Warriors Cried

Yesterday we laid a hero to rest. Fighter pilots from across the nation came together at the US Air Force Academy to remember, to honor and to memorialize Brigadier General Robin Olds. The events were extremely moving with full military honors, copious tears, hearty laughs remembering the great times shared and prodigious consumption of adult beverages. Robin wanted it that way. He earned the honors more completely than many who have passed before. The affection that those of us who knew him carried for the man led to the tears and the wonderful memories of his grand sense of humor prompted the laughs. The consumption of adult beverages was exactly what he would have led were he still alive to join us.

Minimalist Insight Into a Giant's Life

The formal ceremony at the Air Force Academy chapel was highlighted by reminiscences from his friends, his two daughters and his granddaughter who tearfully recalled the lessons he taught her and finished with a reading of John Gillespie Magee’s poem, “High Flight”. General Ralph Eberhart, now wearing four stars, was a cadet when Robin, recently returned from the war in Southeast Asia was Commandant of Cadets at the Academy. He told of Robin’s impact in changing the emphasis at the Academy from “management” to LEADERSHIP and the unculcation of the warrior ethic. Brig. General Bob Titus, Robin’s closest friend, spoke eloquently of Robin’s larger-than-life impact on fighter pilots, the military, his friends, his family and his community. Verne Lundquist, hall-of-fame TV and radio sports announcer and neighbor of Robin during his final decades in Steamboat Springs CO, told wonderful stories of Robin’s love of life, his enthusiasm for golf and skiing and one amazing encounter between the triple ace fighter pilot and Olympic Gold Medal ice skating legend, Scott Hamilton.

The long stairway and approach to the chapel was lined first with an incredible contigent of bikers in Harley-Davidson regalia standing at attention and holding eight foot standards with American flags. The stairs themselves were lined with the Academy cadet honor guards at stiff attention. The urn bearing Robin’s remains was carried into the Chapel by bearers from the USAF color guard. The urn itself was a magificent case of dark mahogany adorned with brass plaque and bronze sculpted wreaths, topped by a two foot high eagle sculpture with wings spread and head held high. A truly fitting repository for the grand man.

The cemetery ceremony included the traditional 21 gun salute and taps. Then the air warrior was honored by a series of flybys commemorating much of his aviation life. Two T-33s, symbolic of the F-80 fighter that Robin flew with the first USAF aerial demonstration team, followed by a P-51 Mustang reminding of the aircraft in which he earned many of his WW II kills, then a MiG-17 to recall his adversary of the Vietnam war, a flight of four F-16s and finally a flight of four F-4Es executing the famous “Missing Man” fly-by. The F-4 pilots modified the pass and rendered the ultimate (and appropriate) honor—the leader of the formation, not the #3, executed the pull-up and departure from the flight. It reflected the truth that we all knew, Robin would always be our leader.

Flyby Honors Hero

The memorial then went to a nearby hotel where friends and family gathered to share drinks and great anecdotes of encounters over the years with General Olds. His daughter, Christina, spoke briefly of his life and then unveiled a small oak barrel, bound in brass and sealed bearing a small portion of Robin’s ashes. “He wouldn’t have wanted to miss the party,” she noted, “so here he is!” That was followed by unveiling of a plaster sculpture of Robin’s gloved hand displaying the single digit salute that so many of us received over the years and usually felt honored that he felt strongly enough about us to offer it.

Nickels on the grass were freely rendered, tears continued to flow, ribald songs were sung and I’m sure that from Valhalla, Robin looked down upon the party and smiled. What a ride it was.

Orwell, Bradbury, and Huxley Built a Better World

Who didn’t have queasy dreams after reading 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World? The horror of living in that kind of totalitarian environment pales, however, in comparison to the visions of the newest gurus on the global warming hustle. Yep, I’m talking about those two middle-aged beauties in the bio-diesel bus who are flaunting their scientific credentials, oops, make that media popularity by touring the country lamenting the heat wave that’s coming. Sheryl Crow and Laurie David, both lacking any sort of technical expertise, are roaming the hinterland and pitching to the mushy minds of the college age population their view of the “Inconvenient Truth.”

These musings come directly and without filtering from the two bimbo’s blog:

Biodiesel Bus Blog

Last week we heard Ms Crow lamenting the climate change that she personally has viewed in her lifetime at her favorite beaches. That’s right! In just twenty short years of observations, none of which are accompanied by scientifically compiled data, she has noted a significant increase in temperatures! I could point out to Ms Crow that women her age occasionally sense a higher temperature than ambient due to hormonal rather than climatic change, but that might be viewed as sexist.

More critically, it would be good to note that global warming is a function of single-digit degree changes over centuries, not generally notable to individuals in a lifetime. But, I doubt such details would have significant impact.

Now, the dynamic duo seeks a broader attack on the problems. Going directly to the source of greenhouse gas emissions, they now seek a toilet paper limit per application. I’m wondering if they envision some sort of program similar to the carbon credit system to allow them to possibly trade their rate of usage with the restraint of some other cultures in terms of personal hygiene techniques. Bidet users could reap a lot of credits by foregoing TP consumption and in return get to drive larger vehicles or maybe fly their private jets more. Yep, another opportunity for trade.

But, if Crow and David have their way, how will this “one square is more than fair” dictate be enforced. You know that if there is a demand for this sort of activism to fight the temperature fairies, there will also be scoff-laws who piddle and poop without regard to the damage they are doing to the environment. That will necessitate an army of Toilet Police to enforce the rationing.

We’re looking at a world of time-controlled TP dispensers. We’ve got the technology. If we can master the 1.6 liter flush and the limited dispensing paper towel roll, we can certainly apply the same social consciousness to the TP issue.

I’m envisioning a seat-to-roll interconnect with a pressure switch on contact that then unlocks the dispenser for a limited release. The technology that detects smoking in airliner bathrooms might help to detect seat bouncers who would try to get multiple dispersions. Attempts to circumvent the system would result in alarms and flashing lights, probably with an associated stall lockdown.

There would be significant manpower requirements to certify equipment, monitor bathroom effluent and confirm that residuals of incomplete jobs were not detrimental to public health. This might be a simultaneous economic boon in terms of reducing unemployment, creating new technologies and maybe even have a lateral benefit in boosting bloomer production for replacements.

There are bugs to be worked out here, but we can do it if we all take a swipe at the problem.

Yet, I sometimes think that maybe we are having our leg pulled here. Or, possibly the dynamic duo have been wearing their thongs too tight and underestimate the magnitude of the job they are facing.

Let’s Roll Redux

Who can’t, hasn’t, shouldn’t, wouldn’t or didn’t already comment on the Virginia Tech tragedy? I mean besides me.

It has evolved almost the way one could predict while sitting in an isolation booth. There have been the stupid media filler pieces with the incessant inanities coming from reporters and interviewers who somehow think they are “probing” for new insights and information. Nope, they aren’t.

There has been the expected hand-wringing. “What could we have done?” “Why did this happen?” “When will we do something about guns in this country?” “Couldn’t we have helped this poor, young man?” It’s all whimpering over spilt milk. Can I revert momentarily to the cliché about it not being guns that kill people? Sorry, but it’s true.

What we have here is failure of leadership in America. What we have here is lack of initiative from people who should be responsible. What we have is inculcation of cowardice in several generations of Americans. Virginia Tech is simply an extension ad absurdum of the sort of “leading” we are seeing in the legislature of the US. This is Harry Reid thinking applied with a broad brush. Poor Harry can’t see a thing worth supporting, so he declares the “war is lost” and seems blissfully unaware that we only lose if we say we have, not while our brave men and women are in harm’s way on our behalf.

Here's a relevant piece that predates the tragedy:

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Let’s look at a few things that have been uncovered at VTU:

Two people are murdered on campus in a dorm and it is reported a 7:15 AM. The shooter is on the loose. The reaction of the administration is to call a meeting and discuss courses of action! Two hours pass and their choice is to send out an email asking people to be on the lookout for someone who looks suspicious! C’mon, give me a break. This is a 2600 acre campus with its own security force. Why not immediately, like at 7:20, start setting up a perimeter to close off the campus, cancel morning classes, secure all buildings, begin door-to-door canvassing and search while advising all persons in the area to lock their doors and stay inside?

No, they send out an email asking people to kind of keep an eye out for something unusual. Business goes on as usual. No courage or decisiveness from the administration.

Or, how about that episode in which the disturbed Mr. Cho signs into his new class as “?” and then refuses to respond when asked to do as all of the other students and introduce himself. I’ve taught at much smaller colleges for about ten years now and there has always been a policy that classes are not open to persons who are not registered. Obviously there was no “?” registered, so why didn’t that teacher ask this sullen individual to leave the classroom? No courage or responsibility from the teacher.

Then how about the stalking and threatening episode? Why didn’t the victims press charges? Much easier to simply roll-over and avoid further inconvenience. No courage from these two.

And what about the psychiatric evaluation that diagnosed the shooter as a danger to himself and others? With that report in hand, a bit of courage from the doctors could have pursued a course of commitment. The judge who over-ruled the medical recommendation lacked courage to do what was right. But, even so, once the psychological report is in hand a courageous administration could disenroll a student who has been identified as a danger. And, a resident alien identified as a danger to himself and others could reasonably be deported. No courage from doctors, judges, admin or immigration.

What do the students do? When the shooting starts they crawl under their desks and wait to die. These are college students, young, healthy, agile and supposedly intelligent. A single individual walks from room to room in the building shooting methodically, stopping to reload and then continuing. When does an intelligent person analyze the situation and decide that doing nothing results in inevitable death while doing something provides at least the possibility of survival? Very little courage from the students here. But, that’s what we teach these days, isn’t it?

How about that SWAT team? Lots of video of them deployed in all of their really cool gear, guns and helmets. There was a great video loop I watched on Fox News with Bubba suiting up then returning to the hood of his “unit” and recovering his Starbuck’s venti latte. Notice how many casualties the tactical team took in attempting to save the students who were waiting to die? How does NONE sound? Not much courage, aggressiveness or initiative in that operation.

Of course we could throw in the inverse courage component of the university administration which vetoed the idea of weapons or concealed carry on campus a few months ago. We should be able see very clearly how effective that kind of ruling can be in terms of making folks feel more secure. Unfortunately FEELING secure isn’t as important as actually BEING secure. No courage here either.

But, there’s a bright spot and it is very illustrative. There’s the professor, a guest lecturer and an elderly man from Europe. A Jew who lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Romania. He knew that sitting still and waiting to die was not a good option. He died while blocking the door and enabling his students to escape through the classroom windows.

And, in class yesterday, I asked my students what they thought of the tragedy. After the usual expressions of sadness and sympathy we talked about what to do. My kids aren’t in a prestigious East Coast university, they are in a small town regional college and have a lot of the toughness of the North Texas country in which they live. They acknowledged that they couldn’t wait for the police to save them.

Then a couple of the young women noted that swarming the attacker would be a good option. One of those on an athletic scholarship suggested she could pick up and toss her arm-chair desk at the assailant. Another realized that the room was filled with suitable projectiles—books, backpacks, purses, cell-phones, etc. Under a barrage of thrown items, the attacker could be overcome. Some might suffer injury or even death, but they wouldn’t wait passively for the grim reaper. Maybe Todd Beamer was smiling in his heaven.

I like these kids.

Who is More Cowardly?

I can’t help but flash back on John Kerry’s monumental gaffe—that dismal attempt to have it both ways on the war in Iraq; “I voted for it before I voted against it.” It epitomizes the modern politician, seeking to be all things to all people all of the time. Maybe Lincoln could have worked the paraphrase into fooling the people some or all of the time.

So, now we’ve got the panderers of the presidential race trying to stir the pot of anti-war activism and show who is the most anti-war of the bunch. Competition to demonstrate the greater level of weakness and cowardice with regard to defending America against those who would do serious harm to us doesn’t seem like an effective way to gain votes, but what do I know.

Check this out from the Clinton machine against Obama:

I voted for it before I voted against it--again!

Poor old Hillary is up against it. She voted for the war, although confessing an unprecedented level of naiveté with regard to accepting the administrations rationale for the move. And, she has been surprisingly prudent with regard to keeping the effort funded. It doesn’t look good to cut off the dollars for beans and bullets when Americans are in harm’s way. Mothers and voters don’t like that. So, she’s got a record that is in dissonance with her campaign stance of declaring immediate defeat and bringing the warriors home.

The solution apparently is to point out that Obama is equally guilty of announcing anti-war intentions but being forced to fund the defense of the nation in spite of himself. The Clinton gambit is to point out that both of the Democrat front-runners are equally duplicitous.

I guess that it is a truism that no one really likes war. Occasionally we try to paint industrialists as somehow pro-war because they make money on selling arms. But there isn’t much to support that thesis if we consider that arms producers are pretty well diversified these days and can make profits producing consumer goods as easily as weapons. We know for certain that parents of young adults who have volunteered for military service are a bit ambivalent—on the one hand proud of their children’s patriotism and courage, but on the other hand apprehensive about the dangers involved. No one has ambition to be a Gold Star Mother.

What is missing from this debate is a clear explanation of what immediate, Clintonesque-Obamaesque withdrawal from Iraq will accomplish. Some questions that need to be asked include:

What do you think will happen to Iraq?
What do you think Iran will do?
What will happen to Israel?
What will happen to world energy prices?
Will we be safer in Fortress America?
Where will the next threat come from?
Will Syria, Iran, Saudi and Iraq suddenly play nice?
Is a nuclear attack on Israel, Turkey, Europe or the US acceptable?
Do you think France will like us better for our weakness?
Why have a military if you are going to keep them home awaiting the next attack?
How is your plan better than the President’s?

Don’t simply sing your Kumbaya songs about bringing the troops home, lack of WMD, wrong wars, and firing US attorneys or outing Valerie Plame. Tell us how your plan is going to be better. Inquiring minds and all that jazz…

Spinning the Pleasure

What is there about plain English that Senator Clinton can’t understand? A few weeks ago she was spouting that she would confiscate the profits of a private corporation, Exxon, because in her vaunted opinion they were excessive. She would then use them for what in her superior judgment was the public good. Having spent little time in the private sector, I guess she simply doesn’t understand the free market concepts of capitalism. The idea that a company is SUPPOSED TO make profits seems foreign to her. The idea that prices are determined in a free market by what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree doesn’t make sense to her socialist conscience. The relationship in price-setting in a competitive marketplace between businesses isn’t in her background. OK, I can understand that reasoning, even if I think it is pure political pandering and ungrounded in reality.

But, now we’ve got her spouting in the realm that she should know a bit about. Take a look at this from the mainstream media:

It's called "at the pleasure" for a reason!

Let’s quickly establish some basics. The Attorney General is the chief of the Department of Justice. He or she is a member of the President’s cabinet, a member of the executive branch. The folks that work for the AG at the top levels across the country are similarly members of the executive branch. They aren’t civil service, but are political appointees of the President. They serve under conditions described as “at the pleasure of the President.” That means, they can be dismissed without cause if they fail to meet the goals or expectations of the President. It even means they can be discharged if the President takes a disliking to the color of their suits.

Is it uncommon for a President to discharge U.S. Attorneys? Not a bit. In fact, it is customary for an incoming President to discharge the entire slate across the country—ninety-three of them. Did former President Clinton do that? Of course he did. Less than two months in office and the shops were purged, with his people put in the seats. That’s the way it works. That’s what most presidents do.

So, what’s the issue with the discharge of eight attorneys now? Remembering that they serve at the pleasure of the incumbent there doesn’t seem to be anything to get into a kerfuffle about. What gives with Hillary?

It’s simply a means to get her face on the front page. She is, after all running, for president. Let’s not recall those attorneys that her husband cut loose. Let’s not rethink those members of the White House travel office that got sent packing. Let’s not even consider the White House chef that packed his knives and recipes without recourse when she pitched him onto the street. No, this is “different”—how?

Rolling Thunder at the Wall

This came to me from a bunch of vets who still work and play in the D.C. area. Regardless of what the sniveling pacifist spokesperson says, the evidence of the last fifty years dealing with anti-war folks is that they will degrade every honorable memorial to make their point. While the Capitol police stood by last month to let the slime spray paint the steps of the legislature, this time they opportunity will apparently not be provided at the Wall:


Veterans Vow to 'Protect Our Memorials' During Anti-War Rally
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
February 23, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - When protesters arrive in Washington, D.C., on March 17 to
mark the fourth anniversary of the "criminal invasion of Iraq," they'll be
met by members of several veterans' organizations determined to protect
memorials from being damaged during the demonstrations.

"We're going to be there to protect our memorials and to show support for
our troops," Artie Muller, founder and executive director of the group
Rolling Thunder, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday.

According to the organization's website, Rolling Thunder has "more than 80
chartered chapters throughout the United States."
While the group's main purpose is "to be an advocate for our troops,
veterans and POW/MIAs (Prisoners Of War/Missing In Action)," most members
are Vietnam War veterans, and thousands are also motorcycle riders.

When Muller learned that the upcoming anti-war rally would begin at
Constitution Gardens - near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, also known as
"the Wall" - and move from there to the Pentagon, he grew concerned that the
black granite memorial, which bears the name of every member of the military
who died in that war, might be damaged.

He put out a call for as many chapters, members and supporters as possible
to gather in D.C. that Saturday "to ensure that the Wall and other memorials
in the general area are not defaced."

Muller said, "We do not want, nor will we tolerate, a repeat of what
happened" on Jan. 27, when tens of thousands of anti-war protesters gathered
for a rally in Washington, and a small number of them spray-painted
anarchist symbols on the steps and pavement outside the U.S. Capitol.
Sarah Sloan, a national organizer for the International Act Now to Stop War
and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition, told Cybercast News Service the groups'
fears are unfounded.

"Information has been circulated that has been entirely inaccurate, alleging
that there's going to be some defiling or attack on the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial, which couldn't be farther from the truth," Sloan said.
"First, we're not even going to be at the memorial," she noted. "We will be
in a park near the memorial but not at the same location. Then, we plan to
march on the street from Constitution Gardens to the Pentagon, so there will
of course be no damage done to the memorial."

Sloan added that "many of the people who are involved in this other effort
are supporters of the war, and they're using their status as veterans to
perhaps mobilize additional people. This is similar to other events that are
always called and generally are very, very small in comparison to our
events."

She also said many veterans would be among the protestors.
"To say that it's just veterans who are somehow 'counterposting' themselves
to our event is really inaccurate because many, many veterans are going to
be part of the march on the Pentagon."

Veterans participating in the march are doing so "because they oppose the
war and don't want there to have to be an Iraq War memorial. They want the
killing of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi people to end, which is why we're all
marching."

Sloan pointed to a letter on the rally website that has been signed by more
than 1,000 veterans, soldiers and their families supporting the march on the
Pentagon and pledging their participation, and the number of people signing
that is growing every day."

'Criminal invasion'
The letter calls for people to gather on March 17, because "on that day, the
Iraq war will become the second longest in U.S. history, after only the
Vietnam war." Since "the criminal invasion of Iraq," "hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis have been killed," "more than 3,100 U.S. soldiers have died, and
'non-mortal casualties' are nearing 55,000."

The site also notes that "2007 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967
anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War," which "marked a
turning point in the development of a countrywide mass movement."
The site lists dozens of persons who have endorsed the event, including
former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.),
former Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan.
However, Larry Bailey, a retired Navy captain and co-chairman of the
Gathering of Eagles, a group "formed by Vietnam veterans to protect the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial from being desecrated as the Capitol was at an
antiwar march last month," was not impressed with the names on the list.
"They stand for things that are a total anathema to those of us who were the
next generation after the 'great generation'" of Americans, Bailey said.
"We believe that the war memorials are sacred ground; as such, we will not
allow them to be desecrated, used as props for political statements or
treated with anything less than the solemn and heartfelt respect they - and
the heroes they honor - deserve," he said.

"We stand to challenge any group that seeks the destruction of our nation,
its founding precepts of liberty and freedom or those who have given of
themselves to secure those things for another generation," Bailey added. "We
will be silent no more."

Déjà vu Again

Navy Commander Paul Galanti is a friend of mine. He’s one of the NamPOWs—an organization of former prisoners of war from the Vietnam days. He was shot down over North Vietnam early in the war and spent many long years languishing in the most brutal of captivity. He’s a gentleman, eloquent in his speech and proud of his country—unashamed to be patriotic and willing to speak out for what he believes is right. Here’s an editorial he wrote for this morning’s Richmond VA Times-Dispatch:

The View From Inside

We’re in significant agreement on this. His view of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC is much like mine as expressed in the last chapter of Palace Cobra. It is much more about back-handed slap and mitigation of pacifist guilt than about honoring the warriors. But, that’s beside the point. The point today is whether or not we will continue to slither down the decline in our intestinal fortitude that renders us not only unwilling to defend ourselves and our nation from a very manifest threat, but to even be reluctant to allow others the wherewithal to defend us in our stead.

“How Hard Could It Be?”

That was the campaign motto of Kinky Friedman during his recent independent run for Governor in Texas. It’s a slap in the face for pompous politicians who run for office and then muddle through their terms, dodging disasters, raising taxes, building campaign coffers and then getting re-elected because “we the people” are too stupid to demand more. Really, it is also a testimonial to the wisdom of our founding fathers. They devised a system that is pretty close to idiot-proof. There are so many checks and balances to impetuous government that the structure can survive fairly high levels of incompetence.

Certainly it still holds true in small towns and cities. Kinky was assuring us that it was true for even large states. But, does it still work for the single super-power in the world in these terrorist-filled times? Can it possibly be harder today than it was in 1787? Might the dangers be so great that we need some level of immediate capability when a new chief executive of the nation assumes the reins of power? Is on-the-job-training still a viable alternative?

I hope we don’t have to find out. Yet, the almost immediate anointing and impending canonization of Barack Hussein Obama as the Messiah of American politics is scaring the bejeezus out of me. He’s handsome, in a raw-boned, metro-sexual, ethnically correct sort of way. He’s clearly intelligent as his degrees would attest. He’s articulate and appealing in presentation as demonstrated in his Democratic convention keynote address and his subsequent national public appearances. He’s slick, all right. But, inquiring minds of crusty old-timers like me want to know what he has done. What are his accomplishments?

Here are some bios of the job applicant:

Barack Obama Bio

That’s fairly complimentary at least at first reading. But, then read between the lines. Catch this regarding that best-selling autobiography about all those lessons he learned from dear old absent dad ("Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"):

“Although Obama’s father only visited him once after he left, the son grew up with stories of his father’s brilliant mind.”

So, dad who took a powder shortly after Barack’s birth and left him all of this fodder for his book really wasn’t involved in the upbringing. The anecdotes are second-hand at best. Or, maybe they really are nocturnal imaginings, the dreams his father MIGHT have given him if he’d been around. OK, stuff like that isn’t disqualifying for the presidency.

Congress.gov Bio Quite Brief

C’mon. You’ve got to be kidding. The official congressional bio source has one scant paragraph describing a life that qualifies him to be president? Where’s his employment history? What did he build, buy, own, design, develop, create? Where’s the payroll and profit statements of his business. OK, he chose to be a lawyer. Where are the cases he tried, the suits he won, the case law he established? OK, he chose to be a politician. Where are the executive positions? Was he mayor of a town and responsible for crime and garbage and potholes? Was he a bureaucrat? That’s not necessarily good, but it might indicate some management capability. Nothing there apparently.

What's In the Wiki?

At least Wikipedia gives some details. Yet, there’s almost a ten year gap between undergraduate college and completion of law school. In that period we find one year of employment. That’s hardly a career. When he hasn’t been in some welfare oriented sinecure, he’s been in school. Honestly, if a 45 year old man came to me and sought employment on this sort of resume, he wouldn’t enter the career ladder at the top rung in any company that I had an obligation toward.

I’ve got no doubt that Senator Obama is sincere. He’s intelligent. He’s certainly ambitious. I might even give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his professed intention to conduct politics in a more issue-oriented and less personally destructive style. But, is there a shred of evidence that he could manage, organize, lead, protect and defend the largest bureaucracy in the world. Does he have a clue about bullets and beans? Does he know which end of the jet the hot air comes out of?

Is America going to get caught up in the hype of a presidential race that is focused on a black face in a two-thousand dollar suit? Maybe we’ll see Paris Hilton on the ticket to round it out, pretty-face and gender-wise.

Embracing Defeat

So, we’ve heard from the party of the left that they want a new policy for the war in Iraq. Remember the run up to the elections? They were incensed that we needed more troops. They demanded that the President acknowledge mistakes and take responsibility. They wanted a clear statement of intentions. They wanted to hear a plan for the Iraqi government to handle security. “Step up so we can step down.” That’s what the election was about. That’s the mandate. That’s what the President did last night—at least as I watched the speech that appears to be what he did.

So, why then did we have to watch Dick Durbin come out immediately after with his simpering defeatist complaints? The President sounded pretty clear to me, but Durbin and the Democrats seem to demand defeat. They don’t care about the lives that have been sacrificed for the mission—they say they do, but to walk away from the battle at this point would be surely to underscore for the future the fact that America will never back up her troops again. The Democrat’s position seems to be that there is nothing worth fighting for, nothing worth dying for in this world. They might find a reason at some time in the future to apply military force, but if this war and the Vietnam experience demonstrate anything it is that they will then abandon the effort and undercut the sacrifice as soon as it becomes politically efficacious.

What do the Democrats want in terms of a policy? Do they have a coherent plan beyond total abandonment of the field of combat and huddling behind our oceans waiting for the next jihadist to situate himself in a crowd and claim his 72 virgins? Do they want a timetable for withdrawal on a date certain? Well, sometime they do but usually even they are smart enough to realize that isn’t reasonable. Emotional, yes, but reasonable? No.

Do they want more troops in the field? Well, I’ve heard them say it. Remember their regular and consistent pointing at General Shinseki’s comments about the insufficiency of the deployed force? They wanted more troops for the job. That’s what they regularly faulted Don Rumsfeld for—not giving the generals what they needed in terms of manpower. So, the Prez says five more brigades, but they’re unhappy.

Do they want the Iraqi security forces to be at the tip of the spear? That’s what they’ve said and that apparently is what the Prez has stated will be the policy. But, they’re unhappy.

Do they want us to deal with Muqtada al-Sadr? Who wouldn’t? Let’s admit that the core of the conflict today is a Shia’ majority redressing years of grievances against the Sunni Baathist regime. The Mhadi militia, with the urging of the Iranians, is stoking the fire of civil war. They see a power vacuum with Sadaam gone and the constitutional government weak. If they can seize power now, the Iranians will be happy, they will be in control and the US will be embarrassed. What’s not to like about that outcome? It seemed that the President said last night that this is going to be a focus. We’ll be supporting the Iraqi Army in controlling Sadr city. But, the Dems are unhappy about that.

I want to know the Democrats plan. I want to know what they would do instead. I want to hear more from them than the incessant whining that the people are demanding something different, but they don’t tell us what. It’s time for them to stop telling us we’ve got a problem and now tell us that they’ve got a solution. If they aren’t happy with the President’s admission of past errors, acceptance of responsibility and proposal for handling the situation, they need to provide a viable alternative. It’s got to be something more than a Cindy Sheehan rant about bringing the troops home now. It’s got to provide some semblance of a solution and it better come with a description of why their idea is better than what I heard last night.

Frankly, I don’t think I’m going to get that.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Recall your high school civics classes. Remember that dull block of instruction on “how a bill becomes a law”? There was introduction in either house of Congress. Then committee assignment followed by hearings and debate to insure that the law was going to be just, equitable and avoid unintended consequences. Then, assuming passage in committee, it went to the floor and more debate and maybe amendment before voting. Time to allow input from the people and to allow consideration of impact. Then, assuming passage, off to the other end of the building for the other chamber to do the committee thing and then the full chamber. Followed by conference to resolve differences. All of which were designed by the cunning founders of our republic to avoid helter-skelter populism and knee-jerk reactions to emotions.

So, we’ve got Nancy Pelosi posing with a bull-whip and suddenly abandoning her preachments about bipartisanship and comity. She’s got the 100 hour agenda on her mind. Wow, it sounds great to the unwashed masses. Simple phrases appealing to emotions and getting things they want. Can’t beat that for a re-election platform in two years. Let’s look:

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

We seem to be overlooking that fact that lobbyists, for all the bad press that Abramoff got, are the voice of large interest groups—you may translate that as “we the people.” It seems that Ms Pelosi seeks to eliminate public input to the legislative process in favor of disorganized “squeaky wheel seeking grease” mass demonstrations. It’s an idea that sounds good, but really is counter to what representative democracy is about.

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Let’s note that the 9/11 commission was reviewing events that took place five and half years ago. Their report had some good recommendations, but let’s acknowledge that a lot of water has passed over, under and around the dam since then. As with any bi-partisan, independent commission, there are degrees of relevance and efficacy to the recommendations. Not all merit implementation and not all are still relevant. Simple adaptation of all the recommendations is nothing more than abrogating the Constitutional responsibility to make choices. Once again it is a populist appeal and probably ineffective. It might even be counter-productive. Can anyone say USA Patriot Act?

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step.

Oh boy. That’s easy. The people love it, and it doesn’t even take any tax dollars. Just issue a royal edict that businesses must pay more than their labor is worth to people. The money will simply come out of thin air. I’ll bet Socialist Nancy can even orate for an hour or two on the social justice and need for living wages and the responsibility of the bourgeoisie to support a family of four above the poverty level. And it really will boost the economy and no one will pay higher prices, etc. Bottom line is that the founders never in their wildest dreams envisioned the government dictating private business wage rates.

Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.

Here’s one that I’m ambivalent about. There’s a good case for student loans by government. And, they should be subsidized or at least affordable for students who might otherwise not be able to get a college education. But, there should be qualification standards, grade requirements and, most important, a well regulated pay-back program. No forgiveness, no ignoring defaults, no amnesty. Period.

Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

No! Did you notice the free market response of Wal-Mart (villain of the Democrats) recently? A huge formulary of $4 generics available to everyone. That’s free-market, folks.

I just explored Part D and Medicare supplement insurance for my 91-year-old mother-in-law. Would you believe there were more than fifty plans to choose from for her—someone I thought virtually uninsurable? Would you believe that the most expensive plans were less monthly cost than what I pay as a military retiree for my supposedly guaranteed health-care for life? That’s the fact. We don’t need government setting drug prices—that’s what this is about, not negotiation but dictation of prices. The free market does a great job of promoting research, finding effective drugs, making them available at prices that people can afford with or without their insurance plans—which are also free market. No government intervention required. It’s a slippery slope first step to national healthcare.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds -- "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

This issue is based on a false promise. The fervent hope is that embryonic stem cell research will lead to solutions for a wide range of medical problems. The evidence for this assumption is minimal, but “hope springs eternal” particularly for those with terminal or debilitating illnesses. It further assumes a significant difference between embryonic stem cell research, which is anathema to the pro-life crowd, and other forms of stem cell research. Finally, it once again imposes government in a place it shouldn’t be; legislating on the directions of scientific inquiry. Science should not be reverted to the days of the Inquisition. Neither the cardinals nor the congressmen should be telling scientists what they can explore. And, as a corollary, government should stand aside and let free enterprise fund the research.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

That’s one I’ve got to see. Can you believe for one minute that the party of welfare is really going to be constrained by revenues, particularly in the run-up to the presidential election of 2008? That simply is an unrealistic expectation. Certainly avoidance of deficit budgets is desirable, but if necessary, particularly in a time of ongoing hostilities, deficits might be necessary.

Note further the caveat that Ms Pelosi introduces—“whether the issue is middle class tax relief…” Is she saying that she is willing to avoid deficits by piling taxes on the man in the street? That could be what she means.

I remember the “Contract With America” of Newt Gingrich and the fresh majority of 1994. Those goals were a bit more objective and not quite so emotionally appealing. They didn’t have the time constraint of Ms Pelosi’s agenda, but they were pushed through the House fairly expeditiously. Then, they died unceremoniously in the Senate. And, the “Contract” got morphed by the left-wing media into the Mafia-tinged “Contract ON America.” Pretty soon, no one wanted the actions.

This time around, I wonder whether common sense will prevail in the Senate. I somehow doubt it. This is a time of populism, of “bread and circuses” that pander to the demands of the masses. There’s little consideration to what these proposals really mean and how they will impact the future erosion of our capitalist system and our republican form of government. I’m afraid. I’m very afraid.

Creative Accounting 101

A big appeal when I first considered moving to Texas was the lack of a state income tax. As a former beneficiary of that policy when I was moved by the Air Force for a couple of years to Texas, I appreciated the idea that government wasn’t getting paid even more of my hard earned dollars. Yet, way down deep inside I know in my heart of hearts that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to have schools and roads and police and parks and the other niceties of living in society, you’ve got to pay somewhere and somehow. It could be property tax or sales tax or licensing fees or excises or something. Yet, it won’t have that progressive tax stigma of demanding more of my money the harder I work. I really stumble over being penalized for success. I like to pay my share and I may even accept the social responsibility of a bit of contribution for the benefit of those less fortunate. But it ends there.

That’s why I had to read this piece in Dallas Morning News a couple of time to try to understand it:

Riddle Me This

You might not see it at first glance. But let me simplify. The “budget mess” that is reported on is that tax cuts enacted last year to reduce the fairly heavy ad valorem property taxes for homeowners are listed in the budget for the coming year as an expenditure. And, despite those cuts, revenue projections are indicating a huge surplus based on the booming economy with rises in sales tax returns and new levies on sinful activities that government is trying to (tongue-in-cheek) discourage, like smoking. Lots of money coming in despite tax rate cuts—remember Reaganomics? Remember David Laffer? Remember that voodoo about letting people keep more of their money and the economy booms sending tax revenues skyward? Still works!!!

So, a simple mind like mine would say no problem here. That’s where we stumble across the illustrative insight of the legislative mind. See, there’s a budget cap imposed by the voters on the legislature. They can’t spend more than a pre-established increased each year. Fine, you think. No problem really if revenue is up, you’ve got the money to cover the necessities. But, alas, there is the rub. Under the convoluted thinking of the bureaucratic mind, the tax cut is AN EXPENDITURE! That’s right; the legislature is making a payment. They are spending by letting us keep our money in the first place.

They just don’t get it. It isn’t their money to spend. It isn’t their largesse that lets us keep what we already own. Reduced tax rates aren’t a payment. They shouldn’t be in the budget anywhere. The budget should list expected revenues based on tax rates in effect for the period. Then the expenses should reflect payments out of the funds. Money in on the assets side. Payments out on the obligations side. Revenue that doesn’t come in because taxes don’t exist anymore shouldn’t by any convoluted thinking be considered as a payment. It can’t be a payment because it isn’t their money to pay!

But, they roam the hallowed halls of Austin befuddled by how to “pay for our tax cuts” and still spend the excess revenues from a booming economy. What am I missing here?

The Three Bears Forecast:

You remember the Goldilocks story. There was the traditional single-child Bear family, with one momma, one poppa and one baby. They didn’t maintain much security in their peaceful neighborhood, so when Britney or Paris or Pamela or whomever the blond was that was roaming the woods broke into the place she found a range of appeal in most everything she tried. Usually there were the two possible extremes and then one that was just right. So too with predictions for the coming year.

If you are of the pessimistic persuasion, you might look at this one:

Gloomy Poll

Or, if you lean toward the bright side of the spectrum and see your glasses as half full, then try this:

Sunshine Poll

If you are a realist and think back on predictions made in previous years you should be able to acknowledge that these exercises are always wrong…or always right…to some degree or another.

Let me make some predictions. They will be as right or wrong as those of the highly paid pundits and worth exactly what you are paying for them. It will give me a chance, however, to point back at them when the predictions come true during the year or, conveniently to ignore them if nothing of the sort comes to pass.

First: there will be a major terrorist attack on US soil during the coming year. That is pretty much guaranteed. It will probably be Islamist jihadists, but it could just as easily be some kook wanna-be playing for his fifteen minutes of infamy. Regardless, a lot of people will die and once again we will get serious about security and maybe this time we will keep at it until we’ve made some progress.

Two: enviro-whackos will continue to preach global warming and eco-terrorism but sensible folks will begin to acknowledge that we can’t have it both ways. If we want to continue living in the manner to which we’ve become accustomed, we are going to have to drill for oil, build power-plants, transport goods on highways, clone animals and plants to insure a food supply and chop down trees to build our homes. We will begin to compromise and maybe stop trying to operate with our hands tied by excessive environmental legislation.

Three: the new congress will increase the minimum wage, repeal tax cuts and increase hand-outs to the growing welfare class. The result will be a plunge in the Dow, increased unemployment, accelerating inflation and much higher interest rates as consumer optimism goes down. The voting public will not link the cause and effect.

Four: we will not do a single thing to deal with illegal immigration. Nothing, nada, zippo, zilch! No walls, no visas, no registration, no deportations, no employer oversights and not much more than talk without walk from the political panderers in Washington.

Fifth: there will not be a draft. Both parties will point at the other side and say it is them that will be taking our children to fight in unjust wars. The military will correctly state that we don’t want unwilling conscripts to train and attempt to manage. Spoiled American youth will whine that it isn’t their fault and they see no reason to serve. Consideration will be given to outsourcing the contract for our defense. Bangladesh will bid on the job.

Sixth: even the Democrats will begin to recognize that Hillary Clinton has too much baggage to be a viable candidate for president. While the party faithful might yearn for a return to the Clinton era, mainstream—and generally quiet—America doesn’t want to dredge through all of the associated muck again. They will also realize that Barack Obama needs a minimum of two terms in the Senate before he proves some capability for the top slot.

Seventh: the Republicans will whimper when John McCain announces that his health won’t let him run, but many will know that he isn’t what the Reagan conservative core of the party seeks. Guiliani isn’t either, but he will be a major contender. Look for a rise to prominence of someone we still haven’t heard from. Governors are always good choices.

Eighth: Windows Vista will be a huge success. The usual suspects will gripe about vulnerabilities and instability, but users will be dazzled and honest folks will have to concede that MS has hit a homerun.

Ninth: there will be a re-emergence of class, culture and sophistication in American Society. People will not show the slightest interest in whether Paris has a dog, Britney has underwear, Angelina has a baby, or Madonna has hot flashes. Tabloids at grocery store checkout counters will disappear in bankruptcy and rap music will no longer cause my bedroom walls to vibrate as some idiot with $10,000 worth of stereo in a $400 car drives by. (OK, none of this will happen, but I wish it would.)

And Tenth: the US will slowly withdraw from Iraq as a politically driven run-up to a presidential election year. The result will be increasing violence in that country, increasing adventurism by Iran, increasing vulnerability to energy supplies for Europe, Russia and the Far East, and an increasing realization that we made a mistake—not by going there, but by leaving.

I promise to come back to this next year—good Lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise. We’ll see how I did.

Amazing Without Mirrors

The fishwrapper this morning pointed out that with recent Christmas purchases there are now 33 MILLION of us with High Definition televisions. That’s a lot of plasma, LCD, DLP, mirrors and magic going on out there. I confess, I’m one of the mass. I’ve been one for about two years now. I’ve seen high def programming and was amazed. When I first sat in front of the set at home with my cable hookup, I found myself watching Korean sumo wrestling, just because it was in high def. The Koreans are more modest than the Japanese version. They wear white boxer shorts under their sumo thong. And they typically average about 115 pounds. But, hey, it’s in HIGH DEF!

That was then. Now I just passed my one year anniversary in my new digs in North Texas. Cable doesn’t quite meet the standard we had in Colorado. I understand the costs of that “last mile” thing. Stringing cable to small town across America is expensive and maybe Whitesboro isn’t quite as ready for high def as Plano or Denton. So, cable isn’t in my house. I’ve got satellite. Dish Network to be specific. That’s the service that reaches skyward to those orbiting satellite repeaters so that I can theoretically get most any major TV channel that is broadcast. The operative word there is theoretically.

I’ve got the “Platinum” programming package—that’s 180 of the “most popular TV” channels. I’ve got HBO, Showtime and CineMax. I’ve got the High Definition tier and additionally got the “VOOM” channels for more High Definition. What I don’t have to any great degree is High Definition.

I don’t have Fox HD. I don’t have CBS, NBC or ABC HD. I don’t have NFL HD. I get the promos that tell me there is HD broadcast of major network programming, but I don’t receive it. I could get it with the flick of a switch on Dish Network’s vast control room. It’s out there in space waiting to be beamed to my little Dish 1000 dual satellite receiver. But I don’t get it.

What do I get? Well, there’s the Kung Fu HD channel—all Asian violence all the time. I get Monsters HD, with every Godzilla movie ever made running back-to-back. But, broadcasting them in HD still doesn’t get a HD picture. They were grainy movies then and they’re still grainy. Oh, and I’ve got two HD channels in the package that have never been on-the-air all year as well as an HD Pay-per-view channel—but, I thought I was paying for HD already.

Recently, during the middle of the Nebraska—Oklahoma game, Dish shut off my Fox and ABC feeds. Seems that our Congress decreed that I couldn’t see major networks other than those from my local provider. So, despite being 50 miles from Dallas, that ain’t my local provider and I don’t get them—even in standard definition. I get Sherman TX for CBS now. It’s a channel that has a funny quirk of going in and out of focus on about a three-second cycle. It’ll give you vertigo after a while.

Well, it isn’t really that I can’t get out-of-area channels exactly. There is another company that for $2.50 a month decided whether you meet their criteria and then they feed you a San Francisco or Atlanta channel—which is fuzzy, grainy and drops out whole chunks of sound and picture with distressing regularity. But no High Def.

One special feature of Dish is that when it rains or the wind blows, you’ll lose contact with the satellite for half an hour at a time while the little computer gizmo reacquires the satellites and does fifteen or twenty quality checks before restoring service. That means when I’d really like to know if a tornado is bearing down on my domicile, I’ll have to listen for the freight train sound rather than get some weather news on TV.

So, somewhere sun is shining and somewhere children shout, but there is no joy in Whitesboro, mighty Dish Network continues to strike out.

Hiring The CEO

Let’s imagine. You’re on the board of directors of a multi-billion dollar company. There have been some problems recently and as a good steward of the investment you know that it is time to replace the CEO. You’re wondering about the bottom line and maybe even new directions. Is your product competitive or is technology changing faster than you can adapt? What should your new leadership be doing?

So, you have a board meeting. The directors sit around the mahogany table and discuss what they want in a candidate. What are they suggesting?

Maturity. We need someone with some grounding and the ability to detach emotion from the decision-making process. We don’t want to be wearing our heart on our sleeves when it comes to the success of the corporation do we? We need someone with, dare I say it, gravitas!

Experience. In an operation the size of ours we can’t afford an on-the-job training situation. We’ve got to find someone who has some workplace experience. Someone who knows how to define the problems and bring together a team that can assemble solutions. There’s no room for nepotism or manufactured diversity quotas. We need a leader that can lead and the management staff has to know what they are doing, not simply be square fillers or tokens.

Integrity. Sure, that goes without saying. There’s no room to hire someone who’s run afoul of the law or even someone who might be suspicious in their past. We don’t want to have to divert our resources to putting out fires regarding conduct and honor and behavior. There are problems to be solved regarding the operations here and we don’t need to waste a lot of effort discussing whether the boss wears boxers or briefs.

Well, wait a second. Isn’t it time we consider a woman for the job? I mean the position has been held for as long as we’ve been in business by a man. Isn’t it time for a woman to have a turn at the helm? Wouldn’t that be fair?

Honestly, if we can find a woman who wants the job who possesses the qualities, the values, the experience, the talent, the capability, the moral authority, the respect that we need, then certainly we should consider a woman. It is what is best for the company that should guide our decision. It’s what we owe the stock-holders. It’s what we know is necessary. But, it isn’t going to be because it’s someone’s “turn”. That would be foolish, wouldn’t it? To put someone in the job simply because of their gender rather than their qualifications?

Maybe now you’ve identified the metaphor. The company is the US of A. The board is the voters. The CEO is the president.

That is why it is so ludicrous to be watching the Barack and Hillary follies. That is why this in the New York Times is disturbing:

Applying For A Job

Can someone tell me about Barack? I know he’s the proper mix of white and black parents to somehow make him a Renaissance Man of color. But that doesn’t make him presidential.

I know he’s a Senator from Illinois. But he’s only been in the job two years. That doesn’t make him experienced.

I know he responds to the question about drug use with a throw away about actually inhaling quite a bit and doing “a bit of blow”. Sorry, but at that point he just joined my not-so-short list of disqualified. I don’t need confessed druggies, even recreational druggies, in the big chair in the front office. No. Simply NO!

But, has he ever held a job? Beyond being charming and maybe even somewhat charismatic, does he have any accomplishments of import? What has he done? Beyond being black and cute I seem to find his resume lacking. Does he have any management experience? Built a staff somewhere? Solved some crisis? Met a payroll?

Increasingly I keep returning to the conclusion that America is incapable of exercising democracy. Choosing a CEO isn’t a popularity contest. It isn’t a social engineering laboratory. It isn’t a “everybody gets a turn” fair play exercise. It is about leading the greatest country in the world to success and security for the people. How come we keep forgetting that?

What’s In a Name?

Apparently the big news now is that we’re OK with calling the unpleasantness in Iraq a “civil war.” If that gets progress in resolving an increasingly untenable situation then I’m all for it. If it is simply a semantic convolution aimed at further vilifying the President, then we’ll be no further down the road than we are now.

A group of pointy-headed intellectuals from some university political science department have decided to create objective terms of definition for a civil war. Some obvious aspects and some bordering on the ridiculous. Clearly a civil war is an internal affair of a nation-state. It is competition between competing, armed political movements for control of the future of the territory. It is not an external invasion. It reflects a desire of the population for change from the status quo. And, according to the pointy-heads, qualifies for the terminology when more than 100 persons have been killed in the process.

What amazes this observer is what an over-simplification of a complex situation that is. The death of a hundred people in political strife is both a deplorable occurrence and a commonly encountered event in today’s world. It is simultaneously too terrible and too insignificant to render unrest elevated to the level of civil war. And, in the greater scheme of things, does it really matter what we call it?

Despite what we read in the punditry’s pronouncements, the conflict in Iraq these days isn’t about us or our invasion to oust Sadaam. They aren’t killing us so much as we are getting killed while trying to interpose ourselves between the murderous factions trying to kill each other. We’re simply collateral damage as the Sunni and Shia’ try to outdo each other in religious fervor and demand for the death of all who would imply that their version of Islam isn’t the most righteously peaceful.

Sure, a civil war is an internal struggle for power over a country. If Clausewitz was right about war being politics by other means, then civil war is surely democracy by other means. But, it isn’t clear yet whether Iraq is a two-party civil war. We can’t liken it to the American experience with civil war. It isn’t yet possible to see what the alternative positions are in this conflict. What is the political agenda of the contenders? Are there more candidates for controlling power than just generic Sunni and Shia’? I’d bet there are. A lot more.

Will this evolve from a fractured warlord situation and congeal into a more traditional bipolar conflict? What previous model can we apply to make sense of the situation? Is this Mao versus Chaing as in post-WW II China? Or more like Somalia where rather than emerging consolidation we got total disintegration of order? Might we see a nationalist leader like Tito arise to bring order out of the chaos? Can we distinguish between a benevolent Fascist like Franco and a more malevolent Communist? For certain we aren’t looking at any figures like our own Lincoln, Grant or Lee.

Until we can make some sense of the menu of players we, meaning the man on the street, will be scratching our heads and deferring judgment to those with more accurate intel. Unless we can ascertain what the competitors will do over the long term with regard to building a viable nation we really can’t commit to any faction. If the model is one of an emerging leader, then we can have a positive role to play in stabilizing the region. If we can determine a preferable outcome for the Iraqi people we have a goal to aim for. If we can contribute to security while these questions are answered it can be worth the cost of the candle. But if we can’t answer the questions then it becomes a situation in which we merely endanger ourselves while trying to stand between the warring parties.

If a determination isn’t made soon, the long term impact on the American polity is going to be unfortunately similar to that of the Vietnam War. I’ve long resisted the tendency to make comparisons because this situation is very different. But in one area it will be similar. If we can’t succeed in stabilizing the situation and withdraw from the area to allow it to descend into total anarchy the stench of our defeat and the conclusion that America cannot be a positive force in the world will dog us for another forty years.

THUMPED!

Election Day was gloomy for a conservative. Clearly my prediction that things weren’t really as bad as the Left-Wing Media was shouting was wrong. Things were worse. Lots worse. It really isn’t easy to get a five or six seat Senate swing when only 33 seats are in contention. It isn’t easy to shift forty or more House seats. It flies in the face of election statistical history where 95% of incumbents get re-elected. You’ve really got to blow it to take this big a hit.

Why? What went wrong? There will be a lot of analysis from both sides of the aisle and throughout the blogosphere over the next few weeks. Was it the war? Couldn’t have been the economy. Was it illegal immigration? What about Social Security? Maybe corruption and scandal?

Here’s what the Wall Street Journal thinks: Referendum on Failure

Here’s what I think.

The maxim about power corrupting holds true. Conservatives said they were different than liberals. They espouse the idea of individual responsibility over governmental nannyism. We can be self-sufficient. We can raise our families, get our own education, work hard to succeed, save some money, plan for retirement and live by standards of morality and ethics. We don’t need a government hand-out and we abhor the idea of redistribution of wealth, especially if it is our wealth being redistributed and it is being handed out to those who apparently have done little more than breathe in order to qualify for it.

We’re the side of low taxes. We’re the side of moral behavior. We’re the side that supports democracy and freedom over cronyism and despotism. We’re the side of bravery and patriotism, of pride and honor, of trust and truth. We’re the side that stands up for what is right, even if it isn’t popular. We’re the side who will do the right thing and take the consequences, firm in the faith that doing right is its own reward.

But, we became the side that said one thing and did another. The opposition incessantly pointed out that the Republicans in power were corrupt. Their strategy was not to provide alternatives of public policy, but simply to highlight failures of the incumbents. They couldn’t really propose a palatable solution to Iraq that would leave the region stabilized and Americans less threatened by terrorism, so they didn’t try. They couldn’t really argue that the President had failed in managing an incredible recovery for the economy after the tragedy of 9/11. The stock markets, interest rates, unemployment numbers, inflation levels and productivity figures were pretty conclusive, so they were simply ignored. They didn’t want action on illegal immigration, so they obfuscated knowing that the Republican majority could be depended upon to pander.

What they could do was consistently, continuously, conclusively point out that the Emperor was naked. They had dealt with corruption and venality in their own party during the Clinton years and long before. They simply had to point out that the folks who said they were better weren’t really that good. They highlighted hypocrisy. And it was there!

When President Bush took office, he made a clear effort to demonstrate that he was going to mark a change in terms of ethics. He wanted to restore the faith of the American people in their president. He would be honest and forthright. He would tell the truth, even when it was tough. No more finger-wagging and denials of the obvious. No more convoluted definitions of what the “meaning of ‘is’ is.” We expected better and we would get it.

I don’t think he let me down. I think he was let down by his party. He expected more from them than they were going to deliver. With a majority in both houses of the Congress, he should have gotten support for his initiatives. He should have had cooperation in getting an agenda moving. He did his part in biting his tongue and signing bills that he could easily have justified vetoing. He certainly wasn’t the obstruction to progress in the past six years. It was his own party in the legislature.

But, it wasn’t the legislative gridlock that torpedoed the party for this election. It was the moral collapse.

It was Abramhoff. When a lobbyist looks corrupt, he probably is. When he is blatant about payoffs and kickbacks, he isn’t working for that “shining city on the hill” but rather for that glaring casino on the reservation. When it slithers like a snake, don’t be surprised when it bites you in the breast. As the parable goes, “you knew I was a snake when you picked me up.”

It was Cunningham. Damn it, Duke, you were better than that. You knew what was right and what was wrong. You disgraced your legacy and your profession and all those who trusted you and expected honesty in return.

It was DeLay. Politics ain’t tiddlywinks. But it also shouldn’t be dirty and shouldn’t be confused with personal self-interest. It shouldn’t be a game of “gotcha” and despite the temptations to exercise your power to perpetuate your incumbency, you needed to respect democracy. You played at the edge of the rules and got wrapped up in accusations and innuendo that even if you weren’t guilty resulted in your downfall and contributed to the loss of your party.

It was Ney and Burns who got caught up in the Abramhoff debacle. Congress isn’t about getting rich or even about good seats at the football game. It’s about service to your country.

It was George Allen who clearly proved himself much less than Presidential material when he stooped to arguably racial epithets in a vain attempt to be cute and funny. Leave that stuff to the Kerrys and we’d all be better served. Finishing your campaign with a litany of selected steamy quotes from novels written by your opponent was beneath you. Couldn’t you have made the case for your re-election with competence and qualifications and an agenda of what you wanted to get done?

It was Foley, but more than that it was all of the members of the House who knew about Foley and looked the other way. The hard part of the honor code of the military academies isn’t the front end about “lying, cheating and stealing” but the back end about “tolerating among us, those who do.” Had the House leadership had the moral backbone to deal with the problem we would have had a lot fewer Republicans holding their nose in disgust rather than voting.

It was Ted Haggard, who wasn’t even in politics. Reverend Ted standing up on Sunday to oppose gay marriage then snorting some meth and calling his gay boyfriend during the week for a tryst was symbolic of a failure of conservatism. It matters not that he wasn’t relevant to the party or national politics. The stench wafted over the conservative movement. Mix one part Haggard, one part Foley and three parts corrupt congress-critters and you get a recipe for an electoral debacle.

What will it take to recover? It’s clear to me. Walking the walk after talking the talk. Values and ethics and morality require action beyond simple lip service. Behaving like the people we profess to be is what it will take to regain the confidence of the voters. Bringing home the bacon when we know it took a lot of wallowing in the sty doesn’t make a very good meal in my house.

Kerry at College

“The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”
Sir William Butler

John Kerry seems to think otherwise. If he had made the statement in isolation, it could be considered a singular gaffe in an otherwise mediocre political career.

Study Hard Video

Certainly the statement can be interpreted in more than one way. Superficially he seems to be indicating that smart people don’t fight for their country. Smart people find ways to avoid wars and patriotism and honor and inconvenience. Get educated, work hard, marry well and you can be comfortable while the less gifted intellectually go and do your heavy lifting for you. That’s the way some could take his statement. If taken that way, he has insulted the American fighting men and women once again.

Or maybe he’s just the world’s worst stand-up comic. Things that he thinks are going to be charming and funny aren’t really. If that were the case it would be easy for him to simply say, “gosh folks, I misjudged the impact of my remarks and I really didn’t mean to offend you all because you know I’m a great supporter of our fighting men and women.” That wouldn’t be all that hard. John McCain, whose courage and commitment to the military can’t be questioned, suggested that an apology might be in order. He spoke softly and slowly so as to insure that it didn’t become some sort of heated campaign rhetoric. But Senator Kerry has been adamant in refusing to apologize.

Maybe there’s more to it. We might recall his Senate testimony so many years ago when he accused as all, each and every military man serving his country in an unpopular war, of being war criminals—murderers, thugs, rapists, sadists, criminals. I certainly recall it. Every Vietnam veteran should remember it.

Or possibly we could replay his more recent comments in which he again characterized American soldiers, in harm’s way, of being murderers, terrorists and rapists. If he said it once, albeit in a very public forum, it might be excused as the emotional outburst of someone deeply troubled about the morality of war. But he said it again, thirty years later, now as a US Senator in describing our troops in Iraq. It could only be because he feels very deeply about the assertion. It could only be because he believes it and wants everyone else to believe it as well. If so, he is seriously deluded and his efforts could be considered distinctly treasonous.

Certainly he has recently seemed eager to don the mantle of combat veteran and war hero. He jumps at any opportunity to point out lack of service in those who speak out against his positions.

How Many Strikes Does He Get?

Or, he could be slamming the administration and once again alluding to some level of intellectual superiority over the President. It’s a horse that the Democrats seem all too eager to ride. Recall the alleged intellectual superiority of Al Gore, divinity school drop-out. And Kerry’s own regular flaunting of his education. But now his home town newspaper provides this insight into the Senator’s comparative performance. It appears that two students in the same Ivy League university had similar academic achievements. In fact, it appears to this observer that the President even edged out the Senator in terms of scores across the board.

Learning From Experience?

What does it mean? To me it means that John Kerry still holds the military in exceptionally low esteem. He still views himself as somewhat superior to the masses. He still wants us to think he’s a hero, but he simultaneously wants to paint all of the other folks who serve unstintingly in the far and dangerous reaches of this world as some sort of Neanderthal criminals.

I’ve known for a long time what kind of man John Kerry is. I know many of the folks who risked a lot to be public figures in support of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I know that American troops are well trained, honorable, courageous and most emphatically not lacking in intellectual capacity. I know that increasingly I detest John Kerry for having the audacity to do and say the things that he does. And, I fear for the Republic if his like should be in control of the reins of our government.

Snatching Defeat From the Jaws

Less than three weeks from election day and both parties are trying to outdo each other in terms of promoting a massive realignment of the legislature. We all are assured regularly that the mass media are not biased to one side or the other of the political spectrum. We accept that as truth as surely as we have confidence that the beachfront property we’ve been offered in Florida will be a great home site and the bridge we are being sold over the Hudson in NYC is actually for sale. The press has told us that the voters are “mad as hell and aren’t going to take it any longer.” They’ve got the proof in the polls and the Dems are eager to agree with that view. What’s really surprising is the parallel eagerness of the Republicans to forecast defeat as well.

What ever happened to optimism, confidence and that “bright city on the hill”? It looks as though Karl Rove, the Wizard behind the curtain, is the only one who seems willing to predict victory.

Voters Dissatisfied

Time Looks Left

Rove Upbeat

The question you’ve got to ask yourself is, “do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?”

I’ve been a pessimist about democracy as a means of governing for a long time. There’s too much evidence of blatant apathy and ignorance among the masses. They don’t know and they don’t care about issues. They do respond with some drooling and lip-smacking to Pavlovian stimulation with some scandals. And, if you aggressively keep repeating catchy sound-bites they will be able to repeat them on signal.

Let’s take a look at what an intelligent voter might consider in making election choices this cycle. It is about the issues, isn’t it? Remember the George Carville mantra from the 1992 election that gave us Bill Clinton? “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Well, how’s the economy doing? Man on the street has been conditioned to reply something about rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent and jobs being outsourced. What do we see in hard facts? Well, the Dow-Jones has skyrocketed into new territory over 12,000. That, despite the incredible impact on the economy immediately after the 9/11 attacks. So, the market is good.

Interest rates have been steady for consumers. Sure the fed rate has been adjusted upward regularly to keep a throttle on inflation, but anyone would have to confess that quarter of a point interest was not a realistic long-term strategy. For Joe Bagadonutz in the street, the mortgage rate is fairly constant around 6%; bank interest has been creeping steadily upward—I saw some CD rates recently for reasonably short terms in the mid-fives; and cars are still being sold for no-interest loans. Monetarists will have to feel comfortable. Oh, and increases in cost-of-living indices are remarkably low. In other words, the economy is booming. Housing starts are up. Unemployment is down. Consumer confidence is up. Productivity is up. And, how about the price of gasoline?

So, is there a problem reflected in what the current administration is doing economy-wise? Doesn’t seem so, but then do the voters know all of this?

What about security? Do you feel less secure now than before 9/11? Of course you do! Who wouldn’t feel less secure after that day that made us all painfully aware of our vulnerability? We woke up and now we know that there are people who wish to kill us for simply being Americans. What would a change in administration do on that front?

We know what the current administration has been doing. They’ve been killing terrorists and attempting to build democracy in the volatile Middle East. They are the ones who recognized and warned us about an “Axis of Evil”. Well, duh! How has that evolved? Apparently the administration had pretty good info that the nuts in Iran, N. Korea and Iraq were pretty well committed to doing us harm. Has this been demonstrated satisfactorily for the man in the street? One would think so, but somehow the message gets convoluted and the conclusion seems to be that we should make nice with Kim and Osama and Ahmadenijad. Don’t you have to be a bit off-center to honestly believe that resisting these people is the right course of action? Would withdrawal from Iraq leave the world a better place? How long would it take before Tel Aviv became a green glass glowing parking lot?

So, we know that the current administration sees evil and seeks to take firm action to minimize the danger to America. We know that the opposition seeks to withdraw from Iraq, negotiate with Kim and pacify Ahmadenijad with nuclear power plants. That, they assure us will make the rest of the world love us again. Bad assumption—they didn’t love us in the first place.

Are taxes your problem? The folks seeking to replace the Republicans keep telling you about tax cuts for the wealthy. The problem is that in America, it is the wealthy that pay taxes. If you don’t pay tax, you can’t get much of a cut. They want you to believe that we’ve got to restore those taxes that were cut a few years ago so that we can raise revenue. The problem here again is that facts don’t support that premise. The tax cuts have fueled the economy and given us higher revenues, more jobs, and a better business climate.

Maybe it’s the scandals. Yes, that’s got to be it. The corruption is cause for change. Yet, we don’t see a monopoly on corruption. While Mark Foley is the disgusting poster boy du jour for deviance, we’ve got the mourning for Gerry Studds who is lionized for his flamboyant lifestyle. Cunningham is in prison (deservedly so) and DeLay is out of office while Congressman William Jefferson is still serving after his freezer full of marked money was discovered by a federal search warrant and Sen. Harry Reid is handing out campaign contributions as tips to his residence staff at the Ritz-Carlton. Seems like corruption should be abhorred, but it isn’t exclusive to either party and really shouldn’t be extended to paint other candidates.

What about the timely (coincidence?) release of the smoking gun books of Bob Woodward and Frank Rich? If one needed to refute the arguments that there is no left-wing bias in the major print media, it would be hard to avoid throwing these tomes on the table. They cater to the lowest forms of political debate tending more toward vitriol and villianization than rationale, well-reasoned argument. More importantly, they seldom get read by voters who merely absorb the occasional sound-bite or reviewer nugget as a synthesis of the entire work.

It is devilishly difficult to predict what is going to happen on election night. I’d like to think that the knee-jerk liberals who don’t delve very deeply into the issues will not follow through on their rhetorical assurances of voting. I’d like to believe that those who do vote will ask themselves what is important in their life for government to accomplish. I’d like folks to consider what they’ve heard regarding positive policy alternatives from each of the parties rather than the name-calling and mud-slinging. If that were to happen, the outcome of the election would be satisfactory to me.

Ooops, I Did It Again

Oh, Kim, did you really want congratulations? Wouldn’t some sympathy be in order? You want so much to play with the big kids and be respected and have them look up to you outside of your own neighborhood and all be happy to call you “Great Leader.” But, your toys don’t seem to be all that impressive. Should we look harder behind the curtain to see if the great wizard can reach all of the controls?

NYT Says Small Pop

When you tell the world you are about to misbehave, you can be sure they will be watching and ready to punish you when you do. When you want to put on a big show and thumb your nose at them you have to be sure you’ve got it all together. If the show relates to nuclear weapons, you could have read the books and learned that the technology is pretty darn good in terms of analyzing and determining if you really pulled it off. When no less a journal than the New York Times, which is probably as sympathetic a main-stream rag as you could find in the US, suggests that your boom was a bust there is a pretty strong probability that it was.

Big Bomb Bombs Big

The Times of NYC isn’t alone either. The Washington Times thinks you’ve muffed it as well. This failure, following the summer demonstration of your Taepodong-2 which didn’t make it much further downrange than a modern artillery shell, pretty much disrupts your bid for greatness. Worst of all, your chutzpah diplomacy has now resulted in unanimous condemnation from the UN. You got no sympathy at all and the fall-out (if you’ll excuse the nuclear pun) will probably mean more economic isolation and more hardship for your people.

Typically you might consider the UN to be a hollow organization with little power to really harm your efforts at rising to international infamy, but this is the week in which effete little Kofi Annan is being replaced by a new Secretary-General. By this time next week, Kofi will be packing up the office and Ban Ki-Moon will be taking the reins. You might recognize him as one of the leaders of your friends to the immediate south. He’s got little reason to be cooperative or feel any obligation toward lessening your chastisement for failing to play nice with the rest of the world. Yes, I think this little adventure is going to cost you dearly.

Let’s make no mistake here. N. Korea definitely has a nuclear program. It is definitely weapons oriented. This event was definitely a weapons test and it is serious business. If it failed to generate the expected yield that is good news, but it simply means that the technology which the NKs possess is very close to production. Next week, next month, at the latest, next year, Kim will have a workable, high-yield bomb. Next year he may also have a workable Taepodong-2 missile to carry it. It if all works as advertised, that will be scary for the world. If it works, but is erratic, that can be scarier still. If Kim fails to learn from this experience with world condemnation because the UN is reluctant to impose strong punitive sanctions then that will be the scariest part of all.

Absolutely Disgusting

I’ve made a practice of arguing against the concept of moral absolutes. I’ve heard the clichés of the uber-conservatives about the essential truth of absolutism and I can’t accept it. The space from the moral absolute defined by Jerry Falwell or James Dobson is just a step or two down the slippery slope to the absolutes of Muqtada al-Sadr and Osama Bin Laden. Fundamentalists thrive on absolutism. There is no room for nuance or compromise or consensus building or discretion when dealing with absolutes. The world is reduced to black or white without shades of gray. That satisfies the simple mind, but doesn’t work for me.

The argument usually revolves around common absolutes. Things like not killing other human beings. But, we clearly do so and we do it with the authority bestowed by the law and society. We kill in war and we kill for crimes committed against the body politic. We kill in varying degrees from negligent homicide to manslaughter to levels of murder. We kill justifiably and we kill pre-meditatedly. So, there is no absolute regarding killing.

We lie. Truth is immutable, we are told. But discretion comes into play in responding to the common query, “does this dress make me look fat?” We don’t tell our children the truth in response to every question and we sometimes glorify the lie with editorial hyperbole as in “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” So, there is no absolute in honesty.

But, this week I find myself facing an absolute truth in what I believe is ethical and moral standards of behavior. And, ex-Congressman Mark Foley has brought me to this absolutism. It isn’t simply his disgusting behavior with teen-aged Congressional pages that supposedly were entrusted to the oversight of our nation’s finest leaders for their development. It goes well beyond that to the entire spectrum of behavior that has been displayed in the entire scandal.

The actions of Foley are base and vile. Think the worst sort of sniveling, pandering, adolescent, just-discovering-sex, conversations. Then have them between a 52-year old Congressman and a teen-aged boy. Locker room, scatological, immature and you’ve got the picture. You don’t have to go to ABC news to read the nine pages of transcript of the IM sequence of just one of these dialogues. Save yourself a dose of disgust.

Then follow up with the admission and resignation. Fine. He did what he needed to do. But then get further disgusted by the newly au courant method of dodging responsibility. He acknowledges that he is an alcoholic and checking into rehab. Forgive me for noting that drinking doesn’t make you a pedophile anymore than it make you an anti-Semite, Mr. Gibson notwithstanding. Drinking makes you stupid at times, but not deviant. So, no free pass for your problem there Mr. Foley.

Now check the lawyer for Foley with his pathetic ploy to gain sympathy. He announces that Foley is gay. So what? Gay does not equate with pedophile despite many folks’ ill-founded misconception that it does. Gay is not socially accepted behavior, but it is not preying upon adolescents for whom you have responsibility for guidance and mentoring. And gay does not justify the hypocrisy of being chairman of a committee that is dedicated to legislating for protection of children while simultaneously soliciting them. Is this supposed to be an example of “catch-a-thief” logic to get quality laws against predation of children by adults?

Oh, and by the way, the attorney goes on. Mr. Foley was abused by a “clergyman” when he was a teenager. Can’t the lawyer say priest? Regardless, while childhood abuse might be traumatic, it doesn’t turn someone gay. It doesn’t make them an alcoholic. And it doesn’t make them a pedophile. On the contrary, it should make them more sensitive to the vulnerability of the young.

Go further than beating up the deserving Mr. Foley. What about the spinning and posturing we now get from the partisans of the political scene. Some accuse ABC of being in collusion with the Democrats and releasing this on election eve for political impact. So what? Disgusting behavior is timeless. That’s an absolute. Whenever found, it should be released to the public when it concerns a public figure such as a congressman.

Some wonder who knew what and when. It is apparent that many knew lots and for a long time. That is unconscionable behavior by those in authority. They should have acted aggressively to correct the situation. They failed. They have demonstrated a lack of the moral fiber expected of our leaders. That is an absolute. Hastert was told. He knew. He should be gone.

There are contrasts to Gerry Studds and Barney Frank and even to Bill Clinton. The fact that others from the other side of the aisle have transgressed is not justification for the failures on this side of the political aisle. What others have done is their business and how it was dealt with may be their failing. What is done by conservatives and moral absolutists is our business. We should demand more of our leaders. We should expect behavior consistent with public pronouncements. We should require that those who violate our trust should be punished severely. We have earned the right to impose this upon those who would represent us and present themselves as morally superior. If they fail, they should expect severe consequences.

Three weeks ago, I felt strongly that the predictions of a Republican catastrophe in this coming election were exaggerated and media driven. The facts were too strong to be overcome by the sound bites and spin cycle of the left. Now, we’ve seen one more slip in the foul slime that appears to cover the floor of Congress and it might mean the loss of a lot of Congressional seats. They could have prevented this by simply acting the way they said they knew they should.