum heartache in the nations tax schedule, here comes another "soak the rich scheme."

Just in case you have not followed the arcane argument on the Alternative Minimum Tax, it is pretty simple to explain. The Alternative Minimum Tax was instituted in 1970s to get a few hundred rich people who were not paying their ‘fair share."

Viola! Here we are a few years later, and inflation has set in, and the "soak the rich" scheme may effect 17 MILLION taxpayers!

Similarly, any tax specifically on the wealthy will inevitably encompass many more people as time goes on, and that will necessarily be needed as the costs exceed the estimate.

The Law of Unintended Consequences has not yet been repealed.

This Pre-school concept needs to be examined in a light other than "ANYTHING for the children." We are a State, County, and City government in DEEP debt, and hardly in a position to take on more costly programs. The rich will not stand for being further taxed, because the concept "That which you tax you have fewer of, and that which you subsidize you have more of" is an economic law that has not also been repealed.

We are about to have fewer rich people in this state – and we need them, and their taxes for other things.
Taxing the rich may become such a slippery slope to fund desirable programs that we drive the rich further to their out-of-state homes.

I am sorry, but people react negatively to pain! Compulsory Utopians believe in static economics, while dynamic economics is the rule. Compulsory Utopians need to remember the ill-fated 1990s Luxury Tax on boats and airplanes -- it not only did not produce more tax revenue – it actually drove boat-builders and aircraft makers out of business with the associated loss of jobs. The boat-builders alone laid off more than 25,000 people!

The 1990 Luxury Tax, supposedly on the rich, not only did not produce more tax revenue – it was an economic disaster that Legislators rushed to repeal, but not until many were hurt.

Those who support this ill-conceived so-called education legislation should be required to put their retirement checks at risk through a performance bond – because you can bet the farm that the results will not be as good as predicted, and the costs will be horrendous!

The supporters must not be able to once again, simply shrug and say, "Well our intentions were good.’

This State has sufficient non-performing educational assets to last a millennium!