Fûz for Senate

Debate highlights

2007-05-18T19:51:00.000-06:00

Brit Hume: Senator Fûz, the next question is for you. Let's say that we have a terrorist in custody who may know the whereabouts of a ticking nuclear timebomb; would you approve of the use of torture to cause the terrorist to lead us to the bomb?

Fusilier N. Pundit: Brit, that whole question seems to me to be a straw man, and a kind of silly one. We're not going to find ourselves in that situation.

Given the state of our intelligence apparatus, we're not very likely to know that a bomb is out there unless the bombers have disclosed it, and I don't see them doing that. We're also unlikely to have the guy in custody who'd know the whereabouts of such a weapon, or if we did, we wouldn't likely know what that guy knows, to even have the chance to consider torture as a means to get him to spill his guts about it.

And our intelligence services are far too infatuated with hardware and intercepts and datamining, they have neglected the human side of intelligence gathering, so we don't have enough intel assets dedicated to solving that kind of problem. We don't have enough Arabic or Farsi or Urdu speakers, whom we'd need to really get inside the guy's head.

So as I said, the question is a strawman, but in the shadow of that strawman is a serious dialog about the ethics of torture. That's a tough one.

Senator McCain asserts that America would lose something essential about ourselves by taking up torture. He's close but not quite there, and he lost me completely when he said we'd lose the respect of the community of nations, or some such, offsetting anything we'd gain by the information that torture obtained for us.

I don't put much stock in the notion of the community of nations. Many of the nations we're dealing with, either as veiled adversaries or as questionable allies, have terrible records of human rights violations---torture included---that they have perpetrated against their own dissenting citizens, not just captured soldiers.

That said, I agree that we don't torture---we do not maim or disfigure---because if we did we'd be stooping to the level of our adversaries, and we value our own self-image more than we value our own lives. Men in uniform call that honor, and it's a duty we owe to all men in all uniforms, not just American ones.

Note how I qualified that---men in all uniforms, and maim and disfigure. The US military is bound by laws of armed conflict, and they are so bound because our political leaders chose to do so. Those laws of armed conflict are almost as old as armed conflict itself, and they emerged as a coherent system of laws that that reflect how humans behave and expect others to behave.

Those who ignore the laws do not deserve the protection afforded by them. They do not deserve to be called soldiers. They're spies or saboteurs, and those same laws of armed conflict specify a very different standard of treatment for spies and saboteurs.

I believe many of the people we are holding at Guantanamo were unlawful combatants. They were not wearing uniforms, they were hiding among civilians, they were massacring civilians at the time they were taken into custody. As such, we don't owe them the honorable treatment we extended to lawful combatants in past conflicts, or the treatment we expect for our own soldiers should they be captured. We definitely don't owe them legal counsel. At most we need to engage lawyers to determine their status as lawful or unlawful combatants at the time of capture, and from that point forward we know how we're obligated to handle them.

I won't go down a laundry list of interrogation techniques or treatments suitable or unsuitable for unlawful combatants, ruling them yea or nay against that standard; that's something for the JAGs and the generals and our heads of state to discuss behind closed doors. But we have two standards, arising from military tradition and explained by formal laws we've chosen to obey. It is imperative we do not confuse those standards or behave as if the standards didn't exist.

If that means we deprive an unlawful combatant of sleep for a week or two, or we slip him some Ecstasy and one of our female intelligence officers dons a bikini and feeds him a ham sandwich, I see no harm, no foul. Any photographs coming out of that interrogation that we can use to humiliate other muharibun into disclosing their secrets are no harm, no foul either.

Brit Hume: Time's up. Thank you, Mr. Pundit.

Millions for asteroid surveillance, not one cent for greenhouse emissions controls

2007-02-17T20:57:00.000-07:00

On my watch, no further Federal funding will be provided to the study of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, their impact, curtailment, or quota systems, until a system is fielded and tested to detect, catalog, traject, and intercept any planetesimal greater than 100 meters in diameter capable of Earth impact in the next 10 years.

All you need to know

2006-12-20T18:45:00.000-07:00

. . . about the potential for abuse of dynamic entry is neatly encapsulated in the first 7 minutes of Terry Gilliam's Brazil.

If I had could dream, one of my dreams would be that the next Congress would limit the use of dynamic entry.

Navelgazing

2006-11-12T21:27:00.000-07:00

I posted over at NZBear's poll seeking important questions of strategery for the now-minority GOP.

Many bloggers assert that the GOP lost Congress in part because of its failure to rein in porkbarrel spending while emergency funding was directed to the areas struck by Hurricane Katrina. So indirectly, had Katrina response been more organized and its money better accounted for, and had governments from local to Federal levels better understood their respective roles and adhered to them, the Porkbusters movement might never have gotten traction and the GOP could possibly have held on to Congress.

As it was, President Bush proposed expansion of the Federal role, fundamentally altering the relationship of States to the Federal government, in my opinion without any justification to do so, in a move that appeared to be raw pandering.

Clearly it behooves the GOP to look at the Federal government's proper role in disaster response, for the sake of the people affected by the disaster. What is the Federal government's role in natural disaster response, how will you explain or defend that definition, and how will you restrain the Federal government from expanding beyond that defined role? How might you use Federal power to protect the rights of the people affected by such disasters, should it appear that local or State governments are violating them?

. . . and . . .

Ryan Sager explains how the GOP used to represent the fusion of interests among religious conservatives, advocates of small government, and strong national defenders. It seems though that in the last 6 years, the religious conservatives have been blatantly pandered to (gay marriage and Terry Schiavo, Internet gambling ban, for example) while national defense has fared acceptably, and small government is not even on the radar (Medicare Rx, No Child Left Behind, campaign finance 'reform', Internet gambling ban).

Do you see the GOP returning to a balance among these constituencies, and if so, how will you work to restore it?

By all means visit there and enhance my questions' standing. For all the good it might do you.

Senator Frist, take down this secret hold!

2006-08-28T19:13:00.000-06:00

I will not support a secret hold on legislation that impairs the transparency of operation of the Federal Government.

A nagging problem remains, however: Senate rules on collegiality may trump honesty to one's constituents. What is to keep a Senator who did place the hold on S.2590 from saying through his or her staffer that he or she didn't?

Would appointment of Senators have been better in this case? Can't say. A State has every bit as much incentive to solicit a Federal bribe in the form of pork, as would a group of voters in a city or county---perhaps more.

Quick hits on policy

2006-03-06T14:51:00.000-07:00

Illegal immigration, border security, economic impact of and dependence upon immigrants:

Control the borders. Use lethal force if necessary.
Make damned sure the borders are controlled and we can identify anyone crossing that border. Pay attention to people crossing the border, less on contraband.
Are the borders controlled? Are we effectively identifying every beating heart that enters the US? OK.
Establish a guest-worker program that is compatible with the controlled borders. Guest workers need to leave the country periodically, whether to vote in their home country's elections or to pay home country taxes, I really don't give a damn.
Only the worker enters the country. No family, no spouse.
Guest workers must leave, once or twice a year, and they have to provide proof that they did. The controlled border lets them back in without hassle when they present this proof. This requirement reduces the impact on the worker being away from home and family.
Like any other Federal law (and this one must be Federal), give it an arbitrary sunset, slightly longer than one Senatorial term. If it works, it will be renewed.
As Federal law, stake out clearly to the States that Federal law decides how these guest-workers can be handled. States may not issue identity documents to them nor recognize any identity documents they wish. Only the Federally issued guest-worker ID will be honored. States can issue motor vehicle operator licenses to them but only in conjunction with the guest-worker ID; the State-issued license will be distinct and explicitly becomes void without the guest-worker ID.
The guest-worker ID will allow them to open bank accounts, rent apartments and post-office boxes, buy, rent or sell automobiles, borrow money, and otherwise enjoy the benefits of a free market.
Deny the guest-workers eligibility for as many State-paid or -delivered benefits as possible. Social Security, Medicare, workman's comp. Let the employers provide these benefits if they must.
The employers are responsible for remitting guest-workers' taxes to their countries of origin, if applicable.
Do not allow unions to force guest-workers to join.
Do not tax guest workers for goods and services for which they are ineligible. Make the relative costs of hiring a guest-worker versus a US citizen starkly visible to everybody---positive or negative.
Wait seven years. Watch ag commodity prices, new home prices, rates for landscaping, hotel room rates, you name it. Vote accordingly.

I haven't always held this opinion, used to lean hard towards the "open borders, free market" view. After some consideration, recent conversations with my brother (keeper of Scooter), and the steady increase of blog and news tempo on the topic, my opinions have changed. The US is still dependent upon inexpensive labor, partly because US law has gradually made native US labor too damned expensive. Illegal immigration is substituted for one big fat inevitable reason, it's cheaper even after massive attempts to interdict it. If everyone can see the true cost of both imported and domestic labor, the policy decisions---the politics---will sort themselves out.

Screw nuance

2006-02-18T10:28:00.000-07:00

Chaz suggests this as a campaign theme. I can't claim that my campaign so far has adhered to it, but it has that direct, Western-ish appeal.

talking smack to power

2005-12-18T19:58:00.000-07:00

I received a fundraising letter recently, and I wrote this in reply instead:

Dear Senator Thomas and the Wyoming GOP:

Thank you for your recent letter seeking my support for the Republican Party.

Before I can commit financial support, I need to become more familiar with the Party’s legislative agenda, both in my new home State and in the US Congress.

I am very concerned that Social Security privatization has stalled, and that our President, fine man though he is, has not summoned the necessary support from the GOP to pass this legislation. It is also troubling that the GOP-led Congress is on a spending jag that rivals the bloated budgets of past Democrat-controlled Congresses. As a serviceman, I make only so much money, but I donate what I can and I make it count. I can’t give you any if that money continues to be taxed away from me, borrowed by Congress and spent foolishly. Please look at Porkbusters, then look deep into the appropriations for Wyoming and pare what you can: there’s a war on.

The right to keep and bear arms is also important to me. With a GOP-led Congress in place for years, the RKBA should be enjoying a renaissance; yet the misnamed Assault Weapon Ban barely missed reauthorization, and replacement parts for these arms cannot be imported. BATFE is a rogue agency. Guns were seized from Katrina-flooded homeowners---by National Guardsmen! Lukewarm GOP support for my RKBA is scarcely better than the open hostility of Democrats. Please talk to the Firearms Coalition about their legislative agenda, and make it yours.

I’d like to help you, sincerely, but I need to know the GOP’s plans. and their will to execute them.

Respectfully,
Fûz

for a past Senator

2005-11-26T00:49:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Salazar:

I oppose any attempt by Congress to disrupt or question or impugn the profits of oil companies. If they are profiting from the recent disturbances caused by the hurricanes, it is because our energy infrastructure is not allowed to pursue profits and attract investors in a more conventional way. Such investment and profits would give the entire economy the clear signals necessary for them to anticipate disasters and the better to position themselves to withstand the effects of such disasters. The oil companies deserve what little blip in their bottom lines this "windfall" has given them. So do the people who have invested in them.

Bringing farmers in to testify before Congress about high energy prices is hardly wisdom. Farmers have received, and continue to receive, obscene subsidies that easily offset the high energy prices that they experience. The US government caused those high energy prices because the worldwide demand for oil has increased while US supply of oil has been artificially held constant and distribution systems are forced to cater to a fragmented market.

You would do everyone a favor not by trouping through the "suffererers," but by opening Congress to the people who had the forethought to invest in oil, and to invest in uncertainty, to invest in life as we know it every day. Once you've welcomed these investors and entrepreneurs to testify, listen to what they have to say.

If you have but one shred of decency, keep Uncle Sam's hands off of oil shale. It will prosper on its own if it is left unsullied. Leave this resource in private hands and open to private investment, and our dependence on foreign oil will diminish. For oil shale to succeed, all you, and Congress, have to do is nothing.

I am generally skeptical about the USA-PATRIOT Act and the level of discretion it appears to give to the Federal government over investigation of non-state actors. I am concerned that this Act is used overwhelmingly to prosecute the Wars on Drugs, guns, and pornography, and it is toothless in pursuit of genuine non-state Islamic terrorists. I'd just as soon trash it as revise or limit it.

From what I have read about Samuel Alito and his past rulings, I think he will make a sound and acceptable Supreme Court justice, and you should vote to confirm him.

Respectfully,
Fusilier N. Pundit
Your future colleague and former constituent

Advice to protestor

2005-08-25T21:16:00.000-06:00

No, Mrs Sheehan, I do not agree with the notion of seeking a meeting with the President to convince him to withdraw US troops from Iraq. The decision to send them in the first place was taken by many of my colleagues here in Congress, as it is in their power alone to commit the United States to armed conflict.

Congress tells the President to go to war, as it did indeed in this case; the President is obligated to execute that war with the men and materials that Congress appropriates for that purpose. I suggest you talk to them about this matter and leave the President to handle the job we've given him.

Guns, butter, and helicopters

2005-08-24T20:46:00.000-06:00

Reason Online's email brought to my attention that the US military helicopter fleet, collectively, is hardly any better off than our strategic bomber fleet. We cannibalize the unfit, and continuously upgrade the rest; all of them continue to age.

[T]he newest additions to the Marine Corps helicopter fleet: three MH-53E Sea Dragons that had been sitting in an aircraft "boneyard" in the Arizona desert for about a decade. .... The Super Stallion is the Corps' only heavy lift helicopter, and its workhorse. It moves large amounts of cargo and troops long distances and performs rescue missions. .... The Marines' fleet of 150 is working hard.

No new heavy-lift military helicopter is in the pipeline. That's unacceptable.

I support development of a next-generation heavy-lift (22.5 tons) helicopter. One informal proposal calls it the SpeedCrane (you'll have to scroll way down on this page to see their argument and mockup). Though I prefer a genuine NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) design, I'll defer to the winner of a fly-off.

Who I'd call to testify

2005-08-18T22:05:00.000-06:00

As a Senator, I would have the opportunity to ask questions and present witnesses and evidence in committee hearings regarding practically any subject. One subject growing in importance to me is intellectual property, and its relationship to the entertainment industry.

What troubles me is the appearance that this industry is seeking longer duration of copyright protection, and stiffer penalties for violations, to compensate for obsolete, opaque business models, ostensibly to protect artists but in my opinion only to facilitate screwing them.

Who would I call to testify on this topic? Prince. Janis Ian. Who else? Maybe that Rodriguez guy who did Sin City? There have to be a few disaffected screenwriters who'd like to talk about the boards that cartelized the production of motion pictures. Or fan-fic creators who've been threatened with lawsuits, for the crime of liking a work so much they emulate it. Or the businesses that dub rough language out of Hollywood motion pictures.

I don't see much difference between profanity-scrubbing, on the one hand, and aging Boomers in the movie industry investing millions into remakes of the favorite Saturday-morning TV shows and sitcoms of their childhoods. Agreed, the aging Boomers have the licenses, copyrights, trademarks, contracts, and so on. But what they don't have is creativity or lives. In both cases, the original vision of the artist is disregarded and a different vision is being imposed. Whose new vision departs further from the original artist's?

Too bad I can't ask Isaac Asimov to come back from the dead to testify about how his Robot novels were butchered; nor can I summon Robert Heinlein regarding the 'treatment' Starship Troopers received.

But I can ask someone from the motion picture industry to comment on how the appearance of smoking in motion pictures is out of the industry's control because "that's what the script called for, and we respect the integrity of the script and the intent of the writer."

Maybe George Jones would like to testify about how he was plied with liquor and cocaine by a manager or two---not to excuse his drinking and drugging, but to show that the entertainment industry has a nasty habit of capturing and constraining talent, often through very ugly means. Hey, Matt Welch's review of three athletes' biographies fits into this theme too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not contemplating sticking Uncle Sugar's camel's nose further into the tent. Far from it. But the industry's claim to intellectual property, and Federal laws to protect or enhance it, must be predicated on the viability of the business model and the value of the property. What are they really losing, and do they really need (more) law to protect it?

Sign the petition, I did

2005-08-18T21:28:00.000-06:00

I encourage all to visit and sign a petition to save thousands of M14 rifles from the scrap heap, and instead market them through the Director of Civilian Marskmanship. Save a remarkable rifle, save Uncle Sugar's money, maybe even own a remarkable rifle.

Read the petition, then sign it.

Why indeed?

2005-07-17T21:53:00.000-06:00

Todd Zywicki asks,

My impression is that the humor has gone out of politics, especially on serious subjects. If so, why is that? One explanation could be that politicians these days are essentially humorless--they are so heavily stage-managed and scripted that there is no room for humor.

I intend to load my campaign and my service with humor. The problem will be keeping it from lapsing into cynicism.

No on Gonzales for AG

2005-02-04T10:51:00.000-07:00

If I were a Senator, I'd vote against confirming Alberto Gonzales as President Bush's attorney general.

It has little or nothing to do with his so-called torture memos. It has more to do with his misunderstanding of Second Amendment liberties.

I would, of course, support invocation of cloture to end any filibuster to prevent a vote on his confirmation.

Federalism---made in Montana

2005-01-08T22:45:00.000-07:00

Someone in Montana has read carefully this Ninth Circuit ruling and proposes a Montana law crafted to define intrastate commerce in firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition, fencing Federal legislative power away from them.

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

That someone has done outstanding work.

But it has a mote in its eye!!!

2004-12-19T10:47:00.000-07:00

I was at a Christmas gathering Friday night, surrounded by other Libertarians, and the topic of Social Security reform came up. At once, as usually happens among Libertarians, the very term reform was in dispute, because my fellow conversationalist was of the opinion that the choices of funds proposed as investment vehicles by the Bush Administration's reform plan were not sufficiently broad, thus rendering the proposal little more than a huge transfer of wealth from the little guy to those who already have ample access to capital.

We went back and forth about that, as I took the standpoint that any expansion of stock ownership among the American population would improve their lot and encourage them to change their political tastes towards capitalism and away from Great Society-style programs.

My point is not to reproduce or continue the conversation here but to make some observations.

First, Libertarians are being triangulated and we'll have to deal with it. Social Security privatization or reform or what you choose to call it, is our idea. The GOP is taking it. I'd rather be pleased that it has a better than snowball's chance of being implemented, than despair that it was taken from us. And I'd rather participate and try to influence the direction of it than criticize from the shadows. We'll be triangulated many more times unless we elect some people to state legislatures and the Congress and can present these ideas with our brand on them. The branding is important, any marketer will tell you.

Second, privatization could be implemented in stages, gradually broadening the number and types of investment vehicles to receive the privatized funds. It might be a worthwhile concession to go forward with the limited range of vehicles now, until voter, consumer, and retiree confidence rises, and sponsor legislation to broaden it later. I'm 44, and I'll probably be excluded from privatization as it's being marketed today. But I'm hopeful for future rounds, even if I'll be means-tested out.

Third, there is literally no way we can enforce legislation that programs that broadening in out-years. Legislation passed today cannot be meaningfully enforced on legislators in the future. At best and as usual, the future legislators will ignore it. If they are compelled to recognize the past legislation, they can repeal it or amend it.

Should there be made a way to enforce out-year legislation on a future Congress? I don't think so without a Constitutional amendment, but that's a discussion I'd like to start,if only to articulate why it shouldn't be attempted.

This is a two-edged sword that can cut our way---if SS privatization passes, warts and all, we can go back in for a future round to broaden the range of funds, allow more people to privatize, and so forth. Incrementalism is how we got into this mess, New Deal included. Incrementalism, with discipline, courage, and tact (translate that to marketing), can get us out.

Electoral college

2004-09-25T10:05:00.000-06:00

I oppose any movement away from the Electoral College. I oppose any actions by the States to proportionately allocate their electoral votes instead of committing them in the present "winner takes all" system.

Intellectual property

2004-09-21T19:36:00.000-06:00

I comment on Shannon Love's post about how digital property and privacy rights conflict.

Further on intelligence

2004-09-17T20:50:00.000-06:00

Pejman Yousefzadeh agrees with me, I think, regarding the separation of intelligence analysis from intelligence operations, in this TechCentralStation column.

He also brings up a valuable point I had missed in my own earlier post: one weakness in our intelligence services has to do with how they recruit people to serve in them, and the kinds of people the recruit. It has been said that our spooks consist almost entirely of Mormons and thugs; Mormons who live such a "clean" lifestyle that the people who assess applicants for their security risk are likely to give them a pass, and thugs who bring just enough of the "evil Kirk" with them to leaven the Mormons. Some thugs must be admitted just to get the job done. Other thugs simply slip through because they have so little remorse over the thuggish things they've done that they don't register on a polygraph.

This is a formula for disaster. We have to recruit people from other walks of life, and predicate hiring less on security risk and more on creativity, talent, breadth of experience. The builder of the OSS, precursor of the CIA, wanted Ivy Leaguers because in his words "they make the best second-story men." He knew he needed people who would take risks and not necessarily keep their noses clean.

Polygraph examinations and occasional drug abuse keep some very useful, talented people out of the running for our intelligence community. Polygraphs discourage people because there's no scientific basis for using them, so their only remaining purpose is to intimidate. Too bad they didn't intimidate that guy named Hanssen. Bright people tend not to want to work for organizations that predicate their hiring on a twentieth-century equivalent of phrenology.

Drug abuse, well, nobody wants to cop to that. Nor does anybody want to admit that the millions of people who have used recreational drugs do so only occasionally, leaving no lasting mark on their performance or reliability. By the way, I inhaled. I'm neither a Mormon nor a thug.

But let's get on with the real issue. We need good people working in the intelligence community, and apart from Mormons, thugs, and enemy spies trained to defeat polygraphs, we don't have enough diversity hiring into this community.

Defense acquisitions

2004-09-12T14:31:00.000-06:00

I am critical of the Stryker combat vehicle. It has its place, but that place is not the narrow streets and RPG traps in Iraq.

The up-armored HMMWV is not adequate to that task. Attempts to apply more armor to the Hummer so it can duke it out in Iraq more than doubles its cost and exacerbates the wear on its pneumatic tires.

We have many M113 armored personnel carriers, that fare better against RPGs and IEDs than the up-armored Hummer, can turn within their own footprint (the wheeled Stryker cannot), will support applique armor better than either, is air-liftable and air-droppable---today. And the M113 Gavins are bought and paid for, while we have to wait for Strykers to be manufactured and Hummers to be uparmored. We can probably fight effectively in Iraq in Gavins we have now, while others are being improved.

Whining about 527s

2004-09-08T22:13:00.000-06:00

Mr President, when you signed McCain-Feingold into law, you either knew what you were signing and signed it anyway for the votes, or you didn't know what you were signing, in which case you should have vetoed it.

Sir, you have no right to complain about the effect that law had on how political speech is now bought and paid for, or who's buying or paying. And I suspect that the votes you thought you were gaining by signing McCain-Feingold won't be there anyway. Those voters aren't your kind.

It's going to get worse before it gets better; now 501(c)'s are going to get scrutiny from FEC as well as IRS. NRA is very unhappy about the curtailment of their political speech, for example, and President Bush is going to need NRA to win four more years.

A possible upside, though, to the likely reelection of the President: it may prove to the activists, to Congress, and to the attentive voter that elections cannot necessarily be bought. If George W Bush wins a second term, while being outspent two or three Soros dollars to his one, maybe we can build the case to the American people that campaign finance reform isn't even needed: when Americans vote they follow their hearts and minds, not advertiser-bought eyeballs.

Changing how campaigns are financed has not improved our political processes. Then we must answer the question, then what will?

Intelligence czar?

2004-09-08T21:51:00.000-06:00

The Central Intelligence Agency was supposed to be the, uh, central intelligence agency---all intelligence gathered by all of the various US intelligence arms was supposed to pass through the CIA so it could assess, assemble, integrate and analyze it.

I don't support the creation of yet another cabinet-level post just to ride herd over an agency whose purpose was to ride herd over other agencies.

Though I do not have a background in US intelligence matters, nor have I read in this subject widely, I have a sense of what I will and will not support regarding fixing it. I do concede that our intelligence apparatus is broken.

Separate the operations and gathering functions of CIA (let's call them the Spooks) from the analysis and integration functions (let's call them the Wonks).
Pass all intelligence from all sources through the Wonks. That includes Naval, Army, Secret Service, and domestic FBI sources, and NSA intercepts, as well as from the Spooks.
Place both Spooks and Wonks under the DoD where they belong. It's what they do.
Separate the domestic counterespionage and counter-terrorism functions of the FBI into their own agency under DoD, and ensure their mindset is one of intelligence rather than one of law enforcement.
What's left of the FBI stays with DOJ. Remind me, what exactly is Constitutional about a Federal law enforcement agency?
I don't care much for the Department of Homeland Security either. Isn't that what the DoD is for?
Overhaul how information is declassified, and apply more people and better criteria to the process of declassifying state secrets. Put this function in the Wonks' agency.
Rotate case officers and analysts from the using agencies through the Wonk agency, and indoctrinate them to push more of the intel together ("connecting the dots") and outward to the agencies who would exploit it.

For readers who are concerned that I would preserve, or enhance, a dangerous feature of the modern Hyperstate: the United States has enemies. Like it or not. Some of these enemies were once our friends. Some of our best friends were at one time bitter enemies. Things change. Even if perfectly-inoffensive model Libertarians were in charge today, and had been in charge of US policy for the last century, we'd still have enemies.

Our government would be abdicating its first responsibility if it did not take measures to identify those enemies, their intentions, and their capabilities. A peaceable government will take great care to collect such intelligence and use it responsibly. It will save more lives than it will take. Keeping the government peaceable and responsible is up to You, the Voter.

Judicial nominations

2004-09-08T21:49:00.000-06:00

If elected, I assure you that I will vote to invoke cloture against any filibuster intended to keep a judicial nomination vote off the Senate floor.

It will not matter whether I support or oppose the nominee. The nominee deserves the up-or-down vote of the full Senate.

Taxation

2004-08-10T17:48:00.000-06:00

I today officially endorse the FairTax.

CCW

2004-08-03T22:53:00.000-06:00

I've heard many politicians state "I believe in the Second Amendment."

I don't know what that means, exactly. It's as if the question were about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Some people believe in the Easter Bunny, most people do not.

The Second Amendment is not a matter of belief or non-belief. The Second Amendment is there, and the matter before most politicians is not one of belief, but of enforcement. Is the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, enforced? Will that politician enforce it in its original plain English meaning, or not?

I stand for repeal of the National Firearms Act, both Gun Control Acts, all of them. I will allow Federal laws to remain in place to prohibit a violent felon or an adjudicated incompetent from owning a firearm. But that's about it.

I will also support a Federal interpretation of the Second Amendment, enforceable upon the States through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, to require the States to protect the Second Amendment as an individual right.

The US Constitution presents a baseline of protected rights, and States can only recognize this baseline, or floor if you will, or a State can recognize more expansive rights, stepping up from that floor with its guarantees of freedom. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those rights.

The US Second Amendment does not mention concealed carry, for example. So it is not clear that concealed carry enjoys any kind of Federal protection as a civil right. However, some State constitutions include language that reserves to their legislatures the power to regulate concealed carry. Colorado is one of them.

However, you understand that rights, like well-constructed houses, reinforce themselves. As stud connects to sill below and header above, so we have Fifth, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights that will reinforce the Second. Open carry of arms in public constitutes one of the "floors" of this right.

The Federal interpretation of the Second that I'd enforce against the States would be that open carry is protected everywhere and at all times, and that concealed carry can only be regulated by those States who have reserved that power for themselves in their respective Constitutions.

States whose Constitutions make no mention of a right to keep and bear arms will not be allowed to regulated concealed carry, because they will default to the Federal right, which is mute on the subject. It's important to note that, during the time of our Constitution's ratification, concealed carry was commonplace, and open carry even more so.

States whose Constitutions include a right to keep and bear arms, but are silent on the topic of concealed carry, will have to allow concealed carry without any regulation. No license, no permit, no fingerprints, no fees.

States whose Constitutions include language that denies concealed carry as a right will be allowed to regulate it, but persons' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the law will require that States will have very even-handed, nonprejudicial CCW laws. The license must be shall-issue, it shall be affordable, it shall be granted promptly, it shall be valid everywhere throughout the State, and it shall be reciprocal with other States. Licensees will not be treated as "persons of interest."

Vermonters will be able carry concealed as they visit relatives in Massachusetts. Visitors from Yreka, California, or Grand Junction, Colorado, will carry concealed in downtown San Francisco. Olympic shooting athletes will change planes in New York City without risk of arrest or seizure of their equipment. New York's Sullivan Law will have to be thrown out with yesterday's fish wrappers.

I've heard valid arguments that States should not be allowed to reserve the power to regulate CCW for themselves. I'll leave that effort for others, and be satisfied if we can achieve the protection of the right as I describe above.

Update, 23 August 2004: Gunscribe describes this Constitutional understanding, in the breach, in Nebraska.

Also, a State whose Constitution has reserved to it the power to regulate "the carry of firearms" can still simply decline to legislate in that area. It may not be a right in Colorado, but Colorado can just choose not to regulate, license, or punish it.

The borders and immigration

2004-08-03T22:27:00.000-06:00

We have borders to establish clearly where our property lies and our laws are in effect. We also maintain these borders to assure that the property is protected and the laws are obeyed.

I support controlling our national borders, to keep out those who would kill us, take our property, or undermine our civil order. I support reallocating Federal mony from less-important projects to border management and control, and customs and immigration enforcement.

I support the controlled admission of a known number of persons from other countries, to work in the United States, without granting them citizenship. Such a guest-worker program will have to assure that the identity and criminal record of these persons is known, that their whereabouts will be reported by their employers, that they pay taxes in proportion to the services and protection they receive from the law, and that their stays will not be permanent. I would even support a stipulation that these workers return to their home countries regularly during the effective period of their guest-worker visas. I would also asks that the countries from which the guest workers originate help with some of the expenses entailed in admitting them to the United States.

They will be allowed to apply for citizenship, but only if they meet the requirements for citizenship, which I will cover in another post. As guest-workers, they will enjoy the rights of any person before the law, but they must not be allowed to wield the powers of citizens. They may not vote, nor shall they draw welfare.

Such a program must consider the large number of foreigners illegally working in the United States today. The simple, irrefutable political reality is that they cannot remain in defiance of US law, and a guest-worker program cannot be used to legitimize them, or render the appearance of legitimizing them. Even if for only a week or two, the illegal workers here today must leave the US and apply to return under the new program. We cannot grant guest-worker visas to illegals in place.

With guarantees as properly documented guest workers, these people will be able to go to their homes, and return to work, as frequently as they wish and can afford, thus reducing the desire to bring to or raise families in the United States.

As equals before the law, they will open bank accounts, obtain motor vehicle licenses, insure their vehicles, and do the thousands of other things that Americans do every day. They will suffer less at the hands of criminals, because they will no longer fear the police. With this dignity, they will have more of a stake in the American way of life even if they are not fully empowered citizens here.

Terrorists will then find less aid and comfort among the streams of people illegally crossing our borders, and we will reduce their threat to us.

Speed limits on Federally-funded highways

2004-07-19T22:10:00.000-06:00

I support a tiered system of speed limits on highways built even in part with Federal funds.

If a citizen owns an automobile or motorcycle that is engineered to cruise safely at 100 miles per hour, and he is willing to insure it for such driving habits, and his insurer offers coverage for such driving habits, and the road and traffic can tolerate it, and the State will go along with it, I want the Federal government to get out of the way and let it happen.

It is a State matter and a free country. If she wants, Colorado can issue special hot-pink license plates, with transponders built in that identify the vehicle as a lawful 100mph platform whenever a police radar strobes them. Colorado can charge $1000 a year for it and there will be takers, enough to support the costs of enforcing the program, with some money left over to fund some pet guilt program. That's Colorado's business. I support the idea if it can be made pay-as-you-go.

Offering the severance package

2004-07-19T21:26:00.000-06:00

If unemployment rises again to the level of last summer, when people who were remaining unemployed until their Social Security unemployment benefits ran out, I will support extension of these benefits only if a Social Security severance package is part of the deal.

Under severance, any person who receives additional unemployment benefits will also be presented with an agreement that in effect terminates that person's further participation in Social Security. They get six months more unemployment stipends, but never pay into Social Security again, and will never be able to claim benefits from it again. For the rest of their lives.

That person receives a certificate, matched to an entry in the Social Security Administration's databases, showing future employers that he or she is exempt from FICA withholding, and that the employer may offer the employer's share of FICA withholding to the employee as salary or other compensation, free from Federal income taxes as well, if the employer so desires.

Likely only people just starting out in their careers will be interested in such a severance package. Those workers who feel they have "too much invested to back out now" because of their age will stay in, decline the package and the extended benefits, and try to find a job or change careers.

Unfortunately, we could offer this package only to persons who were already unemployed and facing the exhaustion of their benefits at the date the package program begins. Otherwise we'd have hundreds of thousands of people quitting their jobs and staying unproductive for months just to qualify themselves.

Drinking age

2004-07-16T23:31:00.000-06:00

Peter Coors is being lambasted for proposing a return to the 18-year legal drinking age. Some pundits suggest that as the executive of a brewery, he is merely acting in his own interest.

I don't know why he proposes it but I agree with it and I'll tell you why. It's a State matter. It's been made a Federal matter by Washington twisting arms in the State capitols---change your drinking age to 21 or lose your highway funding. Change your blood alcohol content DUI threshold to .08 or lose your highway funding. Build light rail that costs more per passenger mile than buying people hybrid gas-electric cars, and build it with money you would have used for more highway lanes instead, or lose your highway funding.

Transportation isn't the only area where States are merely puppets of the Federal government. Housing, insurance, banking, you name it. It has to stop.

More on eligibility to run

2004-07-16T23:26:00.000-06:00

I met someone who serves the military and is seeking National office. I've also done some more research on eligibility to run for office.

Meet Bruce Asay, Assistant Adjutant General for Air, Wyoming National Guard. He just assumed that post, and the rank of Brigadier General, but he's been campaigning for the single seat in the US House for Wyoming's half-million people.

If he wins this partisan office, he has to retire from military service. If he wins, he can probably afford to. As my readings tell me, I'd be in the same boat. I have my 20 years in and then some.

Term limits and related issues

2004-07-16T23:13:00.000-06:00

I don't support them. Many other people whom I respect have run for National elective office, promising to term-limit themselves. Most of these people have kept their promises, and I suspect that many of them left office at a time when their constituents and their States needed them most.

In a way, it's like the comic who wouldn't want to join a club that would admit him as a member, or a young couple so serious and circumspect about childrearing that they feel they aren't fit or conscientious enough for it and remain childless.

Somebody running for elective office on the plank of term-limiting himself is fooling somebody, either himself or the voters.

I suffer no such disability. If you think I've been corrupted by the office, I'm counting on you to remove me when you get the opportunity, every six years. No doubt I'd get tired of living in Northern Viriginia, shuttling back and forth between Colorado and there, so I'd stop running for reelection anyway.

Of course, I believe that it was a serious mistake to amend the Constitution to elect Senators by popular vote---Senators were not intended under our brilliant system to represent voters, but the States directly, to keep the system of dual Federal/State sovereignty in balance. States had the power to appoint and to remove Senators. If I thought such an effort would have a snowball's chance in Hell, I'd support a return to this arrangement, even if it meant I'd be kicking myself out of office.

h0m0s3%ual marriage

2004-07-13T19:23:00.000-06:00

I'm a Federalist. States are supposed to be doing the bulk of governing. One of those areas where the State governs, and has governed traditionally, is marriage. States vary in whom they will allow to marry, in terms of age both relative and absolute, blood relation, and so forth. Even the States are governing marriage less than they used to.

I do not support the Federal government getting any more deeply involved in marriage than it arleady has gotten. I don't support an amendment to the Constitution, defining marriage or prohibiting marriage between any two parties. I surely don't endorse Federal law, or the grant of Federal power, to build or rebuild society, or define marriage, in the name of protecting it.

On the other hand, I don't really accept that the people who are seeking rights for homosexuals to marry are doing so to make homosexual couples happier, more devoted or faithful to each other, or safer for the raising of children. Some of the activists do indeed believe this and want it, but most do not.

I see this movement, perhaps cynically, as yet another attempt to use the legislatures and the courts to compel employers and institutions to deliver valuable benefits to yet more people. There are few genuine rights that marriage confers to a spouse under the law---immunity from compelled testimony against a spouse, for example. But there are many benefits, such as health and life insurance, free services such as university tuition, that are offered to married couples today and homosexual couples cannot as easily access. A marriage license, they think, is their ticket to getting these benefits that until now have been denied them. The force of the State will be used if necessary.

I disapprove of this practice. An employer or institution should be free to offer services and benefits to whom they wish; it follows that they should be free to choose not to offer them to others. If an employee or member who is denied those benefits finds this unfair, he is free to persuade the provider, or to take his skills elsewhere. That's happening now, and is increasingly common.

There is a limited role for the Federal government to play in this matter, pertaining to how a marriage license issued in one state will be honored in another. Congress owns this field and has already acted. The Defense of Marriage Act is law, still, though untested by the Courts, and excuses a State from respecting homosexual marriages if its legislature so moves.

Amending the Constitution is said to resemble brain surgery. It's usually permanent and we'd best not do it unless we frankly admit what we're after and can't get it any other way.

My position is to let the DOMA have its chance, and meanwhile tackle some of the genuine underlying issues of taxation and employer benefits that spur a crass economic demand for homosexual marriage. All of us, gay or straight, will be better off.

Health care

2004-07-11T22:19:00.000-06:00

I support the expansion of high-deductible health insurance combined with health savings accounts where people can deposit pre-tax money, let it accrue interest tax-free, and use it to pay the deductibles.

Medical costs will not come under control until more people pay directly for their own health care, rather than involve a third party, such as an insurance carrier or an employer, to make the payment for them.

There are other causes for increasing costs for medical care, including unreasonable jury awards for medical malpractice and the expense of clearing new medicines through the Food and Drug Administration. I'll discuss those aspects under other posts.

Commissioning officers in our armed services

2004-06-16T21:08:00.000-06:00

People with enlisted experience make better officers.

If I am elected, I will seek every opportunity to guide the armed services to expand their opportunities for enlisted people to pursue commissions.

As a Senator, I would have the privilege to appoint a number of people to the service academies, and I will use that privilege to appoint only enlisted personnel who come from my State.

military draft: NO

2004-06-13T16:45:00.000-06:00

I will not support a military draft. The folks who are pushing a draft at present do so for the wrong reasons.

As a servicemember, I assure you I don't want an unwilling draftee serving with me. I won't be able to depend on him or her.

As a citizen, I don't want the government forcing people into the services. Either people like me or people unlike me, it doesn't matter. If they don't value the society they'd be fighting for enough to risk life and limb to protect it, they'd do more harm than good forced into uniform.

Social Security numbers and identity theft

2004-06-12T16:24:00.000-06:00

One of the fastest-growing forms of crime today is the theft of a person's credit. It's more commonly known as "identity theft" but the criminal is not trying to steal your identity so much as he or she is trying to hijack your credit. They will open bank accounts and credit cards, or buy large items, posing as you and using your credit. Then they clear your accounts of cash and borrow everything that your credit rating will allow, as fast as they can so to avoid discovery or capture.

People who have had their credit stolen often take years to restore their lives, their careers, and their reputations. They may never recover their dignity, or their faith in a just society.

The single thing that makes identity theft so easy and common is the use of a single identifying number, by governments, credit agencies, lenders, and sellers of goods: the Social Security number. Overwhelmingly, they use this number for purposes that have no relation whatever to collecting unemployment insurance premiums from you or delivering unemployment or retirement benefits to you.

Every entity you deal with is likely to demand your Social Security number, even if they don't have a legal right to it. Too many Americans don't know better, and provide that number when asked. The few who resist are either browbeaten into giving it, or are denied products or services without cause.

The people who started the Social Security system saw the potential for this to happen, and included sections in the law to prohibit the use of the Social Security account number as an identifying number. Gradually, however, those legal prohibitions were eroded, to the point that the Federal government is even compelling state and local governments to collect this number from you, rather than ordering them not to.

If you elect me to the Senate, I will work for the elimination of the use of the Social Security number for any purpose unrelated to Social Security. American ingenuity offers many different means to allow lenders, doctors, employers, and governments to verify your identity or access the information to which they have a right, without requiring you to submit a number that has become a de facto key to everything about you.

It is not necessary for you to be vulnerable to identity theft or privacy invasion. It is unwise to make yourself so vulnerable. I will sponsor legislation to undo this abuse, and to unleash the talent and determination of Americans to solve the problems that have brought this abuse about.

Because one of the largest users of the Social Security number is the US Department of Defense, I will sponsor legislation to require the DoD to launch a program to replace the SSN with a randomly-generated service number.

If an American serviceman is captured in a conflict, he or she is bound by international agreements to give only name, rank, date of birth, and service number. Because American armed forces use the Social Security Number as the service number, we are effectively ordering our captured servicemen to give over everything that an enemy would need to crush those servicemen, not just financially but personally. An Al Qaeda cell could use a captured serviceman's information to access cash for their efforts, and even to stalk or murder his family in the United States.

It has been only a few decades since our armed services converted from assigned service numbers to the SSN. This conversion has come with a significant cost. As a serviceman today, I have access to the SSNs of more than a thousand other members, as most of them also do, and they have access to mine. The DoD expends a much money and time building their systems to try to protect this number, often by showing only the last six digits of it in many systems and forms. This simply is not enough. That cost, as well as the risk of identity theft overall, would be spared if the SSN were not used in the first place.

If we direct the Department of Defense to return to assigning randomly-selected service numbers and masking the SSN, their experiences will pave the way for other institutions to do the same. The DoD will be free to contract with universities, private companies, and individuals to develop systems to stop using the Social Security number, and the DoD will then be able to license this technology to credit bureaus, insurance companies, governments, and banks.

This will not be a cheap or quick effort. Too many institutions and industries have become heavily dependent upon the SSN as identification. They will not be weaned from it inexpensively or without protest. It will probably take several attempts for us merely to pass the legislation and get it to the President for his signature. But I assure you it will not happen, in fact it will not even begin, if you do not elect me.

Platform: a%ortion and federalism

2004-06-08T10:23:00.000-06:00

If abortion is the taking of human life, and therefore should be criminalized, a federalist must conclude that it is a State matter.

I don't support Federal bans on certain forms of abortion, any more than I support, for example, a Federal minimum wage. The Federal government has no power to make a crime that falls outside of the piracy/counterfeit/treason area, where the Federal government or its
stability is under direct attack, or a State crime crosses State or international boundaries.

Of course this doesn't touch the issue of whether there is an individual right, deserving Federal protection, to abort a fetus. More on that later.

Timeline

2004-06-05T21:06:00.000-06:00

Can't run for Senate today. I am a senior noncommissioned officer in the United States Air Force and might therefore be prohibited from seeking elective office, I think (wait---wasn't Jake Garn both a US Senator from Utah, and an Air National Guard officer?). I would hire an attorney to investigate whether I lawfully can campaign, but I'd have to pay that attorney from funds I'd have to raise from the campaign, which I'm not sure I can do until I've heard from an attorney. Catch-22.

So I'll be developing my platform, bullet points, soundbites, and supporters in this blogspace until I either retire or can determine whether the Catch-22 really applies to me.

Further, because of this delay, I'm not sure exactly which State I am seeking to represent in the Senate either. I might seek employment in the private sector again and that might require a relo to another State, and a return to Air National Guard drill status. Though I'd rather not do that. I've become quite attached to Colorado, and the only downside is the distance it puts between us and my wife's family.

Plank: federalism

2004-06-05T20:59:00.000-06:00

Don't call me a conservative, though I assert the right to keep and bear arms. Don't call me a liberal, though I assert that the war on some drugs is wrong and counterproductive. Don't call me a libertarian, because that's just going to allow you to misunderstand me, especially if you're looking for a soundbite and choose the preceding three sentences to craft one.

Call me a federalist. The war on drugs will go away, promptly, if the Federal government stepped back from it and refused to fund it any further.

The war on guns, however, will persist, unfortunately, if all of the NFAs and GCAs went way tomorrow. Most of the threat is coming from the States. Federalism has a role to play here too, but that will take me more time to articulate. Please be patient and keep reading.