Déjà vu All Over Again

We’re getting closer to the November election, and despite McCain-Feingold’s prohibition on letting us know anything about who is running, what the issues are or whether anyone of the candidates has a position on anything, there is a trickle of info coming out.

Here’s the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee visiting an Austin TX beer garden:

Looking Familiar

I’d just spent the morning reading the Dallas Morning News from cover to cover. There was little about politics except for an editorial page endorsement of a couple of County Commissioner candidates. It would be hard to even know that all of the Texas House of Representatives seats were up for election as well as one of the Senators. There was a brief news piece about Governor Rick Perry, but that was news of the job, not of his re-election campaign. That’s why I was surprised to see Howard Dean’s pronouncement regarding his party’s success-to-be in Texas.

I had to click on the video. There he was microphone in hand, jacket off, sleeves rolled up, pointing to the crowd for emphasis. (Is it just coincidence that Dems this week seem to be doing a lot of finger-jabbing?) I listened as he talked about taking Texas back before going on the march to take back all of those other states. Then, it dawned on me. This simply had to be a dubbing of file footage from his failed presidential bid. It ended before the part where he starts the manic whooping and screaming to energize his fanatical followers. It was the same speech. If we’ve noted the occasional argument that the party of the left is doomed to failure for lack of new and dynamic ideas, this was certainly strong evidence of that fact. Almost word-for-word, he was mouthing the same false bravado that had failed him so miserably in the run up to the 2004 presidential election.

And, the location offers some insight as well. Austin, that capital city of one of the most conservative states in the Union, whose unofficial motto is “Keep Austin Weird”! In a beer garden, no less. Isn’t that where Adolph of WW II fame got his political start?

Prediction? It ain't gonna happen, Howard.

To Have a Friend

When I was growing up in Chicago one of the guys in our group came from a family that owned a bar and restaurant out on Mannheim Road, not far from the growing O’Hare Airport complex. In those days you could still find some farm land around the airport and some spaces between the buildings in that area. There was an old sign behind the bar and it obviously had been in the family a long time and meant a lot to them. It was a simple maxim: “To Have a Friend, Be One”. They pretty much lived by that. They were friends to many and they had scores of friends in return.

I was driven to think about that guide for living as I continue to shake my head in astonishment at the high dudgeon of the Islamic world over the remarks of a fourteenth century Byzantine emperor used by Pope Benedict XVI in a speech last week.

The essence of the historic comment was that the Prophet had directed that Islam be spread by the sword and that this was an unusual way for a religion supposedly of peace to be propagated. The discussion revolved around the incompatibility between jihad, holy war, violence and the nature of God.

Key to this issue is that the words were said by someone more than 500 years ago. The statement wasn’t one of prejudice or disrespect by the pontiff, but was an example of discussion long ago.

So, the Muslims of the world find that this description of their religion and their prophet as being violent and unpeaceful is so offensive that they now are pronouncing capital punishment sentences against the Pope. They are so insulted by characterizations that they aren’t a peaceful religion that they are Shooting Nuns, Burning Churches, and Demanding Death of the Pope

Excuse me, but isn’t that what the benighted Byzantine emperor was griping about?

It was a few months ago that in a somewhat misguided effort to illuminate the intolerance of the Islamic world, a Danish newspaper sought to publish editorial drawings (I avoid the terminology “cartoon” to avoid being recipient of a Fatwa myself) of the Prophet. The result was that around the world cars were overturned, churches were burned and an innocent priest in Turkey—a long way from Denmark—was killed. Thousands rioted to demonstrate their peacefulness.

It may be the flowery rhetoric of the Middle East that I simply don’t understand. I do understand that if you want to get along, you need to make an effort to get along. If you want to have a friend, be one. If someone doesn’t understand the alleged peacefulness of your beliefs, avoid killing them to correct their misunderstanding. Standing in demonstrations and shouting “Death to…” whomever is not going to make your case.

But, it seems overly optimistic to think that the Muslim world is going to change any time soon. What might be possible, however, is for the rest of us to acknowledge the hypocrisy. Stop apologizing. Stop pussy-footing around this jihad. Stop treating these murderous, fourteenth century thugs who seek to dismantle civilization as someone who should be isolated and protected from offense. I don’t like being threatened. I consider that insulting. I demand some apologies from the mullahs and the imams and the ayatollahs. If they want a friend, I’m ready. But to have a friend they need to consider how to be one.

Yeah, But…

It must be in bold print at the top of the daily talking points memo coming out of the Democratic National Committee each morning. This is an election year, and we (the DNC) need to emphasize to the American people how dangerous the world has become because the administration insists on not letting terrorists operate freely. You’ve heard the basics again and again. We’ve supposedly botched the war on terror and in the process made the nation much less safe. Just like the Wizard of Oz cautioned Dorothy and crew, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” We’re supposed to forget about 9/11 and ignore the fact that plot after plot has been discovered and dismantled prior to coming to fruition. Yes, the message is that we are simply making the terrorists mad by hunting them down. Why, they most assuredly would be satisfied if we simply thanked them for pointing out to us the error of our ways on 9/11. By hunting them down, rooting them out of their caves and raining JDAMs down on their turbaned heads, we simply anger them and convince more young radicalized jihadists that strapping fifteen pounds of C-4 to their body and killing a dozen innocents is the best that life can be.

The message is that we have failed because we haven’t caught Osama Bin Laden. How can we be so inept? We haven’t caught the leader; ergo the war on terror is a failure. How then does one account for this:

#2 Captured

Or maybe this:

Convert Now or We'll Kill Ourselves

Or one of my favorites:

Another One Bites the Dust

Or this very old tidbit:

Three Year Old News

Or maybe this dodged bullet:

British Success

I’m willing to bet that the incessant drum beat of failure because we haven’t got Osama is going to be a huge mistake as voting Americans who can read, write, see, listen and think will make a distinction between the importance of capturing one, now largely emasculated, terrorist leader and the reality of thwarting terrorist plots and inexorably rolling up the network of communications, finance, logistics and operations that allow them to function.

It makes sense to examine the slow progress of netting the preachers of jihad and the leaders of a movement to embrace the Dark Ages. If we pay attention to what is really going on, we might notice that so far we’ve cleared a lot of names and faces off of that deck of playing cards that was distributed after we rolled down the highway to Baghdad. If we count coup on those who would do harm randomly for a mis-guided religious cause, we might conclude that Hezbollah took a big hit in their little kidnapping adventure against Israel. We might notice that precision-guided munitions are unannounced guests at meetings of the local al Qaeda cell. We might even acknowledge that whether or not Bin Laden is captured doesn’t have much to do with the greater vision of freeing the world from terror.

If OBL is living in a cave, increasingly isolated as his henchmen are eliminated, unable to move freely and without access to his financial resources, we really don’t need him in a cell at Gitmo where he can be the center of a media circus and the star client for an army of ACLU attorneys claiming his rights have been abridged.

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

It was time to get real yesterday. The breaking news was the foiled terrorist plot to carry an assortment of mix-n-match household goods aboard a number of trans-Atlantic flights then stir up a massive amount of mayhem. The plot got derailed through some aggressive work by the Brits and some cooperation from undisclosed international sources. The outcome is that a flock of bad guys are taken off the streets, a couple of thousand lives have been saved and another nail has been driven into the confidence mind-set of modern travelers. Security delays at airports are going to be longer and the scary part is that we really aren’t going to be sure that all of the inconvenience is doing anything concrete to lessen the threat. Just as I always knew that nail clippers wouldn’t kill me, so also I have a deep-seated confidence that my wife’s lip gloss isn’t toxic.

What really should impress, however, is the overwhelming evidence that we aren’t secure in this world. The whining and whimpering of the Cindy Sheehan’s and Harry Reid’s and John Kerry’s that we aren’t improving our security by attempting to build democracy in the Middle East should be re-examined. The wailing and gnashing from the United Nations collection of one-worlders regarding the “proportionality” of response by the Israeli military after first giving up significant territory in an attempt to assuage Palestinian sensibilities only to be incessantly rocketed and targeted by suicide bombers should be taken for what it is—foolishness. The very concept of proportionality in terms of defense of your right to exist is ludicrous. Playing tit-for-tat in combat is a recipe for failure. First kill those who offend and when the survivors plead for mercy, then be benevolent. Don’t respond to one Katushya launch with two artillery shells. It won’t get results. Go back and review the basics of deterrence—the essential element is if you hurt me I will respond by destroying you…totally.

This Wall Street Journal editorial piece is worth reading slowly:

Reality Check

The thwarting of the British-based plot is a perfect counter to the escalating rhetoric of the US election season. The candidates who are seeking immediate disclosure of withdrawal from Iraq on a date certain need to consider the result of such a retrenchment. The candidates who preach restraint in response to Hezbollah need to be questioned about the outcome of such appeasement. The candidates who want media circus trials for the Gitmo detainees should read the pronouncements of the Syrian and Iranian presidents. The candidates who think that being strong against the threat will only breed more terrorists should examine the math associated with removing this scum from the global gene pool.

It may be that tomorrow morning the main stream media will be accusing Karl Rove of masterminding this liquid bomb plot to prop up the administration’s foreign policy and war on terror. That may be hard to believe, but with the apparent willingness of the unwashed masses to swallow some other conspiracy theories it isn’t beyond the realm of possibilities.

Oh and by the way, Mike Wallace, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not your friend. Nor, is he the friend of any Jew. You are just one of his tools. It’s time to retire, Mike.

Is There Hope?

Suddenly I’m revitalized about the fall elections. Just when the world looked darkest, I’ve got new optimism about the ability of the apathetic, uninterested, apparently ignorant electorate to make decisions and learn about the process. This might be an indication that we can move the final date marking The Decline and Fall of the American Empire out another ten years or so. One can only hope.

The pundits are falling all over themselves trying to “explain” (that’s a euphemism for spin to their own purposes) the loss of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic Senate primary. You’d have to be living in dark cave to have missed the issue here. We’ve got the “I’m Not Them” party desperately trying to distance themselves from the votes which they cast to authorize our involvement in Iraq actively repudiating an incumbent senator and committee chairman who was their Vice-Presidential nominee six short years ago. He was reliable and acceptable enough then to be just a heart-beat away from the Presidency, but now he has been declared pariah.

This is going to be a great lesson for those who haven’t figured it out regarding the process of elections in the US. It isn’t just what happens in November. There are those primaries and caucuses and assemblies that lead up to getting a name on a ballot with an identifying (R) or (D) behind it. The problem that escapes most voters who proudly declare their independence from party politics is that mainstream voters don’t really have much say about what finally shows up on the November menu. It’s the party extremists that do the anointing in the primaries. And, that’s the cabal with which Lieberman has run afoul.

Once, it was right and proper and dutiful representation of his constituents to vote for use of military force to depose a totalitarian despot and counter a terrorist threat. Then, Joe voted his conscience—as did Hillary and Biden and Kerry (before he voted against it…) but, now the party of the left wants to rewrite that history. In the process, they are willing to throw a very influential Senator out with the trash and put a somewhat inexperienced millionaire in the seat because his strongest (and maybe only) coherent policy position is that he is against the war.

This behavior highlights the superficiality of “Senatorial collegiality” which is supposed to overcome mere policy disagreements for the greater good of the nation. It shows how very willing the incumbents are to stand on the shoulders of those who might be drowning to get a seat in the lifeboat for themselves. When Lieberman started to look shaky in his primary bid, there was almost a race among his Senatorial associates to abandon him for his out-of-step position—that’s the one of being consistent in his belief that the nation was and is threatened.

So, now we see Joe defeated in his party primary by Ned Lamont. Let’s ignore the anti-Semitic issues that were raised. And, don’t look at the dirty tricks like highjacking of the Lieberman Web site on election eve. Let’s just look at the outcome of the election and see if we can determine what to watch for in the coming weeks.

First, Lamont doesn’t have any experience to speak of in government. He’s not a heavy hitter on major policy discussions. His major credential is the anti-war appeal to the extreme left of his party. Wait for a candidate’s debate for Lieberman to take young Ned to the woodshed.

Second, let’s acknowledge that there is no conceivable possibility of the Republican nominee being elected in Connecticut. Dunno why, as the state is much more white-collar and educated than the mainstream demographic of the liberal party, but that is the way it is. Republican candidate need not apply. That leaves a lot of Republicans and conservative independents with no home in this storm.

Third, Lieberman is a household name. He’s got lots of recognition and a load of experience as well as Senatorial seniority which should play well in the general election. He’s got the signatures to get on the November ballot as an independent candidate. He’s got an experienced organization. And, there’s no doubt that he’s got fund-raising connections.

So, let’s predict the election. Like most states, the electorate is divided in approximate thirds: Reps, Dems and Unaffiliated (AKA independents.) Lieberman still has a lot of appeal among the Democrats. He drew a lot of votes in the primary loss. The Republicans, if they are smart enough to recognize the fact that their candidate won’t stand a chance, might go with the devil they know—who is very moderate—for the devil they don’t—who is unflinchingly liberal. Then, the mainstream and generally moderate unaffiliated voters will swing between the incumbent and the challenger. I’m betting that there are more of those independent voters who will choose experience and name recognition over extremism and arguably misguided pacifism. So, I’m willing to bet that the Republican Party will give a perfunctory nod to their nominee and then shift a lot of resources to support of Lieberman. The Democrat hard-core that voted for Lieberman in the primary will stick with him, and the larger portion of the unaffiliated voters will vote for Lieberman. Look for Joe to prevail in the fall.

And, in Atlanta, in yet another bright spot on the election horizon, we see Democrat voters repudiating Cynthia McKinney, proving that at some point even they can recognize sheer lunacy. Just in case anyone thought she might have been poorly portrayed in some of the coverage of her Washington antics, her “concession” speech proved she is undeniably affiliated with the tinfoil cap crowd.

Ya gotta love it!!

Sez Who?

It isn’t rocket science. We all know it…or at least we SHOULD know it. There is bias in the media. Reread that sentence. It isn’t an example of the rampant paranoia of the partisan right and left. It doesn’t say that there is some sort of leftist cabal that distorts the world to the detriment of the right wing reactionaries who would remake it in the image of their own biblical interpretations. It doesn’t say there is a vast right wing conspiracy devoted to making it hard for Bill Clinton’s wife to be unaware of his philandering in the hallway off the Oval Office. It simply says there is bias, not that the media is biased. The bias might simply be shading and coloring of the message based on the perspective of the observer. Or not.

Regardless, it is important to keep in mind the source of one’s information. If you know, or can intuit, the perspective of the reporter or the publication you can glean the fact from the fiction and maybe have a better knowledge of what goes on in the world. At least that would be the goal.

What’s the home page on your browser? C’mon now, if you’re reading blogs you can’t tell me you still have the default page that your ISP gave you when you subscribed. When you launch each morning, what page displays to greet your day? Please tell me it isn’t Verizon.net or MSN.com or the ad-filled and inane home of fly-by-night-internet-R-us. And, no not AOL either. Is it? Whatever.

I’ve defaulted to a news source. It keeps me up to date on what is happening in the world and doesn’t overload me with a lot of useless People Magazine sort of trash. I really don’t care whether Brangelina is birthing another celebrity in Namibia or Madonna is or isn’t being really crucified in Rome. I want to know what’s shaking around the globe. Then, I can get on to email, Usenet and business for the day. Lately my home page has been news.google.com. But, I’m about to change.

Now don’t get me wrong, I love Google. I, like most of the civilized world, have become dependent upon the incredible capability of Google to quickly get me the answer to almost any question I can think of asking. I google regularly and incessantly. It’s great. I like Gmail as well. I don’t use it often, but when I’m on the road and frustrated by the ability to receive my email through the ubiquitous hotel Internet connection but unable to respond because their server doesn’t recognize me, Gmail fills the void. I’m fascinated by Google’s Froogle shopping service, but I usually know what I want and where to find it without much help. And, although Google Earth was neat at first glance, the slow update to the data and the lack of detail resolution makes it still pretty much of a novelty to me. My dissatisfaction is with Google’s news.

The page looks a lot like my previous home page, Foxnews.net. It’s got sections for national, international, business, tech, sports, etc. Big stories are prominent with links to original sources as well as a “freshness” indicator of how long ago the story appeared. There are usually a number of alternate sources to check how different media covered the event. Seems reasonable, but recently I’ve begun to note a bit of a problem, a bias, if you will.

I see items of interest and click to find out more. Then I began to notice that interpretations of US national politics are coming to me from New-Bloody-Zealand or Indonesia. I see explanations of minimum wage debates and immigration proposals in Congress interpreted by some small town Canadian daily. I’m directed to get impressions of international events from, heaven forbid, some unknown blogger’s page.

While the views are interesting and even insightful, I’ve got to believe that putting a down-under spin on what’s going on in an Atlanta, Georgia congressional race isn’t going to be much help in determining facts. It might be nice to know what the folks in Hamilton, Ontario Canada think about our minimum wage but frankly, Scarlett…you know the rest. And, if it comes to defense policy for the US, I’m not sure that the French are the place to get data to form my opinions. Most of all, while I think blogs have a spot on the media spectrum; I’ve got to carefully examine the source and the credentials before I buy in to the opinions.

How can you tell which end of the spectrum a voice is coming from? Your criteria might be different than mine, but recently the best indicator to me has been a sort of disjointed comment somewhere around paragraph four in the article which, with total irrelevance to the subject at hand, brings up Abu Ghraib, Gitmo or lack of WMD in Iraq. Find a gratuitous comment about failed policy of this administration, and you’ll know to slow down your reading and start questioning the premise of the entire item in the news.

Long ago, the first lesson in Journalism 101 was the basics of how to write a “lead” for a story. The essential theory was that the first sentence should include all of the “W”s—the who, what, when and where. It might include the why, but that would likely be more appropriate later in the story or even on the editorial page. A good lead could be something like, “Joe Bagadonutz was beaten and robbed last night just before midnight in front of his house on Elm Street by a gang of four thugs who escaped in a red pickup truck.” The rest of the column, if the reader continued, would include embellishment of those basic facts. We might find out who Joe was, where he was coming from, what was stolen, who saw the red truck and maybe get a quote or two from players in the scenario.

We don’t seem to get that any more. It’s more likely that the story will read like some sort of Bulwer-Litton package of over-the-top fiction. “It was a dark and stormy night when Joe came home from the factory where he worked for minimum wage trying to make a life for his four children and their sick mother. He’d put in a long day and was tired. When he arrived at his front door in a lower-middle class neighborhood, he heard the TVs of his neighbors, still up watching the Letterman Show….continued on page B-14”

You won’t know that Joe got robbed until after “the jump.” What’s “above the fold” in your paper today? Probably something heart-wrenching about an unwed mother on welfare or a high school football player who might or might not sign with a big college for next year. You’ll have to look hard to find out what’s going on in Iraq or Lebanon and when you do, it’s liable to be filled with innuendo and partisan commentary rather than the facts.

What’s it all mean? To me, it means a bit more work to separate facts from fiction and a bit more reluctance to assume that I know what I think I know. For most of America, it means that they probably are sucking up the Kool-Aid and getting their perspectives shaped by those with ulterior motives. Maybe I’ll switch my home page to drudgereport.com.

Modern Education

In Colorado we had CSAP—the Colorado Student Assessment Program. In Texas they call it TAKS—Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. You probably have something similar where you live. It is a recognition that public schools seem to be failing to produce graduates who are capable of performing the tasks expected of literate adults, i.e. reading, writing and basic mathematics. So, we need to measure performance of our students, teachers and schools. The concept is pretty simple and one that I learned more than thirty years ago when I was involved in training pilots for the USAF.

Start by defining your objectives. Then establish a standard for measuring achievement of those objectives. It must be measurable and reasonable. Let’s say, for example, if dealing with addition for elementary school, that the student will be able to add columns of up to five numbers of four digit complexity with 95% accuracy. No room for quibbling about that. You either can or you can’t. Then develop teaching methodologies to enable students to reach that standard. Finally administer a test of the skill.

Taken to the essentials, that is what is being demanded in schools today. But, we have gripes about the process. There’s “too much pressure” on the little babies. Teachers “must teach the test.” And, what about meeting the little darlings’ needs for self esteem? Teachers don’t want to do the basic job of teaching to meet a standard of performance. Parents don’t want the responsibilities of over-seeing their children’s education. Students simply would rather goof off than study. There is no responsibility and no accountability.

Want an example of this? Read this heart-warming tale from a respected (sic) educator in Texas published in this morning’s Dallas Fishwrap:

But Do You Feel Good About Yourself?

Students were supposed to be learning Texas history. That would have some relationship to facts such as dates, names, places and at a slightly higher educational level, to causes and effects. Seems like a reasonable educational goal. Objective testing is possible. And, wow—get this, a teacher and a student could be held accountable.

But what does this “educator” do? Why she says, “just write down whatever you’ve learned.” Does it have to be fact? Well, she doesn’t mention that. Could it be fiction, fallacy, fairy-tale or the John Wayne interpretation of events at the Alamo? Well, probably yes!

Then she gives everyone an “A” along with some advice. If a male teacher were to write on a history assignment, "Suzie, I like how you are softening your makeup ... Have you ever tried ... ?" it wouldn’t be more than 24 hours before the sexual harassment charges would be filed and the male teacher suspended. And, what does Suzie’s makeup and David’s foul mouth have to do with Jim Bowie and Sam Houston and William Travis?

When the test came, the students were apparently poorly prepared, but never fear. The grades for everyone would be the “A” given for the feel-good session. It only makes one wonder how this “professional educator” was dealing with math and English classes and their somewhat less flexible standards of performance in the real world.

How about these finishing remarks for insight into modern education:

“This led to a discussion about how testing ruined a good class unless you were as smart as the kids who liked to study. The students talked about how testing could make someone feel stupid and about the fear of failure. They only quieted when I told them they had all made A's on the more personal test the week before.”

Sorry, Honey, but life is subject to failure. The concept that class was ruined unless you were “as smart as the kids who liked to study” is the core of your philosophy of failure. Did you ever consider teaching kids that success takes hard work? Or that you aren’t smart because you like to study, but you study because you would like to get smart? Or that class is more fun and not “ruined” if you prepare and do the work? Learning can and should be fun—but it takes an effort and isn’t free.

“I am appalled at President George Bush's plans for No Child Left Behind, the enormous emphasis on testing in our public schools and the pressure placed on teachers to prepare students for standardized testing. And the teachers must make sure they do not help a student, or there will be charges of cheating against the teacher.”

Pressure to prepare students is exactly what education is about! Helping the students is providing them meaningful lessons, exercising their skills, demanding their performance, and instilling classroom discipline. She certainly knows that “helping” students is one thing and it isn’t cheating. She also should have a darn good idea what cheating means. But, maybe not.

“Teach them life and how they might use that class in years to come. I also believe that all students should pass to the next grade. That is leaving no child behind.”

Can you possibly not feel the slightest gag reflex when reading that? Students should most assuredly not pass to the next grade if they cannot do the required work at the current grade. When these pass-through students eventually complete their time in schools and are not left behind by her standards they will enter the work force unable to compete and ill-prepared to face the challenges of life. So, they will breed, and gripe, and become the next generation of welfare-sucking dependents upon the body politic. But, at least they feel good about themselves…and don’t you just love Suzie’s new look?

Voting Largess

It’s one of my favorite quotes and I always bring it to classes where economic policy will be discussed:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

There is debate about who first said it. Some attribute it to Adam Tyler while others spell his name as Tytler. Still others suggest it might have been de Tocqueville. It matters less who said it then what truth it brings to mind. Consider the elemental truth of America today. Fully 40% of Americans, euphemistically referred to as “the working poor,” pay no federal income taxes. None! Then at the other end of the scale, the “obscenely rich” who get all those tax breaks, where we find that the top 15% of earners pay more than 40% of total federal tax revenue.

Now, this leads inevitably to the sordid conclusion that if one wants to get elected to public office it would be wise, if not just, to appeal to the biggest demographic slice. That would be the ones who pay no taxes rather than the ones who pay a lot. The appeal for the socialist policy of redistribution of wealth is tremendous. The slight tempering of a policy of total pandering comes from the fact that campaigns cost money and in order to finance them, one must also appeal at least a little bit to the folks that can contribute.

But, it gets worse. We’re in an election year and hence the temptation looms large to get on with the voting of largess from the treasury. Give the masses more bread and circuses if you want to get elected. This week, however, the largess being distributed isn’t from the treasury, but according to the House of Representatives comes from private industry. It’s that perennial favorite of the economically unenlightened, the magic and mirrors of the minimum wage. In booming stentorian tones, the Democrats mount the podium and appeal to the emotions of “living wages”, “family of four”, “poverty level” and justice. It makes you want to stand and salute before you turn and barf.

Yet, when I ask college classes to explain to me what should be the basis for establishing a minimum wage, I always get the emotional response that has been inculcated in their mushy minds. They banter about costs of living and housing and children and justice. But they don’t relate cost of labor to value produced. They don’t make a connection between ability to add productivity to an organization and then be appropriately compensated for your labor. Adam Smith is conspicuously absent from the equation.

The suggestion that government should not be involved in setting costs of any commodity boggles the American twenty-first century mind. The idea that a willing buyer and a willing seller can set an agreeable price is amazing. Certainly there was the oppression of the dirty birth of the Industrial Revolution. But that is long ago and the justification for government interference is long gone. Does no one notice that simple burger flipping requires little skill or training and hence there is an army of potential flippers waiting for recruitment? Conversely does no one note that brain surgeons get a huge amount of compensation because there aren’t many of them and when you really need one, a plumber or carpenter won’t substitute very well?

Well, this fall the House of Mis-Representatives seeks to get re-elected as they do every two years. The largess available from the public treasury is not adequate to buy the necessary votes, so they turn to business owners’ pockets and vote to increase the minimum wage to more than $7 an hour. Will this solve poverty? Will this allow support of a family of four? Do most minimum wage earners belong to a family of four? Well, no they don’t. Most minimum wage earners are young people on their first job. Most are unskilled but, hopefully, learning to prepare themselves for greater responsibility. If they are wise, most will refrain from creating a family of four until they can earn more than a minimum wage.

There is a lot of evidence that artificial imposition of a minimum wage will do more economic harm than good. Unskilled labor intensive businesses may fail if faced with a requirement for higher labor costs. Many businesses which continue may reduce staff to hold labor cost constant resulting in harder work conditions for those remaining. Almost all businesses will shortly reflect the increased labor costs in increased costs to consumers. The outcome of those increased prices will be inflation which will, in fairly short order render any economic gain of that minimum wage increase to be erased. So, inflation devalues dollars, workers get laid off, prices rise and businesses fail. That, of course, means lower governmental tax revenues. Taken to extremes, it ain’t a pretty picture.

The Founding Fathers are regularly credited with establishing the bi-cameral legislature’s upper house with its smaller number and longer term as a brake against the emotional impetuousness of the lower chamber. Let us steadfastly hope that in the coming weeks before the November election that economic reality and a bit of common sense prevail with regard to minimum wage legislation. If they truly want to do some good for working Americans, they might consider repealing any and all wage legislation. Give the free market with its inherent balances a chance to function and let the rewards of education, preparation and dedication stimulate young workers to succeed. It might be worth a try, particularly if failure to vote some largess from business pockets results in some fresh new faces in Congress at the same time.

Nobel Nobility

We all know the story. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Then he suffered inventor’s remorse when he realized that his creation was employed in weapons destined to advance the efficiency of man’s inhumanity to man. To assuage his conscience he established a foundation that would use his fortune to reward the greatest advances in a wide range of fields each year with a Nobel Prize and a significant stipend. Great and truly noble of Nobel.

Over the years there have been many just awards of his prize to great scientists, doctors, researchers and even writers. There has also been one category of the award that has increasingly come to be viewed as more political than scientific, the “Peace Prize.” Who can forget the beautiful image of Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin gracing the cover of Time Magazine after receiving their award in 1978. Two terrorists, reconstituted as national leaders of two nations staunchly dedicated to the destruction of each other, paired in glory as peacemakers. Brings a tear to the eye even today.

But is the Peace Prize of ’78 simply an aberration in a sequence of otherwise significant advancements made by individuals in the quest for world peace? Not if this article in Australia is any indication: Peace Through Murder?

Betty Williams won the prize in 1976. Why? Well, according to the news article she was appalled when British soldiers shot an IRA terrorist and his vehicle then crashed and killed two innocent children nearby. She then circulated a petition urging peace in Northern Ireland. Significant achievement? Did it solve the crisis? Well, arguably not. But she got the prize anyway. And, more than her deserved fifteen minutes of fame.

So, this great peacemaker now stands before an audience of young people in Brisbane and suggests she is so appalled at the world’s state that she would murder the US President! That’s a great suggestion from a Nobel Laureate for Peace. Would we call that “role modeling” for the youth of the 21st Century? Assassination of world leaders as a solution. Not dictators, but democratically elected leaders as well!

But, read on and marvel at the intellectual capacity of this activist. Read about the visit to the children’s cancer ward in Iraq. Note the emphasis on “children”. I always warn students that when someone suggests a policy must be enacted “for the children” that they better take a firm grip on their wallet and their Constitution because their money or their rights are about to be purloined.

“Will they live,” she asks breathlessly. I flash momentarily on Scrooge and Tiny Tim. The doctor is harsher than the Christmas Spirit. “No, they will all die.” Of course, you twit…we will all die.

But, in a magnificent simplification and generalization of modern oncology, these children need five drugs to be cured. All of them? Isn’t that unusual? Yes, they need five. But they only get three because of the mean ol’ USA. Oh, and would they have gotten five under Saddam? It’s George Bush’s fault. And so, good old peacemaker Betty feels justified in suggesting assassination.

Well, just to make sure we’ve got our villains lined up properly, she also notes that the cancers themselves are the result of the US. Yes, it was in utero that the first Gulf War damaged these children and their mothers. Had the world only sat back and allowed Saddam his way with Kuwait and maybe a chunk of Saudi Arabia, these children would have been normal and live forever.

Finally, we need to note her solution. End world poverty. How? Well, like Nike says, just do it. Oh yeah, also stop global climate change, whatever that means. And, while you’re at it, cut military spending and divert all that money toward “human development”. Great ideas, Betty. Maybe disburse Nobel Peace Prizes to every poor child in the world so they can have a pot of gold and live cancer free, if only Betty can get close enough to our President to make it happen.

I think I’ve concluded that in the unlikely event that I was to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize I would decline it. I wouldn’t want to be associated with the likes of Betty Williams.

Déjà vu Again!

I’m continually astonished at the circuitous logic of the elite universities of this country. Take a look at this emerging brouhaha at the University of Wisonsin:

Ward Churchill Clone in Wisconsin?

When I saw Brit Hume comment on it, I was initially outraged that a school would intentionally allow someone to place such an absurd thesis before an undergraduate university class. But, we should all be aware that tenured professors have a lot of latitude and some of them espouse decidedly controversial views. I’ve personally professed views in class that I don’t hold, simply to promote discussion and foster student thinking on the topic. But, I don’t make those views the core concept of the course.

Then I went to the link above and read the University Provost comments. They seemed logical and reasonable as a defense of freedom of educational inquiry. Until, that is, I read between the lines. I’ve got enough experience in front of undergraduate students to know that what the prof says is what the students believe and will mouth back at the drop of a blue book. If Professor Barrett suggests some extreme revision of the events we’ve all seen so many times on TV, the mushy minds will internalize it and deny their own recall.

Teaching most assuredly should foster thinking, reasoning and independent judgment of observations. But, there also is an obligation for both the teacher and the institution which that teacher represents to place fact before the students. Creating a rational argument that the Holocaust didn’t happen, that genocide was inflicted upon Native-Americans through distribution of smallpox infected blankets, or that al-Qaeda doesn’t really exist is possible, but decidedly disingenuous. It should not be allowed in a responsible institution. That is NOT denial of academic freedom. It is common sense.

Then I got to the last paragraph of the Univ. of Wisconsin statement. This twit isn’t a tenured professor! Apparently they actually went out and hired the idiot to spout this drivel for a single semester! Disgusting.

What Are They Thinking?

The Supremes are on a roll! In an ideologically aligned decision yesterday, the court ruled (with Chief Justice Roberts on the sidelines) that the executive branch has exceeded its authority in seeking to try detained terrorists before military tribunals.

I’ve often bemoaned the increasingly small minority of major government functionaries with military experience, ex-Marine John Murtha not withstanding. While the volunteer force has become increasingly professional and technologically competent, the lack of integration with the totality of American society makes it more and more likely that pundits and politicos will spout drivel with regard to the military and no one will be there to challenge it.

All Supreme Court decisions have nuance and some even have understandability. Typically they will uphold someone’s deeply held convictions while over-ruling someone else’s. Beyond that there is always the underlying hope that common sense and an obligation to “do what is right” for the country will factor into the opinion. That’s why this business is so appalling.

Here are a few things that come to my formerly military mind as I listen to the dissection of the decision.

First, there is the issue of the Geneva Conventions. During my 23 years on active duty we had periodic training on the provisions of the conventions. There were some basics that we learned. The US is a signatory to them. Many nations are signatory. Some nations are not. Those who are not signers are not required to comply. (That seems pretty basic when written here, but apparently the Supremes didn’t notice.) Recognized nations can sign. Unrecognized transnational terrorist groups need not apply.

Second, to gain the protections of the Conventions, it is necessary to be a member of an organized military with a command structure, uniforms and prominently displayed rank insignia. You are required to carry identification which offers evidence beyond your visible military uniform and rank that you are a member of a complying government’s military. The military ID card serves that purpose and for many years a second “Geneva Convention Card” was also required. The internees at Guantanamo don’t fill that requirement. They don’t wear uniforms, they don’t have rank, they aren’t military and they don’t operate under the leadership of a national command structure. Rights to protections are forfeit.

Third, the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to members of the US military. It is, by definition, extra-Constitutional. The protections afforded to our citizens by the Constitution are not extended to members of the military under the UCMJ. Strange, but true—those of us who sacrifice the most to defend the Constitution are not protected by it while doing that duty. The UCMJ does not apply to terrorist internees.

Fourth, Constitutional protections afforded citizens of the US are only extended in very limited fashion to non-citizens. The internees are neither citizens nor in the USA. While some protection is granted, it isn’t to the extent of that provided citizens.

Fifth, it would be patently ludicrous to bring these terrorists into a civil courtroom under the laws of the US. They do not deserve the forum for their hatred of America and they do not merit the consideration of our courts. They are trying to kill us.

What really escapes me in this whole business is how the American left is trying to spin this as some sort of “rule of law” issue and how they can possibly think that defending the bodyguard of Usama bin Laden over the interests of American security from terrorism can gain them votes in November. What are they thinking?

Constitutional Effrontery

Well, the votes were cast yesterday and apparently in the midst of this political silly season, the Senate still has a few folks with some sense—even if they are predominantly members of the party I seldom agree with! The senior circuit of silliness couldn’t muster the necessary two-thirds vote to propose a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting desecration of the American Flag. It missed by only one vote, but a miss is as good as a mile in this instance.

This summary of the various posturings tells quite a bit: WSJ Best of the Web

Maybe the most frightening item in that collection is the piece about the political science “professor” who somehow imbued the Supreme Court with the power to declare parts of the Constitution un-Constitutional. As the editor of the collection at the link points out, it becomes easier to see how the ignorance in our society gets propagated. While the Supremes can over-rule the legislature and the executive in matters of statute and regulation, they can’t reach so far as to specifically overturn part of the Constitution—in spite of considerable evidence that they can certainly convolute the document.

But, the basic issue remains an emotional one and we should admit up front that emotion trumps reason in almost every instance. Should we tolerate burning of that flag which represents our nation and which has been defended with the blood and honor of so many patriots? The answer remains yes.

The core of the First Amendment is freedom of speech and that freedom wasn’t delineated because we want to have porn on the Internet or gangsta rap on the radio. It was spelled out because it is essential to our republic that people can express their political will. When we restrict speech in any of its various forms, we restrict input of individuals to the political process. The unfortunate problem with that freedom is that more than occasionally the expression will be one that we disagree with.

It is easy to tolerate free speech when it is consistent with our own positions. It gets a whole lot tougher when the speaker is disagreeing with us. It really gets tough when the disagreement is one that is totally repugnant to everything we hold dear. Yet, we shouldn’t find it difficult to recognize that the very essence of free speech is that extreme degree of tolerance.

The facts of the matter are that flag desecration is an uncommon act. It isn’t something that one encounters very often. In fact, I would note that probably none of us have ever seen the act in person. We see news coverage when some loony makes a bid for attention by burning a flag. We see lots of foreign rabble burning homemade flags and effigies of Uncle Sam. But, we don’t see people on street corners lighting up flags with any degree of regularity. It’s a non-problem.

There is a certain element of risk in many parts of our nation for flag-desecrators. They might get talked to fairly aggressively, followed by a punch in the nose. But they are doing it for that very attention-seeking reason. They are expressing a political opinion and they seek observation of that protest. A huge majority disagrees with them and most viewers find the act unacceptable when it occurs. But, the First Amendment offers these miscreants the privilege.

Some day, in the not too distant future, the political panderers of our legislature will muster the two-thirds majorities in both houses to put the flag-burning amendment before the people. Then, I won’t be surprised if three-quarters of the minor league political panderers in the legislatures of the states will ratify it. That will be a dark day for political expression and the First Amendment. My prediction is that shortly thereafter flag-desecration will become a national pastime for the morons of the nation.

Feeling Secure?

We’ve got ten or eleven million illegal immigrants in this country. We’ve got what can charitably be called a “porous” border. Tomorrow, here in Texas, we’ll be executing one of those illegal immigrants who came here, not for a job and a future, but to conduct a series of brutal killings several years ago with whatever instrument came first to hand including such weapons as clubs, axes, shovels and hammers. He’s appealing, of course, but I expect that the Big Sleep is imminent. Securing our borders is an important task that needs competence now.

In this sort of atmosphere, we’ve got this headline: Hard Rush Hindered?

Wow, I feel a whole lot better now knowing that the customs and immigration folks are combing Rush Limbaugh’s private jet for possible prescription violations. Commercial jets are landing nearby disgorging hundreds of passengers hourly from off-shore points and they’ve got the time and inclination to be reading labels on prescription bottles? Is Viagra a drug of abuse? Seems unlikely as I encounter a minimum of four or five email solicitations each morning to order a supply online at discount without more than a superficial consultation with a real doctor. Are we more secure from terrorist attack if Rush is thwarted in his amorous encounters? I wonder if Bob Dole had this sort of problem?

But, probably more revealing is the question of how doctors dispense medication to each and every one of us. Have you ever visited your family physician and after discussion of a problem had the doctor offer you a supply of some medication which he has in the office provided to him by the manufacturer on a trial basis? It happens regularly. And, I’m willing to bet that the pills you take home don’t have a label with your name on the bottle indicating to the customs officer that you are legally entitled to possess it. Why, you might be planning to dump it into the Palm Beach water supply and set the entire community off on a sex-fueled orgy of conservative political excess. Be careful when traveling or the Gestapo might get you for illegal Cialis possession.

This may be the most egregious example of bureaucratic fascism in months.

The Wisdom of Santayana

We’ve all learned some paraphrase of the Santayana dictum: “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat them.” Instinctively we know that we should learn from experience. The “School of Hard Knocks” is one we have all attended. That’s why in this mid-term election year we should keep the past in mind. We should try to recall what has been said and done so that we don’t have to suffer taking the course over. Even as we work at the convoluted process of re-electing our incumbent Congress-critters, we should watch carefully the comments and posturing of the Presidential hopefuls.

The Republicans, as we know, hold the Presidency and both Houses of the legislature. That would seem to bestow upon them the burden of performance for virtually all aspects of our American governance. The Democrats have been languishing as the minority party for several years with only the slightest twinge of control when one lonely Senator in a misguided moment changed allegiance in the dark of night and brought the upper house the slimmest of liberal majorities. It is tough to be in the minority and lose control of all of those committee chairmanships. It is difficult to be cast in the oxymoronic role of “loyal opposition.” It is a bitter pill to be always chasing the policy initiatives of the incumbents. That’s why there’s so much blather about retaking the legislature come this November. And that’s why a prudent voter should be paying attention to history.

Here’s a great chunk of James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” blog: Lessons of History: Condensed Version

Within a few minutes of reading, you’ll get a snapshot of the “new and improved”, much more centrist, Hillary (Rodham-or-not) Clinton. She suffers the slings and arrows of her far left base by suggesting bravely that telling your enemy a date certain for quitting is probably not a good strategy. Wow, Sun-Tzu take note!

Then there is a chronological recap of wish-I-was-a-hero-again Senator John Kerry trying to make a firm position for himself as being firmly for surrender in Iraq. Makes one wonder suddenly if the al-Qaeda crowd can get a short term rental of the battleship Missouri for an unconditional document signing photo-op. Who would be the Mullah-in-charge of the ceremony? If one needed any wake-up calls about lessons of history with regard to how Kerry views America, the American military, and the position of the world’s sole superpower as a force for global progress, this should be mandatory reading.

Follow those two glimpses of presidential hopefuls with a few gratuitous shots of how some party leaders in the left think they need to proceed to succeed in the fall election. Imagine Nancy Pelosi finally conceding that they’ve been beating a rather broken drum for the past two years and that maybe they need some real policy initiatives. Is that rocket science? You mean the Dems won’t get elected by simply being “not-Bush”?

Here are some ideas for pols in both parties. They won’t be noticed or adopted, but I’ll feel better for having offered them. Not necessarily in priority order:

1.) Recognize that we are increasingly (and irretrievably) globalized. What happens in Europe, Asia, Africa, S. America and the Middle East impacts us, our economy and our security. Fortress America is not a possibility.

2.) Get serious and stop pandering with regard to immigration reform. We must get a handle on who is in our country. We must penalize employers who don’t document workers. We must drastically increase border security. We can’t send the illegals already here back.

3.) Stop trying to buy votes. Communism is a failed concept. Socialism is only slightly less onerous. Redistribution of wealth is not a substitute for a free market, improved education, individual responsibility and entrepreneurial opportunity. Social safety nets are necessary, but welfare is not and should not be a way-of-life.

4.) Clean house over at the IRS. Nobody, absolutely nobody, can understand the tax laws. Incentives, deductions, exemptions, exclusions, and who-knows-what good ol’ boy paybacks need to be eliminated. One flat rate, possibly slightly graduated to impose a small level of social responsibility on those with more, for all people. Understandability is mandatory.

5.) Resurrect the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Anything that is not expressly delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited from the States/Individual is reserved for the States/Individual.

6.) Start being positive in politics. The issue is not how bad the other guy is, but how good you can be for the nation. Suspend the name-calling, innuendo, witch-hunting and trash-talking. We don’t need it and the only result is continuing deterioration of the political process.

There’s more, but these might be a good start.

Actions Have Consequences

When children misbehave the enlightened parenting approach is not to resort to physical punishment. Beyond the obvious fact that beating your kids is against the law there is the essential truth that you will get better training/socialization results by using positive reinforcement. Sure there’s a bit of instant gratification by descending to the Neanderthal response and whapping the incorrigible brat into submission. But, for the long term it is better to demonstrate that the adult is smarter, more civilized, more rational and a better role model than the child or the child’s peers. Reason with the little menace.

My wife, who has worked in schools for many years as both a special needs teacher and a speech/language pathologist, continually refines my understanding of behavior modification. She counsels that the child should be given alternatives. The alternatives let the kid select behavior, knowing in advance what the outcomes will be. Careful selection of the behaviors offered will help the parent to minimize the disruption and aid the training of the child. “If you eat your vegetables now you can watch television afterwards or you can leave the table now and go to bed.” It reminds me of the old cartoon character who weighed alternatives and got something like, “if I do this, I get a cookie, and if I do that I get a lickin”…inevitably, for cartoon effect, the choice was always the one resulting in the “lickin.’”

Well, actions have consequences. If we do something, something else will result. That’s why this piece is hardly a surprise: Natural Consequences

I don’t listen to a lot of country music. When I do, I often like it. It’s still not my default choice, but occasionally it’s got some hooks that make it fun. I liked the Dixie Chicks the minute I heard them. I bought their first CD and when the second one came out, I bought it as well. Good music, lots of fun, easy to listen to.

Then, like so many performers, they succumbed to the belief that talent in one area imbues one with some sort of intellectual capacity in others. Because I can sing and play an instrument, I must also be a great neurosurgeon or possibly an interpreter of world political events. Clearly that might be possible, but in most instances isn’t true. Alec Baldwin is a great actor, Barbra Streisand could sing, and Jane Fonda could marry a string of directors and get great roles playing a whore. But none of them has demonstrated any depth of intellectual capacity in evaluating complex world events. The result is that all of them have first put their silk-shod foot in their mouth and then suffered economic repercussions as they offended large segments of their audience.

The Chicks didn’t learn from observation. Natalie Manes could still sing beautifully while pregnant and wearing some of the tackiest maternity outfits ever seen in public. No problem at all. But when she spouted off on foreign shores about her embarrassment as a Texan over the elected president of the US, she killed a lot of love. It registered with the fans of country music and the hundreds of outlets for that music around the country.

She weasel-worded a bit of an apology, but the damage was done. Now, she and her associates have generated another album and I’ve heard it is quite good in a Pete Seeger, Neil Young sort of self-indulgent lecturing style. But along the way to the mandatory concert tour, the Chicks have somehow forgotten that they need fans. In a series of unfortunate and ill-advised statements, they trashed country music lovers nationwide as ignorant if they don’t agree with Manes’ view of international relations. They’ve bitten the hand of “The View’s” collection of sympathetic women who would be eager to fawn over them. They’ve clearly said that they don’t care about their former fans that can’t quite get their position on defeatist politics.

So, now the fans aren’t breaking down the ticket window bars to get those seats and venues are filled with but a third of their capacity. Cancellations are happening and the Chicks are learning a valuable lesson about the consequences of poor choices.

On the one hand I’m saddened a bit. I liked their sound and their musical poetry. But, on the other hand I’m overjoyed that the heartland folks who are the meat and potatoes of country music aren’t all that reluctant to teach a lesson.

No cookies, no TV, no Xbox and no millions for the tour, honey. Now go to bed without your vegetables. It was your choice.

It’s Called Cowardice

The media is going to be all over this like flies in the back of the barn. Here’s an Army officer standing up for what he believes in and refusing to support the “illegal and immoral” war. Why it’s just another example of the recognition throughout all levels of the military that the policy of the nation is flawed….yadayadayada.

The Kid's a Coward!

This protestation is a load of crap. This is simply self-serving cowardice. This young man is a commissioned officer. He chose to pursue that path knowing full well that the function of the U.S. military is to faithfully execute the lawful orders of those placed above them. He went to college and then accepted his commission. He trained and prepared himself for war. He was placed in a position of responsibility with subordinates depending upon him for leadership and superiors depending upon him to fulfill his obligations. That’s the way the system works.

But let’s put this in chronological order. He’s a Lieutenant. That means he’s been on active duty for less than four years. That means he took his commission after 9/11. That means he knew we were in Afghanistan. That means Iraq is no surprise. That means he’s been aware of his obligations and the percentages for quite a while. But, it’s only come to the forefront that his conscience bothers him upon receipt of movement orders to the big Sand Box.

That’s called cowardice. You won’t find that term in the papers or in the press in the coming days. This lout is going to be lionized for his “courage” and standing by his convictions. The fact of the matter is that he was more than happy to wear the uniform, accept the salutes and cash the paychecks for the last couple of years but now that he’s got to walk the real walk, he’d decided that the war isn’t nice.

It makes me gag.

Musing At the Wall

The following is an excerpt from Palace Cobra:


“War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by better men than himself.”
John Stuart Mill
1806-1873


Washington D. C. is a city of beautiful buildings and soaring monuments. The capital dominates with its majestic dome and broad stairways. The Supreme Court similarly rises among the stately trees with strength in its columns and classic façade. The memorials to the greats of our nations are white, broad and tall befitting the stature of the military and political leaders which they honor. But, the Wall is black and buried, a depression in the ground symbolizing the depression of the nation that did not win the war or respect the men who fought it. You can see the Washington Monument from miles away and you won’t need a map to find Lincoln or Jefferson or the World War II memorial, but you could walk within a hundred yards of the Wall and never see it. We seem to want to hide it, maybe hoping that an obligation has been fulfilled but no one wants to admit that the obligation existed in the first place.

The names are listed in a paper directory, dog-eared and dirty from thousands of hands searching through it for a name of a friend or family member who was lost. It’s chained to a plywood pedestal like a small town phone book at a gas station pay-phone, almost as an afterthought by the government that maybe some visitor might want to know where on the wall among the 58,000 names their special person is memorialized. But, they do want to know. They come from across the country to see and to feel and to remember. Some say they come for closure or to heal, but that is only a few. More come for respect and to belatedly honor the fallen. And some come out of guilt that they hadn’t gone or hadn’t done the right thing at the time.

The sidewalk along the brooding black marble wall slopes gradually, there are no steps along the way. It’s almost a metaphor for the gradualism that led us to failure. It marks the descent into the immorality of sending men to die for a cause that the nation wants to ignore. But when you reach the deepest point, the walk rises again and gradually, over time returns to the level of the street and the city. All things pass and maybe this represents a return to normalcy and patriotism and honor; belief in your country’s might and the principles that the other soaring white monuments of Washington commemorate. Maybe.

Children visiting the Wall from the inner cities of America laugh and tussle on the grass, showing little of the solemnity that we might wish for this spot. They don’t know these many years later exactly what this is all about. They don’t make a great distinction between Verdun and Vietnam. But, that guy over there, the one in the dark suit with the sunglasses, he knows the difference. The gray-haired fellow coming down the walk with his grand-son holding his hand, he knows many of these names. The heavy-set fellow in the West Point sweatshirt, sitting on the park bench with the cane by his side was there. The one in the tattered field jacket, with the beard and dirty matted long hair? No, probably not. Odds are he’s ten years too young and simply another poseur and “wannabe.” There are a lot of them these days. You can buy the jacket in any town and the medals can be found on eBay. But, that’s the stereotype; the homeless, drug or alcohol addicted hulk destroyed by the war. The reality is that the great majority of the survivors of the war are just quiet old men, living out their lives and remembering.

Two-Fer in the Journal

Regular readers here know that I enjoy the opinions and editorials of the Wall Street Journal. It’s only natural that a free-market conservative such as I would gravitate toward similar and reinforcing thought. It’s confirmed, however, by the fact that the WSJ writings are usually balanced, well reasoned and decidedly less shrill than the further left versions of daily print media such as the New York Times or Washington Post.

Friday offered a rare two-fer in the Personal Journal section. First there is this fine example of how even accurate reporting can create an inaccurate impression: Spin This For Example

The perspective of women in the military as victims is easily supported by poor Jessica Lynch—ill prepared, poorly led, badly treated and finally rescued and then elevated to questionable hero status. Why, that’s a perfect example of what is wrong with everything America does in the world, isn’t it? Actually, it’s a cheap effort to demean the military, women, and American policy in the Middle East.

The story of Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester wouldn’t serve the objectives of the NYT, so they don’t offer it to you. We certainly can’t have women warriors. It wouldn’t be politic to have women in leadership positions. They certainly shouldn’t be perceived as successful in such endeavors. Oooppps! Wait a second, isn’t that exactly the way they should be perceived. Isn’t that precisely what NOW has been arguing for the last several decades? Isn’t this a perfect example of what they have been saying? They are women, hear them roar! The poor main-stream media are badly conflicted here.

I’ve been picking up background material for a couple of years now for a book on the subject of women military aviators. I’ve watched the mandated entry into pilot and navigation training coupled with the affirmative action quotas to place females in cockpits, squadrons, leadership roles and finally into combat situations. Over the years resistance devolved to prejudice which shifted to grudging acceptance which recently has morphed into full-fledged respect. Old guys, like a lot of my peers, still resist. But young warriors in the fighters of today’s force weigh performance objectively and when good pilots fly and lead well, they are acknowledged regardless of gender.

The second half of the two-fer was this commentary on real-life and movie interpretation in Jewish America. Where's the PC Outrage?

On the one hand, we’ve got the spectacle of proud and financially-fixed parents striving for excess in recognizing the incipient maturity of their male offspring. Bar mitzvah parties aren’t anything new, but the extremes described in the opinion piece certainly are. Yet, that shouldn’t be restricted to Jewish families. There are Latin parties for teen-aged girls that certainly fit this category as well as baptisms, first communions, proms, showers, and most assuredly weddings that spread the scenario to Christians, agnostics, white and blue collar families, and most ethnicities. So, we can all chuckle a bit at the ridiculousness of the expenditure.

What struck me, however, was the comparison to the movie, “Keeping Up With the Steins.” Of course, once we accept movies titled, “White Men Can’t Jump” or “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, we should learn that certain religions, ethnicities and societal groups are fair game for ridicule. The hypocrisy here is that these topics and stereotypes are tolerated by the same leftists who immediately take umbrage at things like naming athletic teams after Native Americans or drawing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Where is the ACLU to defend Jewish parents from such portrayals? Why is no one speaking out against these politically incorrect cartoons? We know immediately that there would be universal outrage if someone made a film titled, “Black Men Can’t Parent”, or “My Big Alcoholic Navajo Homecoming”, or even suggesting that Rosie O’Donnell might not be an ideal parent.

It’s so much easier to be a conservative these days. The poor libs have way too much difficulty keeping their standards consistent. Having things both ways is certainly an easy way to go through life, but the problem is that a lot of folks won’t be able to figure out where you really stand.

Sanctuary!

Remember Quasimodo running into Notre Dame with the fair damsel in his arms, shouting the historic plea for respect of the sanctity of the cathedral as a refuge from violence? Well, now we have a Mel Brooks moment in the hallowed halls of the Rayburn Office Building as FBI agents with Federal warrant enter the office of Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) and find the majority of the $100,000 which they paid him in a sting operation.

So, let’s see if we can understand this. Here’s the detail and the umbrage from Speaker Hastert, among others: Sanctuary, Sanctuary!!!

The situation apparently is that Congress-critter Jefferson has been suspected of just a tad of corruption. Based on a reasonable probability that he would continue to operate in the manner to which he had become accustomed, the FBI put out some bait. Trap baited and video rolling, the Congressman snatched it up and in the process even joked at the foolishness of circumlocution regarding the discussion of the quid-pro-quo of the pay-off. Why, no need to talk in all this code as though the FBI is watching… Oooopps! They were.

Then with a hundred large in the Congressman’s sticky hands, the FBI went off with the video to a Federal judge and sought a warrant to close the loop and recover the money thereby validating the sting. They were even smart enough to discuss the nuances of how to deal with legislative papers and materials which might raise the separation of powers issue. Reasonably enough, the judge issued the warrant.

Raid was conducted and there in Mr. Jefferson’s freezer in his office was the cold, hard cash. Looks like a slam-dunk. But, nothing in Washington is ever as it seems. Recently the Dems have been hard-pressing the Reps on corruption issues. What with Cunningham and Delay both nailed, the concept of an administration rife with corruption looked like a good bet for the Donkeys in the coming election. Now, we’ve got pretty good evidence that it isn’t a one-way street. Jefferson is at least as sleazy and maybe a bit more blatant.

The question that must be asked is why all of this high dudgeon regarding the sanctuary of the offices. Yes, the separation of powers clearly demands that the executive storm-troopers not go marching into legislators’ offices intimidating them and bending them to the will of the King (AKA President.) But, if there is evidence of crime and there is proper warrant and the result clearly does not infringe on the legislative process isn’t it reasonable?

The cliché of “Rule of Law” is being thrown about, implying that the Executive is violating equal protection for an oppressed class of folks—the Congress-critters. Yet, if any of us were stung in similar manner it seems doubtful that we could claim Fourth Amendment protection against proper warrant and search of our homes. Why should there be office sanctuary for slime like this?

At least the Congressman didn’t punch out any Capital Police officers, ala McKinney.

It’s FICTION!

I feel like saying it in one of those “Valley Girl” accents. It is a work of fiction. “Like, DUH!” It is a story, and a darn good one I might note. That’s why it is so appalling to see the Catholic Church get their miters, tiaras, chasubles and crosiers all in a knot about “The Da Vinci Code” movie. They quickly lower themselves to the same appalling level as the Muslim extremists who are so offended by a series of not really very offensive cartoons that they feel compelled to burn embassies, overturn cars and assassinate perfectly innocent infidels who have no connection to the affront to the Prophet. Where was this guy when forty million copies of the hardcover edition were being sold and read and the Catholic Church was still surviving the heresy?

Cardinal urges legal action against Da Vinci Code�|�Reuters.com

Here’s a guy who was almost selected as pope last year now telling Catholics that they need to litigate, be deeply offended and possibly even emulate the violence of the jihadists. Can he really be serious? Can he not distinguish between fact and rousing good fiction? Doesn’t he know that he’s merely hyping the movie at no cost to the producers and making it all the more enticing to the masses? Would he willingly sacrifice freedom of speech for this questionable cause? Isn’t there something more important in the world for him to be disgruntled about? Gosh, he’s a Nigerian—maybe there are some problems in his homeland regarding tribes chopping each other to pieces which he could devote his energies to. Or, possibly some positive strokes to encourage a meaningful battle against AIDS? Or, a bit of constructive dialog regarding corruption, leadership, democracy and good public policy could keep him busy for a while.

Is it my prejudice against religion, or is it really an example of religious leaders of so many faiths displaying their irrelevance to the moral issues of the world?