Bread and Circuses

The nation is outraged, outraged I say, by the cost of gasoline. And, with typical pre-pubescent petulance, they are demanding that ‘something’ be done about it. Naturally, this being a congressional election year, the pols are eager to do ‘something’. They clearly hope that providing bread and circuses for the unwashed masses will garner them a lot of votes this fall. Through it all, they assume that the public is incredibly ignorant of basic economics. Surprisingly, the evidence seems to indicate that they are correct in this assumption.

What is magical about a particular number? Why does three dollars become an issue more than $2.50? Three bucks is apparently the trigger number this year for that consumer outrage. Having lived through the days of two-bit a gallon gas when I was growing up, I admit to being stunned by the cost. But, then I was buying my first house shortly after those years and paying $18,750 for three bedrooms, brick, air-conditioned with fireplace, carpeting and all appliances. Recently, I completed my new home and consider it a bargain when it came in under $300K. So why the brouhaha over the cost of gas? If we take a look at the cost of a gallon of gas in constant year dollars, we find that we’ve been pretty fortunate in terms of that portion of our household budget spent on automotive fuel.

Then there is the political screaming about “excess” profits. What exactly is an excess profit? My economic education taught me that the price of something is what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon. If the price is too high, the buyer won’t buy. If the price is too low, the seller won’t sell. Probably the worst situation is one in which the price is set by a third party in a totally arbitrary manner without regard to profit, investment, labor, infrastructure, transportation, etc. It shouldn’t be too difficult to remind anyone over the age of thirty about the Communist experiment in such pricing. While bread was cheap in Moscow, it also wasn’t available. Despite the Politburo’s effort to price it, the producers couldn’t quite produce it for that amount. Hence, no bread. So, let’s agree that government determining what a proper profit should be is a ridiculous concept. If the price is too high, buyers won’t buy—that’s sufficient control

Which brings us to “windfall” profits and the presumption that when such occur, the proper role of government is to confiscate that windfall and somehow thereby assuage the insult to the market. What a load of crap! Anyone who believes that a government which takes any profit away from an industry is somehow going to benefit the individual is ready to make a down payment on a bridge in Brooklyn. Taking money from the oil industry in America is going to do several things, but none of them will be particularly beneficial to Joe Six-Pack.

It will penalize shareholders of the oil companies. And, don’t say that isn’t you unless you don’t have any investments of any kind including a pension or retirement plan where you work. It will penalize the oil companies which will create a reluctance to invest in exactly what is needed to help control rising fuel costs—exploration, refining, capacity, production, etc. It will inevitably raise the cost at the pump as the cost of the penalty gets piled atop the basic costs of the product. No good comes of the windfall profits tax beyond the creation of a pool of money for the political panderers to spend on bread and circuses.

If Americans were a little bit more worldly, they might be aware of the price others pay for gas. While we’ve had decades of low priced fuel, Europe has been a showplace of what market interference can cause. Twenty-five years ago when I was stationed in Spain, the cost of gas was somewhat obscured by pricing per liter. Yet, if you did the simple math equating a liter to about a quart and then multiplying by four to get cost per gallon, you found that gas was between three and four bucks a gallon. It didn’t change no matter where you went in Europe—France, Germany, Italy, England, or wherever. Always about three or four bucks. Now, the price is closer to five or six dollars a gallon. What are we griping about?

Reality ought to set in rather than pandering. Let’s start by admitting that the cost of gas isn’t generated in the USA. It’s a global commodity in a changing global market. Supply and demand can’t be ignored. The issue is that demand is increasing faster than supply with the rapid technological and economic advances of Asia, most notably China and India. More vehicles for more millions of people means more competition for that available supply of oil.

Simultaneously supply is jeopardized. We don’t control the producers of crude oil. The Middle East is not even remotely stable and therefore supply is not assured. Venezuela is in the political grasp of a US-phobic Marxist who may or may not hinder that supply source. Other areas face problems of transporting through terrorist filled regions. That drives prices up.

Top the whole steaming pie with a load of environmental do-gooders protecting us from theorized harm to the planet. When the US has untapped reserves of oil which cannot be exploited because of restrictions imposed when oil was cheap, we can accept a chunk of the pricing blame ourselves. Technology has improved drilling and production techniques considerably from the dirty old days of the 1940s. It is possible to co-exist with nature while still recovering the petroleum resources.

Building refineries in the US should be a priority. When we note that no new refinery has been built since the 1970s, it seems obvious that we could simultaneously reduce risk, increase production and lower costs by getting busy investing in our infrastructure.

Shifting of major oil users to other energy sources has got to take place. Firing electric generating plants with oil or even natural gas puts pressure on the petroleum markets. Nuclear power generation is safe, clean and relatively low cost today. We’ve got to face that fact. Home heating, particularly in older communities needs to shift from oil to other fuels as well. Wind and sun aren’t particularly efficient nor are they small footprint, so let’s get serious about nukes.

Finally, let us please get away from thinking that we can tax our way to lower prices. Only one person ever pays a tax regardless of where it is levied. That’s the consumer, the citizen, the man-in-the-street.

My advice is let the market work. If gas costs too much, people will drive less, buy smaller cars or shift their transportation mode. If some company makes too much money, another company will sell the product for less and eat away at the pig’s market share. And, if politicians want to get elected, let them show me that they understand capitalism and free markets better than taxocracy and throwing bread and circuses for the masses.

Never Forget

Release No. 4-11-06
April 21, 2006

'Doolittle goblets' find new home

By Steven Donald Smith
American Forces Press Service

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio - Eighty silver goblets commemorating each man who flew in the "Doolittle Raid" over Japan were added to the collection of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force here Wednesday.

"We are honored in the trust you place in us. We will honor and respect that trust." retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles D. Metcalf, director of the museum, told the eight raiders attending a reunion here this week on the 64th anniversary of the famous raid.

The "Doolittle Tokyo Raiders" were volunteer airmen from the U.S. Army Air Forces, the predecessor of the U.S Air Force, who on April 18, 1942, flew 16 B-25 Mitchell airplanes in an attack against Japan during World War II. Army Lt. Col. James H. "Jimmy" Doolittle led the raid.

The goblets, which were presented to the raiders by the city of Tucson, Ariz., in 1959, have taken a highly symbolic place in the history of military aviation, U.S. Air Force officials said.

The goblets were previously housed at the U.S. Air Force Academy, in Colorado Springs, Colo. In 1973, retired Lt. Col. Dick Cole, Doolittle's co-pilot during the raid on Japan, built a portable display case to transport the goblets to the raiders' annual reunions.

At every reunion the surviving Doolittle Raiders meet privately to conduct a "Goblet Ceremony." After toasting the raiders who have died since the last reunion, they turn the deceased men's goblet upside down. Each goblet has the raider's name engraved twice - so that it can be read if the goblet is right side up or upside down.

In addition, the president of Hennessy Company gave Jimmy Doolittle a bottle of 'Hennessy Very Special' cognac, vintage 1896, the year of Doolittle's birth. When there are only two raiders left, these two men will open the bottle and have a final toast to their departed comrades, Air Force officials said.

"I've been wondering who the other guy is going to be to enjoy the bottle of cognac," Cole, who officially presented the goblets to the museum, quipped during the ceremony.

The goblets will be displayed alongside a B-25 bomber at the museum, which receives more than 1 million visitors per year, museum officials said.

"Airmen have a proud heritage that we can call upon as we move forward to an unlimited horizon that is ahead of us. The Raiders are not only a part of our Air Force heritage, but they are our heroes," Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, assistant vice chief of staff and director of the Air Force Staff, said during the ceremony.

Lichte credited the Doolittle Raiders with helping turn the tide in the Pacific theater during the war. "The eventual triumph of the Allies was certainly not a given, but the raiders set us on the path to victory and on a path that we will follow for many years to come," he said.

The general said the Doolittle Raiders define what it means to be an airman, and their legacy serves as an inspiration. "Our young airmen are inspired by the innovation of their forefathers and, of course, all these raiders," Lichte said. "We pledge to take the heritage we inherited from you and continue to protect our nation, so that you can be proud of America's next best generation."

For more information on the Doolittle Raiders and the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, go to [http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/].

Six or Thousands?

The drumbeats to overthrow Don Rumsfeld are becoming incessant. The nightmare of the pacifists, peace-mongers, cowards and anti-American Americans is that Iraq might actually become democratized and stability might develop in the Middle East because of US intervention. There’s no way they can get elected if that should happen. That’s why it is important to bring stronger voices to bear than Cindy Sheehan. Poor Cindy, who entered the fray with such sympathy for her loss, has become too much of a caricature to be taken seriously. She’s stretched her fifteen minutes of fame into several hours and the glow is off that candle.

Now, we’ve got “the Generals” speaking out for purging of the SecDef. But, is this really a huge outcry of the military against Dilbert-style management? Hardly! So far, we’ve got six—count’em six—generals out of literally several thousand retired and active duty flag rank officers. That’s a long way from a landslide.

Yet, the mass media mavens flog the idea. One voice crying in the wilderness takes issue and speaks the truth: Generals and "Generals"

Krauthammer is quickly becoming one of my favorite commentators both in print and during his regular visits with Brit Hume on Fox News. He is rational and reasoned with seldom a bit of the hysteria that accompanies the likes of Eleanor Clift for example.

Most telling about the clamor for Rumsfeld’s scalp is the trotting out of Zinni and Shinseki again. These are a couple of senior military folks from the Clinton administration’s legacy who simply wouldn’t march to the new drummer. Make no mistake about it; generalship is a very political occupation. I spend a bit of time in the concluding chapter of my new book, “Palace Cobra” talking about careerists and warriors.

Ideally the military leadership should be composed of warriors. Success in war takes the ethic, the spirit, the courage of the warrior. It is a profession that some are not suited for, but if success is to be achieved, these leaders must be developed and promoted.

The careerist, on the other hand, is the square filler. This is the officer who attaches himself to those above him and seeks the pull to the top of the heap. He or she will gravitate toward aide-de-camp and executive officer positions assisting generals. They will jump from assignment to assignment, school to school and headquarters to headquarters gathering the credentials to qualify for a spot at the right hand of God or at least the President. They can sometimes be warriors, but it isn’t required. When it happens, that’s good. When it doesn’t that’s a disaster.

I’ve known some warriors who made it to the top of the heap. Gen. Ron Fogleman became Chief of Staff of the USAF. He was a combat warrior and a great leader. He also had the integrity to resign from his position when then President Bill Clinton demanded something which Ron wasn’t comfortable with. He remains a man of integrity and respected by all the folks that I know.

Similar general officer warriors are found if you look at the battles of the last twenty years. The Pentagon generals who show up at the embassy soirees aren’t always the ones called upon to lead in combat. Take a quick look back at Desert Storm, now fifteen years ago. Where did Norman Schwartzkopf and Chuck Horner come from? Not the puzzle palace across the Potomac, but rather from some back-water headquarters in Florida. Warriors, each, not careerists. Similar situation for Tommy Franks in Iraqi Freedom.

Now, the six iconoclasts getting all the press depend upon us to forget the distinction between warriors and careerist. Like spoiled little children, they strike out at the force in authority and in doing so they endanger the effort of those in harm’s way and undermine the policy of the current administration. Personally, I’ll be happy to listen to General Peter Pace, the current chairman of the JCS and his predecessor Dick Myers. They support the SecDef and confirm his leadership qualifications. That’s good enough for me.

There IS a Difference

I am regularly amazed that people who get paid reasonably big bucks for opining in the major media can assert such ludicrous ideas with little to support those concepts beyond their own bias. The ongoing “crisis” regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions is spawning a lot of examples for my astonishment. Take a look at this one from Paul Krugman, published a few days ago in the New York Times: There's a Significant Difference Here

The bile spewed is no longer unprecedented. It is incredibly commonplace, but the concern is that editors, publishers and the general public read it with total acceptance.

The piece starts with the mantra of the sniveling “Blame America First” crowd. Yes, they know for a fact that everything that is wrong with the world is the fault of America. From global warming to Danish cartoons to high gasoline prices to genocide in Darfur, we are to blame. We must beat our breast, give away our prosperity, avoid conflict—particularly the armed variety—and, most importantly, impeach Bush.

Krugman starts with the assumption that the President was “itching for a fight” and therefore manipulated data, lied to the world, and then did whatever he wanted to get us to overthrow Sadaam. That’s increasingly the accepted knowledge of the left. Somehow, they have no difficulty overlooking Sadaam’s quest for nuclear weapons which dated back to the mid-80’s and Osirak. They don’t recall the use of chemical weapons in large quantities in both the eight year war with Iran and the represson of the Kurdish rebellion in the northern part of Iraq. They can’t recall the opinions of, not only the US intelligence community, but the British, the French (even!), the Germans and the Russians that Sadaam did have stocks of WMD. Intel is always a questionable commodity, but when a lot of sources provide a lot of input, conclusions gain credibility, even when there are errors in some assumptions. Ignore it all, the mantra is “Bush lied” and the bottom line is that it was all because of some sort of warrior mentality run amok.

Now, with that initial assertion, Krugman goes on to paint the Seymour Hersh opinion of impending war in darker colors. Yes, we should extend the madness to the conclusion that in a vain attempt to save the Bush II legacy, we are on the verge of an Iranian attack. And, somehow, Krugman wants to imply that once again it will be implemented by lying to the American people.

This time, of course, it may be a bit harder to keep the blinders on. How can we suggest that a case for invasion will be built on a trumped up WMD threat, when the fool on the hill in Teheran is conducting daily press conferences to tout Iran’s progress in joining the nuclear club? Is this a Baghdad Bob sort of media relations campaign but with bigger props?

Why does Iran want a bomb? You don’t have to make very long stretches of your assumptions to conclude that it is to eliminate Israel. And, along the way, to stretch the power of Iran in the region. With a bomb and demonstrated means of delivery, it will become very difficult to restrain Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ambitions. Here’s the man himself telling the world very clearly what he intends. In Plain View

It would be hard to conclude that this is some sort of Karl Rove plot!

A war, or even a surgical strike against Iran would be a very dangerous thing. It would strain American military capability to the breaking point. It would shatter a lot of carefully constructed alliances as nations would be forced to make difficult choices regarding trade, energy, security and whether or not they would be harmed or enhanced by supporting the move.

Yet, we are obviously (sorry Krugman—it is obvious,) faced with a situation in which the elected president of Iran is seriously unbalanced and pursuing a highly provocative course of action. Let’s hope that the rational players of the international scene can come together to exert some form of pressure on this rogue nation which will get compliance and willingness to live peacefully in the region. I’m pessimistic.

Looking For the Bright Side

If anyone has been pulling a Rip Van Winkle and just been roused from their slumbers, let me point out that network nightly news is dead. Like the fabled Pythonian Norwegian Blue Parrot, it has shuffled off this mortal coil…it’s dead, deceased, no longer in meaningful or coherent existence. The days of Edward R. Murrow can’t be resuscitated by George Clooney movies. The Rather-Brokaw-Jennings axis was the last gasp of a dying phenomenon. With Rather discredited, Jennings deceased and Brokaw retiring, there’s little reason for anyone to tune in to the Big Three at Five.

Dislike him as I do, I must give credit to Ted Turner for bringing this about. His concept of TV in the AM radio model of full-time news source has worked. There’s no need to wait until we get home to find out what’s happening in the world. We can tune in any of half-dozen 24/7 cable news sources, choosing the one which feeds us our preferred flavor of news. If we can’t get enough that way, we can bounce our web page back to a news source and get updated. If that is too obvious for our cubicle-mates, we can simply add a news-crawl along the top or bottom of our browser while we perform more productive tasks. If something catches our eye we can be propagandized immediately without waiting until the half hour before dinner.

There’s a down-side, of course. There isn’t really enough significant news to fill 24/7. That means we find the reporting shifting into the instigating mode. We get a nation in thrall watching hours of a white Bronco cruise slowly down the California freeway, led and followed by dozens of police cars while being tracked by a fistful of helicopters trying to avoid a mid-air with each other. That wasn’t news. Ditto for the ensuing trial.

I don’t get much intellectual stimulation from the continuous banter of the anchor reporter rehashing the same tired bit of news over and over. When Cronkite went live for most of a day tracking the Kennedy assassination, it was epic. When anchors did similar marathon shifts as we landed on the moon, it was fascinating. When Shep Smith gets his carefully coifed locks windblown on the patio of a Biloxi Holiday Inn, it’s crap. I know that hurricanes have rain and wind. He can report from the studio and look better doing it.

But, now this: Nightly News Done Nicely?

Evidence that “they” just don’t get it. This isn’t going to save CBS News. Katie Couric has no street cred. She hasn’t been in the jungle with the Army grunts like Rather. She hasn’t hit the beach or roamed the battlefield. She hasn’t gotten her face pelted with the hurricane winds on live TV. She simply is cute and perky and makes funny faces when she’s shocked or surprised. She’s nice with eggs and orange juice in the morning.

What she isn’t, is penetratingly intellectual from any side of the political spectrum. She isn’t Tony Snow or Britt Hume. She isn’t George Will or Bill Buckley. She isn’t even Chris Matthews or Chris Wallace. She’s Oprah at an anchor desk.

The good news is that this is a wooden stake into the heart of the biased main-stream media network news vampire. This is tacit admission that they aren’t interpreters of complex events, but rather they are an entertainment half-hour that simultaneously spoon feeds us the proper political spin of their bosses. We now can know for certain that they aren’t to be taken seriously when they sort through a hundred significant events worldwide and then spend their sixteen minutes amid fourteen minutes of commercials telling us what is important.

In the heyday of network news we had avuncular figures like Cronkite telling us “that’s the way it is.” And, we believed them. They were strong and old and mature and wise. They sure as hell weren’t cute and perky. If we expect Katie to hold a weaseling politician’s feet to any sort of fire to get the truth, we will be very disappointed.

Who to Believe?

If you had any doubt about the war on terror being heavily media-driven you need only review the last few days of reporting on Jill Carroll’s release. There she is, suitably attired in head scarf and swaddling clothes covering all possibly sinful exposure of bare female flesh. She smiles and laughs, describing the tiny room in which she was held captive and the one time she got to see a newspaper and television. Her captors were kind and cared for her while they resisted the evil invaders. She was never harmed and simply was being used to pressure the Americans to do what was right.

My first reaction was a flashback to “Stockholm Syndrome.” That was the phenomenon which was first recognized during a hostage taking in the Swedish capitol in 1973. After just five days in captivity the hostages sympathized with their captors rather than hating them. The psychological pressure of total dependence upon the thugs caused an emotional attachment. The syndrome was later applied to the Patty Hearst episode in which the heiress, first kidnapped for ransom by the Symbionese Liberation Army, later joins them in a bank robbery armed with an assault weapon. That’s pretty deep sympathizing in my book.

So, my impression was that Jill was traumatized by the experience and so grateful at her release that she was trying to sugarcoat the experience. Either that or she was agenda driven like the peace activists who were released last week. Her ideology was so deeply ingrained that she could overlook the evil of her oppressors. Did she forget the circumstances of her apprehension? Friendly Captors Kill Interpreter

I remembered early appearances in which she did the typical, almost clichéd video of pleading for compliance with the demands of her captors. There she was, huddled in front of the requisite three masked terrorists with their prop AK-47s and rocket launcher, begging for her life. They didn’t seem quite so kind and caring to me.

Now, we’ve got this: Christian Science Monitor Reports Forced Video

So, it seems that what we saw on the nightly news was really the propaganda message of the bad guys, not really a post-release expression of appreciation for the room and board of the past three months. It was coerced.

But, just when I think I understand what is going on, I encounter this one: Bash Bush--Take Two and Rolling Wow, they had power problems in the studio and had to start over to make the show properly professional quality. What a great little trooper our Jill is! She manages to keep the smile and perky delivery coherent during the second take of the message.

What’s the meaning of all of this? I’m pretty sure I know at least part of what happened. I’m very confident that the video makers are bad guys. I’ve got no doubts that they are brutal and willing to kill women, children, their neighbors and anyone they need to make their point.

But, I’m left with doubts about the whole episode. Could this have been a planned scenario? Was Jill a party to the thing from the start? Am I being too paranoid and cynical when I think that this might be a sure ticket to a Pulitzer and/or a multi-million dollar book contract? Maybe the interpreter wasn’t let in on the plot and resisted too aggressively becoming collateral damage? Maybe the final outcome on main-stream-media reportage in which the first image of Joyous Jill extolling her captors is the one that persists, is what was wanted all along.

I wish I knew the truth.

Palace Cobra on the Scene

Got an email this morning from an old friend telling me that his copy of Palace Cobra had arrived--a week ahead of the scheduled official release date.

Checked with the publisher and they confirmed that the book had been shipped to a lot of stores and distribution accounts and they were selling and delivering on pre-publication orders as soon as they received them.

For folks who've been waiting, I'm very happy to announce that the book is finally on the scene.

Palace Cobra at Amazon.com

Taking It To The Streets

We might be demonstrating for all of the world to see that we are finally and irretrievably beyond the capacity for democratic government. We seem incapable of grappling with complex issues or even proposing viable solutions to our problems. Those who should be crafting answers to the issues are more interested in pandering to the potential electorate, thus insuring their continued incumbency. Meanwhile the citizenry, those who are given the task of offering meaningful input to the elected officials, are proving themselves too ignorant to be relevant. That sounds harsh and it is meant to be.

Yesterday the future voters of the Dallas area poured out of their high schools and middle schools in outrage over proposals to deal with the question of illegal immigrants in America. Ditto for LA, Phoenix and other cities. Yes, these kids were getting involved in the issues—yeah, right. They were simply taking a day off of school for a street party. Students Hit the Bricks

In Dallas, they stormed City Hall. It seemed to be beyond their understanding of our federal system of government that metro government was not making these policy decisions. They were outraged that something was being done by somebody that somehow might mean something at some time in the future to someone they know. They were mad as hell and simply wouldn’t take it any longer. And in the process they cut classes, smoked a few joints, trashed the park in front of City Hall and went wading in the fountains. It might have been a bit more meaningful for the future of the republic if they had stayed in class and had a discussion of the issues and possible solutions. They might have even learned about representative national government, responsibilities of citizenship and the economics of the situation.

They could have been exposed to Tony Blankley’s op-ed piece in the Times:
Blankley at the Wash. Times

It seems that everyone has a dog in this hunt, but no one knows exactly what the quarry is supposed to be. Let’s see if we can make some sense out of this.

Can we agree that there are millions of illegal immigrants in the country? Most reports are now putting the figure at eleven million. Is this a problem?

It would be hard to deny that a population that large is significant. In a period of global terrorist threat, it makes sense to say that there needs to be some form of control of the influx. We, meaning the US, need to get a handle on who is here. Further, we need to gain some control over the comings and goings across our borders. All well and good.

Simplistic solutions shouldn’t be on the table. Can we now agree that we can’t round up 11,000,000 people and deport them back to wherever it was that they came from? They aren’t all from Mexico or even from Central America. We don’t know where they are and we don’t know where to send them. They aren’t about to turn themselves in to the authorities to be deported. (And, Sen. McCain, they aren’t going to turn themselves in to pay a $2000 fine either!) So, let’s eliminate that as an option, even though many will find it attractive.

Can we agree that a large number of these people are doing jobs in the US? Might we even stretch that basic truth to include the caveat that these are menial jobs at low wages with no benefits that American citizens seem reluctant to do? Deport these illegals and there is going to be an economic impact. Either work will not get done, or the free market response to a labor shortage will be a rise in wages for the work which translates into much higher prices for the consumer. Those are probably not acceptable alternatives.

Let’s stop yelling about the question of “amnesty.” Once we get convoluted around whether or not an amnesty will result in jumping ahead on the citizenship train, we can no longer deal with the issue of who is here. Let’s accept that “amnesty” is not a good thing, but that is tempered by issues one and two above—we can’t deport and we can’t accept the economic impact.

Now, let’s add in the fact that eleven million folks absorb a lot of tax supported services. They attend schools, get sick, seek welfare, and even commit some crimes. If they are not somehow registered within the country, they often don’t pay taxes or contribute to Social Security. Without identification, they wind up driving vehicles without license and consequently without insurance. Bottom line is that we need to get a grip on this population and integrate them in the society. (At this point please return to points one and two above…)

Guest worker proposals are viable. In order to work, an individual has to be registered somewhere. Remember when you got your last job how you had to provide your employer with an I-9 form? And then a W-4 for withholding? While we can’t round up illegals and they won’t voluntarily turn themselves in, we CAN and must force employers to track their workers. Sure there will be some slippage and some illegal workers will fall through the cracks. But, we will get a grip on a large percentage of these folks who are already here and who are really seeking the American dream. That simple act provides improved security, better government funding, and eventual reduction in the scope of the immigrant problem.

With registered workers and a serious effort at record-keeping (which has been noticeably absent at Immigration and Naturalization in the past), we can then get to work on securing the border to reduce the influx of future illegals. If there is a process for guest worker documentation, we might be able to control the rest of the border with something less than our own version of a Berlin Wall.

If we don’t deal with the folks already here in a realistic manner, this problem isn’t going away any time soon. Oh, and let’s also get over the business about making them speak English. Taking pride in our predominant mono-lingualism is embarrassing. The rest of the world is speaking their own language and English as well. We somehow managed to survive the colonial period at the birth of our nation when we had sections of the nascent nation speaking French, German, Dutch and Spanish as well as English. If society needs English speakers, folks will speak English. If the society finds Spanish as a more functional communication medium, that will happen as well. Rescue us from our own form of Quebec-ism or the offense-taking of Jacques Chirac.

Meanwhile, back in civics classes in America, explain to the kids that City Hall doesn’t make immigration policy and truancy is punishable.

Instrumentality of God

So, let me see if I can interpret all of this. We’ve got a quartet of well-intentioned, incredibly sincere and arguably naïve fools that go to Iraq to gather information on how the Coalition forces are abusing folks. They wander around until, almost predictably, they get captured by a nice group of those folks which they are there to support. The nice folks then make cute videos of the four, surrounding them in well choreographed arrangements dressed in fashionable black masks and carrying an array of the finest in clandestine terrorist armaments.

After a suitable length of time, the friends of the pacifists execute one of them for maximum publicity impact. And, according to the reports from this morning’s action, the good group of repressed Iraqi militants regularly whip up on the remaining three so that when they are recovered this morning they must be whisked off to Coalition medical facilities.

Who recovered these dolts? Why it was those nasty ol’ Coalition military people. They were the ones who gathered the intelligence, planned the operation, and then executed the mission. They were the ones who came in regardless of the possibility of their own death or injury to rescue these people. They were the ones who built, supplied and manned the medical facilities that are going to nurse these fools back to health. Coalition Forces in Action

Gratitude would be a reasonable expectation under such circumstances, wouldn’t it? Might there even be a possibility of some education having occurred. Might the touchy-feely pacifists have reconsidered who is the villain in this scenario? Might they not have thought that the folks they supported didn’t much care for them and the folks who rescued them at great personal risk might have been better than they originally assumed?

Might they even have concluded that they didn’t know much about the situation and that they unnecessarily endangered themselves? Don’t they bear a bit of responsibility for the whole episode?

Well, here’s the official statement: Ignoring the Obvious

I read it twice, looking for some acknowledgement of the folks who rescued them. I wanted to see at least a cursory thank you. If not a thanks, then how about an honorable mention? Nah, apparently it was expected and the guys with guns weren’t really a part of God’s plan.

Stupidity among pacifists runs rampant. I hope they get a bill for this.

Who Can Vote?

It was the 29th of August last year. I woke up in Texas, for the first of what I hope to be many more mornings. I’d left Colorado Springs and my home of twenty years the day before and was now in an apartment where I would be for the next four months as I oversaw the construction of my new home. I didn’t have a job, although I did have a retirement, and my wife had only the promise of a contract in her profession. There we were, a family displaced—man, wife, aging mother-in-law and Siberian Husky, all together with only the clothes we had packed for the interim. Our household goods were stored somewhere.

It was that same morning that more than 300,000 New Orleans residents similarly awoke in temporary quarters. They had evacuated in advance of Hurricane Katrina and few knew what the future held.

There is a significant difference though. My move was planned and I knew what the outcome was going to be. For the evacuees, there was more doubt. Most expected to avoid the winds and rains, and then return to their homes to continue their lives. What followed was considerably different. The storm initiated the levee failures which effectively destroyed large portions of the city. Return is not possible for the foreseeable future.

The finger-pointing and blame-assignment has taken place and the end result is that a lot of money has been spent and considerably more has been promised. There has been a lot of posturing about “bigger and better” for the Big Easy, but objective assessment can only lead to a conclusion that it would be better for market forces to determine the size and shape of New Orleans than populist posturing. Sure, we would all like it to be like it was before…or would we?

Do we want the slums and unemployment and poverty to be recreated? Can we funnel the funds back into corrupt and ineffective governance that exacerbated the disaster last August? Is it reasonable to build a new city at national tax-payer expense in an area that might be unsustainable against a recurrence of a Category 4 or 5 storm?

The No-Plan Plan

The fact apparently is that a city of about 400,000 inhabitants has lost more than 300,000 of them and they aren’t coming back any time soon. Just as I’m not going back to Colorado, they aren’t going to return to NO. They might find jobs, they might enter schools, they might build new homes in Texas and northern Louisiana and Arkansas and Tennessee. Or, they just might descend back into the poverty and squalor they left in New Orleans, but in a new city or town.

Will I vote in the Colorado primaries this year? Of course not. Well, I did live there for a long time. Shouldn’t I be able to cast an absentee ballot? No rationale person would agree that I would be participating in election of people to represent me. I don’t live there any more.

Why then do we have this campaign to let the evacuees, now residing elsewhere and with no date or time certain for their return, vote? Representing Whom?

You know the answer. The folks who have returned and will rebuild aren’t the ones who elected the incumbents. The folks who are invested in the city won’t retain the officials who failed to serve them well. Posturing about the “chocolate” nature of the city isn’t the same as fulfilling executive functions. That means there must be some way to get those votes back, even if they aren’t residents.

If you don’t have an address in a district, you can’t normally vote. If you don’t have a phone number there, if you don’t have a driver’s license, if you don’t go to schools, if you don’t pay taxes (!), you don’t get a say in the governance. It’s as simple as that.

You get to vote where you live and work and pay.

Paradigm Lost

I’ve got a short list of words that I don’t like. It’s simple prejudice, I know. There isn’t anything wrong with the words; it is only that I associate them with pompous fools trying to impress their listeners. Most of the time the usage is simply a cliché; a phrase which is so ingrained in our language that the phrase flows and the unbearable word festers in the middle of it. One of those words is “behooves.” I can honestly say that I’ve never met a single thing that “behooved” me. The word seems to relate more to livestock than to preferential action.

Another one of those pariah pronouncements is “paradigm.” Have someone explain to you someday what a “paradigm” is and why they are so often changing. Is there much use for stable paradigms? Can’t the average paradigm hold its position for more than a few years?

But, recently I’ve regularly found myself referring to the changed paradigm of our defensive strategy. Occasionally there are situations in which no other word will work so well. Recognition of the changed paradigm is essential to understanding where we are today with respect to the war on terror.

At the micro-level, consider the situation aboard those ill-fated airplanes on 9/11. We had grown up in a world in which sky-jacking had become a common tactic for political dissidents. Airplanes were easy to target in the late ‘60s and attracted loads of media attention. Over time, security at airports improved, but there were still regular occurrences of planes being commandeered. The paradigm that developed, however, was one of patience and caution in dealing with the perpetrators. Talk with them, negotiate, be patient and eventually the outcome will be reasonably good with little loss of life. It worked that way for forty years. Then on one September morn, things changed and so did the paradigm.

In the short hour or so between the initial impacts on the WTC and the crash of Flight 93 in a field in Pennsylvania we learned that it was not reasonable to accede to a simple threat with a box-cutter. There would be no more momentary inconvenience and eventual end of crisis with all passengers safe. Now, under the new paradigm, there was little hope for good outcomes and taking violent action on their own behalf was the preferred course of action for passengers on hijacked airplanes.

At the macro-level, we now have pre-emptive war. In this Washington Post piece, the President discusses the new paradigm: Strategy Today

A few centuries ago we had political philosophers writing on “just war”, creating a body of international law to define when armed conflict was appropriate. Even as war changed in the Twentieth Century with rapid advances in the capacity to destroy persons and property, we still clung to the principles enunciated by folks like St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Rousseau, Locke, Wilson and others. Sure, there were Machiavellians who reminded us that might could define right and winners wrote the histories. But, the moral high ground was held by those who warred in response to evil. Just war was fought against dictators and even then, only engaged in when all diplomatic efforts had failed and significant affront had taken place. Invasion was prerequisite to response.

Recall the mantra of the pacifists and draft-dodgers during the Vietnam years? The alliterative phrase that the war was illegal, immoral and unjust told you all you needed to know. We hadn’t been attacked. We were picking on a little guy. We weren’t morally justified. We needed to fill the criteria of those historic philosophers before we could go to war.

Consider the situation today. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are real. Remember that although nuclear weapons require considerable technology and create some delivery problems, the other two WMD formats are much simpler to deal with. Chemical weapons have been around for a long time and while it might be tough to get a large footprint with some weapons, contamination of major metropolitan water supplies might not be that tough. Biological weapons are much worse. Contemplate the current “pandemic” discussions regarding H5N1 bird flu.

The essential truth is that WMD have such potential for major damage that it is no longer possible to absorb a first strike prior to responding. Extend your thinking just a bit further and recall that box cutters aren’t even WMD! Yet, a handful of terrorists armed with just such simple tools commandeered four fully fueled airplanes and in a matter of minutes brought down the economic center of New York City and in the process did considerable damage to the economy of the United States.

Add one more significant factor to the new paradigm. The entities that threaten our way of life are no longer national actors. We aren’t dealing with nation-states, led by rational officials, subject to public scrutiny, amenable to diplomatic pressures, conformable to world opinion. We aren’t even sure where our enemies are. We have few channels for dialog or negotiation.

Alternatives to military action are increasingly less available. We have a shadowy enemy whose objectives aren’t the slightest bit traditional in terms of trade, territory or concessions. We face weapons that have the potential to inflict incredible damage, death and destruction. The threat has been demonstrated as very capable of reaching us anywhere in the world. We suddenly find ourselves looking at a changed paradigm. Anyone who insists on maintaining the striped pants and frock coat philosophy of the Nineteenth Century diplomat is going to place his nation at great risk.

Pre-emptive war is not a first option, but it most certainly must be recognized as a necessary position in a very different world.

Uncle Sam Doesn’t Want Some

Once upon a time in America, there was a dirty, unpopular war going on with most of the American military drafted into service. Those were the days of fighting the last war, which was the “really big one” that took place around the entire world and which was arguably the last one which America was eager to win. No, in the sixties, there wasn’t much going on in the military which would attract the best and the brightest. Those were the times when a young man got arrested and judges felt quite comfortable giving the young felon a choice of three years in the slammer or enlisting in the Army. Those were the days in which, even with that draft, the needs for manpower required the Army to delve down into “Category IV”—a cesspool of humanity that wasn’t very smart, wasn’t very motivated, wasn’t very ethical or moral, and wasn’t very employable anywhere else in society.

Yet, the thinking of the day was still very Napoleonic. Wars were won by large armies and masses of men. We might not have been ready to go back to the trenches of Verdun, but we certainly were convinced that it would take large scale pitched battles to beat back the Soviet hordes or maybe the Communist Chinese or whomever.

Things are considerably different today. Now, we fight with technology on our side. We certainly need manpower, but we employ terms like “force multiplier” to describe what is going on. Brutishness is fine on some occasions, but precision, judgment and maturity are valued more highly. To operate the machinery of this sort of war, requires study. Those who would aspire to be modern warriors must be able to read, write, understand and communicate. They are going to be technocrats. But, they will still need to be able to endure hardship. They’ve got to be both smart and fit.

That’s why this is so astonishing and disappointing. Unsuitable for Service

Go to the mall or drive the streets of America after ten o’clock at night. Try a visit to the local high school and walk the halls during lunch time. Actually, you don’t even have to enter the building, just drive by and see them walking the streets. Is it surprising that the military doesn’t want them?

Does your state have some form of standardized testing to insure that “graduates” of your schools really get an education? We’ve just had a huge flap in the Dallas area where parents, students and even teachers are simply aghast that seniors in high school who can’t pass the state qualification exam in math and English, given FOUR tries, won’t be allowed to walk across the stage at graduation. Why, how unfair that kids who can’t meet the standards for graduation want to still have the honors of those that do.

What is most amazing about the linked piece discussing the continually shrinking pool of suitable recruits in America is the commentary from the university professors who just don’t get it. How about this from Northwestern University:

“Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.”

I guess Dr. Moskos simply can’t believe that it takes so much to be a warrior. No figures to counter, but he simply asserts that it is a “baloney” number. That’s modern thought and education for you.

Or how about this for transference:

“Recruiters are looking for reasons other than themselves," said David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "So they blame the pool."

Got that? Johnny can’t read, write, think or do a push-up. He’s obese, out of shape, morally corrupt and tattooed and pierced from nose to nipples and beyond, but it’s the recruiters fault. Thanks, Dr. Segal, but how did you reach that conclusion. Couldn’t parents, teachers and society-at-large have a hand in the sad state of Johnny today?

Lack of respect for America’s military has grown for a long time in what Tom Wolfe this week called the “parentheses states”—those matching brackets of blue coastal enclaves of the morally certain, liberal elites which fall on each side of the mass of patriotic American heartland red zones.

Let us only hope that this does not lead to relaxation of standards so that these fools can feel good about their failures to train and educate our youth. Let us hope that we don’t revert to those days of using the military as a societal lab for fighting poverty, racism, sexism and stupidism at the sacrifice of capability as a strong defensive force. Let us hope.

To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak Truth

The primary election is over in Texas and now it’s game on for the independents. This is going to be a test of whether or not arcane election laws can be effective in keeping candidates off the general election ballot. Usually no one notices or questions the laws enacted by partisan legislatures who have a strongly vested interest in perpetuating their incumbency. Everyone simply takes it for granted that the two dominant parties are screening out the unqualified and giving voters a meaningful choice. Check out the percentage of registered voters who don’t vote in primaries and don’t even understand the candidate selection process and you will begin to understand what is wrong with this system.

This time in Texas, things are different. We’ve got two major independent candidates for Governor trying to get on the ballot. To do that, they will have a short couple of months to gather nearly 50,000 signatures on their petitions. Those signers must be registered voters. That’s not an onerous requirement. They must also have NOT voted in the primary election! Not just not voted for governor, but they must have chosen not to vote for any of the state representatives, district attorneys, county judges, commissioners, etc. that were chosen last Tuesday to represent their parties. That IS onerous. And, it is a restriction clearly designed to keep non-believers off the ballot.

But, I’ve got a feeling that this time the slippery mountain is going to be climbed. Take a look at this item from a New York newspaper--- It's Showtime!!!

Kinky is just strange enough to activate a couple of generations of young voters who have been alienated by the two-party system. I’m willing to bet that he’ll make the quota with ease—but I’m also willing to bet that there will be a plethora of legal battles challenging his petitions as well. That will be a mistake for the partisan politicians because it will simply highlight his underdog status and make very clear the protectionism of the incumbents. He’s going to come out a winner both in court and in the minds of the voters.

I’ve got to like any politician, particularly one in Texas, who will make a politically incorrect statement like, “ride, shoot straight and speak the truth.” It addresses core Texas values and gives a very clear nod to an American icon, Jeff Cooper. The Source Document

I used to spend a lot of time in political science classes talking about why America is a two-party system unlike most democracies around the world. There’s nothing in our Constitution that sets it up that way. It grew from the debates of the Framers, the discussions of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The two sides coalesced around principles and developed the two major philosophies of how to interpret our Constitution.

With incumbency there came the need for preservation of their power. That led to legislation and procedural decisions that virtually insure the failure of independent candidates in twenty-first century America. Get elected to Congress as an independent and you are virtually certain to be ineffective as you can’t be in any sort of decision-making position in committees or on the floor of the chamber.

Since independents don’t succeed, few of the media mavens pay attention to them. Remember the struggle of Ralph Nader to participate in the Presidential debates? Even Ross Perot’s billions couldn’t get him credibility and he wound up having to buy his own TV time to reach the American voters with his message.

There is really only one place in government that independents have a slim chance to be effective if they should ever be elected. That is in the chief executive seat of the state or local governments. Put an independent in the legislature and he or she will be locked out of the process. Put them in the governor’s or mayor’s chair and they can influence policy, speak from a bully pulpit and operate without regard to whether a good idea has come from the left or the right side of the aisle.

It is a grueling task and frustration can often drive the individual from office after only one term, but it is possible. I’ve said it before in these pages. I don’t know if Kinky Friedman has what it takes to convince the Texas electorate that he has solutions to the state’s problems. I suspect that he’s got a leg up on the partisan candidates because he can propose without paying lip service to past decisions and without being indebted to special interests which have steered us to where we are today. He’s got a chance.

And a surprising number of Texans seem to be fed up with the non-productive partisan rhetoric without a plan of the two major parties.

Clutching Vipers

Having spent a few years facing the mushy minds of the Community College set, I often find myself defending the “bias” of academia. You know what I’m talking about: the common perception that faculty members at our institutions of higher education are hopelessly liberal. If one tracks back to the early days of this blog, you’ll see several items on that prince of darkness from the University of Colorado, Ward Churchill. You may recall that he was the Master’s degree holding pseudo-Native-American who vaulted into first a professorship and then a department chair based on little or nothing but a deep-seated animosity toward everything American. Only when he got widely posted in the blogosphere where non-students and fellow-traveling academics could read his drivel did he get challenged.

Now, we’ve got a couple of new items in which the intellectual capacity of the nation’s universities must be seriously questioned. How about the Yale choice of a former Taliban propaganda minister as a scholarship student? Diversity at Yale?

Wow, that should really increase the desire for young Americans to strive to get into the Ivy League halls that have educated so many presidents. I know that if I had a promising college-aged kid, I’d be eager for them to learn the advantages of restricting education of women, destroying centuries old archeological treasures, and thrashing anyone who might challenge Islam in public. Why, if and when he graduates, we might want to consider amending our Constitution to allow Mr. Rahmatullah to run for president. If Yale values him so highly, we might really want to consider it.

One might also note in that Opinion Journal article a passing comment regarding the resignation of Harvard President, Larry Summers. Poor guy had to quit because the faculty had lost confidence in him after he mentioned that it was possible that women might not have an intrinsic aptitude for science. Politically incorrect as that statement was, it also is easily supported by evidence that fewer women than men choose educations and careers in the physical sciences. Nowhere did he say that women were incapable of succeeding in those fields, nor did he say that they should not be provided the opportunity to enter those fields. He didn’t even say that their performance was less than their male counterparts. He simply had the gall to suggest that women might not be predisposed to enter fields in which either their nature or their nurture had failed to prepare them to succeed and be happy.

Yep, Larry was a Neanderthal. He also thought the faculty should work at teaching the students and, heaven forbid, there should be ROTC available for those precious little heirs to the thrones of America if they chose a military career. Leadership at Harvard? Can’t have any of that can we?

Graduates of our institutions of higher education have their problems as well. It seems reasonable to ask what was going on for the past four or five years as Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar gobbled up American culture. Apparently the inculcation of American values didn’t take: Alumni at Chapel Hill? Can we really have an individual worthy of award of a college degree that considers driving a car into a crowd of fellow-students as some sort of quid-pro-quo for perceived slights to Muslims in remote areas of the world? Does he really believe that this is the “will of Allah”? C’mon, something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Down in beautiful South Florida, where I thought the big issue was what gaudy color to paint your remodeled South Beach hotel, and how much longer Fidel was going to live, we have Professor Sami Al-Arian. I will admit that in my graduate education I did have a course on terrorism. And, I freely confess to having written a couple of papers on the topic as well as to participating in several academic seminars discussing the global threat. But, this clown was accused of raising funds to support these groups. He was out-spoken and then unrepentant when brought into the public eye. How do these sorts of people get hired?

It’s scary to look at this group of stories. I’ll point out that there are a lot of well-educated, well-grounded, moderate-to-conservative folks on both sides of the podium in classrooms across America. Yet, a collection of outrageous stories like this makes one wonder…

Style and Substance

The President was in India yesterday discussing nuclear policy with a democratically elected leader of more than one billion people. The outcome is an agreement to provide peaceful nuclear technology to India in return for arguably limited access to India’s existing nuclear programs. That means we are going to be offering our expertise and materials to a nation which is already a nuclear power so that they can increase their nuclear power generating capability. What we get back is a chance to monitor their programs—not all of them, but some. We get a peek into the back rooms of their weapons programs. As a sovereign nation they don’t have to offer that, but as a nation seeking to develop and needing more energy it is to their benefit to do so.

Now comes the posturing of the politicos. First we’ve got the newspapers noting with customary hysteria that the President did not take time to visit the Taj Mahal. Yes, this visit is wasting cultural opportunity and failing to measure up to the intellectual curiosity of President Clinton who not only toured the Taj, but also went into the jungle seeking a glimpse of a Bengal Tiger! The only thing coming out of this trip is a nuclear agreement between major world powers, and not enough photo-opportunities. Some substance, but the President apparently fails to score Associated Press style points.

Soon we’ll be hearing the non-sequitur arguments against the agreement. You remember the type; “if we can put a man on the moon, we can’t we cure cancer?” The format will be of the order that we shouldn’t be making agreements with India when we are trying to enforce non-proliferation on N. Korea (too late!) and Iran. Fact may fall victim to the need to pontificate before the electorate who, as I mention all too often, are relatively indiscriminate in their acceptance of non-sequiturs.

India is a nuclear nation already. They have the bomb. They have nuclear power plants. They have enrichment facilities. And, they are a democracy seeking to become more closely allied with us. India is a dominant regional player and an increasingly significant global force. They can continue to develop albeit more slowly using non-nuclear energy, but that simply strains the global market for carbon-based fuels. Or, we can acknowledge where they are, what they mean and where we can help them go. Would we like to help them build modern nuclear generating capability, or maybe direct them to shop the former Soviet Union bargain basement Chernobyl sales lot?

India is a lot different situation than N. Korea. Democracy versus totalitarian is the first difference to note. Rational versus irrational leadership is second. Pivotal in the region versus small player in a deep pond is third. Recognizing the realities is critical in choosing whether to embrace this agreement. We can benefit from aiding India, and we can still latch the barn door on a very weak nuclear horse in N. Korea.

We all fear change and most of us would like to live in our yesterdays. The world was a simpler place when we were the only ones with the bomb. It was tolerable when the Soviets showed up with their own brand of nuclear weapons. It began to get a bit scary when the Brits, the French and the Chinese showed that given enough time, money and dedication almost any modern nation could build a nuclear weapon.

Sixty years into the nuclear age and we’ve got India and Pakistan in the club. Most everybody acknowledges Israel is a member, but they’re pretty close-mouthed about it. It’s sort of like the guy you know has a concealed carry permit, but you’re never quite sure if he’s packing today. Then there’s South Africa, Brazil, and a couple of other places. Iraq tried back in the early ‘80s at a place called Osirik and Iran is pretty darned close to joining the club.

Genies don’t go back into bottles. The real issue is not being afraid of nuclear power. Let’s admit what is undeniable. We are facing energy issues in coming years. Oil is limited, coal is more or less polluting, and hydro-electric requires big, fast-flowing rivers which aren’t always where we need them. Wind doesn’t blow and those big fans are butt-ugly. Solar takes huge expanses of panels and isn’t that reliable or efficient. And, we don’t even want to get into how dangerous free hydrogen is in bulk—think Hindenburg here.

That means the Greenies are going to have to accept the fact that nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable and efficient. There’s going to be a lot of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) arguments, but a quick look at the nuclear energy map of Europe should help calm a lot of fears.

It will be interesting to see if the India/US nuclear agreement pushes the bogus Dubai Ports World argument off the front pages. The poor nay-sayers are going to have to choose what gets top billing in their oppositional agenda.

Roller Derby Reruns

Are we watching the quiet death of the Winter Olympics as a “mega-media-event”? Much is being made in the dailies about the ratings for NBC’s wall-to-wall coverage. The games got beat out by American Idol. Well, sure, that’s reasonable. Anybody would rather see Simon Cowell trash some pathetic wailer rather than try to decipher the figure skating scoring algorithms. But, look further and you’ll see that the Olympics also lost in the ratings to Survivor, Dancing With the Stars and qualifying for the Daytona 500. The race day was a no-brainer for me—I’d much rather see Tony Stewart driving somebody into the wall at 190 MPH than the second leg of a 40 km cross-country ski relay.

Let’s face it; while it isn’t quite the White Supremacy rally that Bryant Gumbel wanted to paint it as, the Olympic Winter Games are boring. They aren’t generally events that Joe Six-Pack can identify with whether Black or White. Does any father want his son to grow up to be a figure skater? Did you see the get-up on the Italian guy who was having a snit with his partner in ice dancing? Donning old movie theater drapes with a powder blue organdy shawl around the shoulders is not very manly for a world-wide TV appearance. Can you picture the old man down at the union hall on Monday, saying, “hey did you see the triple toe loop my kid did in his short program?” Nah, dad want’s touchdowns, home-runs and triple doubles in good ol’ American sports to brag about.

Have you ever known a real bob-sledder? Do you know anywhere that you could buy a bob-sled? How do guys become bob-sledders? NASCAR drivers grow up at dirt-tracks around the country driving beat-up jalopies that they spend their evenings patching into competitive condition. But is there an equivalent venue for wanna-be bob-sledders? Can you find an old junker down at the used sled lot to take racing?

What’s with curling? It looks like fun—think shuffleboard with cold feet and a wet knee on your pants. Throw in some post-contest beer drinking and I might be able to go for it. But, as a spectator sport? Not in the U. S. of A.

Ski racing is fine. The downhill has a bit of wild-eyed psychosis appeal. With that great 60 Minutes hype job of Bode Miller as the iconoclastic drunk with talent who was going to sweep the competition, we had some reason to watch. At this writing Miller is “oh-for-four” on any kind of medal and I’m pretty confident there won’t be any gold for the bad boy when he gets to the slalom either. At least, there are a lot of American skiers who might watch some of the events. Alas, they won’t be seeing any local boys make good.

We’ve had a trick up our sleeves though. Yep, as the biggest international bully the world has ever seen, we can pretty much shape the Games to our liking. Simply witness the audacity of NBC in resisting the demands to call the host city by it’s anglicized name rather than what the residents themselves call it. Yep, NBC bucked some serious arm-twisting by calling it Torino—either that or Ford might be bringing that mid-sized sport sedan back for another Edsel turn.

The real trick has been the introduction of American popular culture “sports” so that we can win some medals. While we still get teary-eyed thinking about the “Miracle on Ice” we realized that it was pretty tough to repeat. So, we simply co-opted Russians, Finns, Czechs and other national stars to play in the NHL. Then we got the rules changed to allow pros to play Olympic Hockey. And with the collapse of East Germany and the loss of all those lovely, steroid-loaded lasses from the Eastern Bloc, we introduced women’s hockey so we might have an event to win.

Then there’s short track speed-skating. Let’s admit right up front, that short track isn’t an American invention. It’s Asian, but it’s got the right sort of body contact, luck required, randomness to make it attractive. It’s roller derby on ice, but without the tattooed girls. One try got us an American hero—but, Ohno it won’t happen again. Better change some rules before 2010.

The real trick has been the snow-boarding events. Yeah, now we’re talking. Real American stuff with iPods in the ears, baggy pants showing Plumber’s Butts on even the girls and possibility of real bodily injury doing a quintuple twisting triple flip off the kicker. That’s sport, American-style!

The latest “event” has been snowboard-cross. Full body contact shoulder to shoulder racing in four-packs down a set course with cut-offs, knock-downs, ski-overs and even an unintentional wipe-out at the cost of a gold medal while shining one’s butt on short final with a victory assured. If it didn’t look so much like a typical day on the bunny slope at Vail, I’d say it’s as close to NASCAR as the Winter Olympics are going to get.

Yep, I think we’ve seen the final wooden stake pounded into the heart of the Winter Olympics. Four years from now it’s going to be like the American presidential conventions—a week long event reduced to a one hour summary each night in which we’ll get the spills and fights boiled down to their most essential elements.

Oh, and one last gripe. Ditch the blue lines on the snow next time. Part of skiing is dealing with the tough conditions of flat light. Drawing references to outline the course and provide perspective for the racers is simply polluting the hillside and the sport as well.

It’s time for the closing ceremony and all that international good-will to boil over.

It’s a Shame, This Name Game

Confess now, the last time you voted were you prepared? Think before you answer. I know you knew who your choice was for the big job. You’d made your mind up a long time before you walked into the booth. And, the VP choice was then made automatically.

No, I mean did you know who all those other folks were down the ballot? Try it today and see how you do. Do you know who your congressman is? What are the names of your two US Senators? Who is the Lt. Governor of your state? County Commissioner? State legislature representatives? If you didn’t do too well on this, you don’t need to feel very bad. The pitiful fact is that most Americans take great pride in announcing that they do their citizenly duty, but they don’t really know what it is that they’ve done.

Think now about election campaigns. As you drive around town during the silly season of elections you see signs on street corners and faces on billboards. They catch your eye and urge you to vote for Joe Bagadonutz. They might even tell you if Joe is a Republican or a Democrat. They don’t tell you what Joe stands for or what he’s going to do for you. You seldom know what his policies will be and you never hear what he’s done before to qualify himself for high office.

Very probably you simply notice that Mr. Bagadonutz seems to be quite popular since he’s got a lot of signs around the neighborhood. Must mean that the folks that really know something think he’s good. Hence, by some sort of halo effect, Joe gets your vote.

That’s why this editorial by Froma Harrup is so good: The Name Game Shame

It certainly escapes me why anyone would vote for Jimmy Carter’s son. It particularly seems a poor choice for the good folks of Nevada to be voting for Jack for Senator. Can anyone beside me remember the term “carpetbagger”? But, I’ll bet that ol’ Jack makes a pretty good showing.

Froma points out the number of famous folks who’ve won the election lottery in the past. How about Sonny Bono for Congress? Well, it becomes a bit understandable if you’ve ever spent much time in California. But Sonny as a Republican? Wow!!! It got a whole lot worse, though when Sonny ran into a tree while skiing and didn’t survive. Then, based on little more than name recognition his widow got elected to the seat where she continues to serve. Qualification? Dunno.

Is Ahhhnald “The Terminator” qualified to be governor of California? Well, after Gray Davis, he couldn’t be much worse. But was it a careful evaluation of his experience, his policy proposals and his conformity to the ideology of the majority of voters that got him elected? Or, was it simply that they knew the name and liked Conan the Barbarian.

Well, we’ve got it cranking up here in Texas. A governor’s race is on this year and we’re gonna have a real sideshow. The state is pretty much a Republican fiefdom with both houses of the legislature as well as the governor’s seat in the hands of the Grand Ol’ Party. Both US Senators as well and a majority of the Congress-critters too! Part of that is thanks to a redistricting engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, but it pretty well reflects the electorate.

But, we’ve got a challenge to Rick Perry, the Republican governor from within his own party—well, sort of. The Comptroller, a “tough grandmother” according to her own campaign, is challenging the incumbent. She’s a Republican. Well, she used to be a Democrat, but she switched. And, she’s running as an independent. And, she hasn’t really said what she’s for, only that she’s against Perry. Can you say opportunist? Can you say ideologically uncommitted? Can you say unprincipled politically? I knew that you could.

There’s a couple of Democrats duking it out as well. Most pundits don’t give them much of a chance.

The real entertainment is coming from Kinky Friedman. Maybe you recall Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys, his musical group? Or, maybe not. Go Kinky

Well, he’s got a black hat, a fine moustache, and an unlit cigar always clenched in his hand. He’s got personality and a lot of great one-liners about politics. When he talks about being governor, he’ll usually note, “how hard could it be?” His tee-shirts resonate with the message, “no teacher left behind” and his campaign is raising money hand over fist.

Will he get elected? I don’t know. First he’s got to collect more than 50,000 signatures of registered Texas voters who did not vote in the Texas primary. “Save Yourself for Kinky” is a serious campaign slogan since he needs people to stay home on election day to be available for petition signing.

Will he have reasonable policies and be able to establish himself with the voters? Last governor’s race there was a significant percentage that didn’t see enough difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee to get out and vote. They’re the ones contributing now and they will be the ones who vote for Kinky in November.

Can he govern? We might just find out. Jesse Ventura managed the feat in Minnesota and surprised a lot of people when he turned out to be reasonably capable. Kinky might just have enough name recognition to do the job in Texas.

I won’t be surprised, but I will be a little bit apprehensive. Not a lot, but a little. After all, how hard could it be?

Feeding Frenzy

Let’s start by acknowledging error. If someone is impacted by projectiles directed at something else, then an error has occurred. Let me further note that anyone who takes to the field hunting is responsible for the highest standards of gun safety. I’m a long time hunter and I’ve been fortunate enough to hunt with a number of good friends over the years. We’ve forged great friendships in the field and in the process no one has come away wounded. So, that being said, we can conclude that the Vice-President this past weekend made a mistake. Fortunately no one was seriously injured. In the classic political phrase of passive double-speak, “mistakes were made.”

But let’s now look at the media handling of this. This morning’s Dallas Morning Trash Bundler boasted the headline above the fold on page one: “Cheney Had No Stamp to Hunt Quail”! Read the frantic reportage and you learn that it has been discovered that neither the shooter nor shootee in this incident had the requisite $7.00 stamp on their otherwise valid hunting license to hunt quail in Texas. Yes, indeed folks, we’ve proof positive here of the level of corruption of the current administration. They willfully (or maybe inadvertently, since it’s almost impossible for the common Bubba to decipher hunting regulations) went afield to harvest incredibly valuable quail without a $7.00 tax stamp. Is this really front page news?

Or, maybe we should go to the “what did they know and when did they know it” mantra and ask what the motivation was for failure to report this to the media immediately. What were they trying to hide? But, if we read carefully, we learn that the Secret Service element accompanying the VP called the local sheriff within ten minutes of the incident. Report to local law enforcement in a timely manner? Sheriff said it seemed like exactly what it was—a hunting incident being handled properly with no criminal intent. Duly noted on the blotter.

So, who was hiding what and when were they hiding it? With the police notified, the victim in the care of medical facilities and the “crisis” apparently managed, the owner of the ranch calls the local newspaper and passes the word to the weekend journalism-student-phone-answerer-person. She reacts by calling the White House which responds to her call with what they know and the rest, as they say, is hysteria.

Cover-up? I don’t think so. Blow-up to mythic proportions? Apparently. How soon will we see the linkage to the East Coast blizzard? When will Cheney be asked to resign? Will Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer be demanding bans on shot-guns in the hands of senior administration officials?

One worries about the state of the Republic. What would Jefferson do?

Wright or Wrong, I Love It

Moving into a new region means learning what the major political issues are in that area. As a career aviator and an inveterate free-market capitalist, it is fascinating to observe the battle in Dallas over the Wright Amendment. OK, time for a quick review of history to put the issue in some sort of perspective.

Commercial aviation changed in a big way in the late fifties. The introduction of the first generation of jet airliners caused a lot of the nation’s municipal airports to suddenly become inadequate if not quite dangerous. The future of air travel was going to require long runways and open spaces that wouldn’t be filled with folks griping about the noise. That meant new airports and the decline of some landmarks like Midway, LaGuardia and Dallas’ Love Field. Big thinkers with an eye to the future built the airline hubs that we know today. O’Hare, JFK and DFW became the future. The old airports became ghost towns. I recall flying practice instrument approaches to Chicago-Midway in a Piper Super Cub in 1964 without seeing another airplane in the area as I meandered down final approach at a dazzling 85 miles an hour.

Don’t think for a minute that projects like these super-airports come cheap. There’s big bucks invested and it takes a while to recoup the up-front costs. That’s where we see the genesis of the Wright Amendment.

Jim Wright was a congressman from Texas, or more precisely the Fort Worth area. He was a powerful congress-critter; Speaker of the House with all that it implies. As an Air Force fighter type, I remember Wright as the guy who kept stuffing another bunch of F-111s into the Defense budget year after year so that General Dynamics’ plant would keep fueling the Fort Worth economy. We didn’t want those airplanes because they never quite did the job that they were supposed to do. They were technological nightmares that simply didn’t meet our idea of what a fighter was supposed to do—drop bombs on target and fly many sorties per day without fail. The F-111 was what we called a “sea-gull”—a bird that you have to throw rocks at to get it to fly.

Eventually, of course, General Dynamics gave us the F-16 which turned out to be an exponential improvement in fighter aviation. And, eventually, Wright went a bit too far and was driven from his seat. But, before all of that happened we have the question of DFW and his amendment.

It wouldn’t do for Dallas and Fort Worth to build this mega-airport out in the country between the two cities if people wouldn’t want to drive out there to use it. They would have to make sure that Love Field, the convenient downtown airport would be unable to compete. Not a real problem initially, but then came that upstart Southwest Airlines with that pushy entrepreneur, Herb Kelleher. What a concept he had—convenient, no-frills, low-cost travel from the uncongested, largely abandoned inner city airports like Midway, Houston Hobby and Love Field. Low landing fees, easy access to business centers, and no hassle for the customers. Surprise! People loved it and Herb continues to make money as one of the few airlines with a positive number in the bottom line.

Old Jim Wright couldn’t have that. It would be way too draconian to simply deny Southwest the right to fly from Love Field. It was a municipal airport, taxpayer supported and still open. Operations could be conducted safely, so there was no justification for denying permits. What to do?

Well, how about a restriction on where you would be franchised to fly from Love. Let’s limit your destinations out of Love to only those states adjacent to Texas. You can only fly to places like Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma from Dallas. If you want to serve other destinations you’ll have to split your operation and fly out of DFW. Initially, Wright limited Southwest to four states. In 1996, three more states were added to the permitted list. Surprisingly, with one wing figuratively tied behind their back, Southwest thrived.

Meanwhile, out at DFW, traffic was growing by leaps and congested bounds. No longer out in the country, DFW is now imbedded in a complex of towns and communities. The area is huge. Fed by limited access highways and Interstates, the complexity of which confounds my car’s navigation system, the airport is definitely a success. But, that’s not enough for American Airlines which is the hub’s principal client. Continental airline once hubbed here as well, but they’ve withdrawn leaving the majority of the gates to American. So, what’s not to like?

Apparently American doesn’t like competition. Oh, they claim they do. They continually advertise an invitation for Southwest to join them at DFW and really “compete”. Southwest seems to be quite happy right where they are, but would really like to have the Wright Amendment go away.

Politics being what it is Wright won’t die all at once. This last fall, a chip got knocked off of Wright. Another state was added to the approved destination list for Southwest from Love Field. They could fly to Missouri now. Two major destinations appeared on the menu, St. Louis and Kansas City. Doesn’t seem like a lot, does it?

But from the point of view of the traveling consumer, what did it mean? Southwest offered the route for a typical fare for a short leg flight in a 737, just $49 one-way. Not unusual if you are familiar with Southwest’s pricing and their Sunday newspaper ads. What was noteworthy, was that American Airlines from DFW was flying those routes at a one-way tariff of $350-500. Ahhh, do we see a value for free-market competition?

What’s in the fall-out from this? American says they must compete. So, they have slashed their price. They have started flying from the gates they already owned but didn’t use at Love. They have tightened the economic screws on a number of small towns which they had served from DFW which had not supported their battle in Congress against modification of Wright. They claim that they need the airplanes which served Tyler and Austin and San Antonio to meet the demand to fly out of Love. But, the real message is don’t vote with American’s wishes and you lose your airline service. That’s politics in America.

And, several congress-members and Senators from other states are beginning to see an advantage for their constituents if Southwest is allowed to serve their communities from Love Field. Ain’t the free-market wonderful?

Side-Show and Non-News

Today’s the day when every political blogger will be dissecting the State of the Union address. The fact is, that is pretty much a “preach to the choir” exercise. If you are a Republican, you’ll belabor the point that the Big Guy hit all the right notes. He addressed the issues of war, the economy, energy, education and even the pseudo-scandals of the day. No doubt about it. The man was on fire.

If you’re a Democrat, you’ll point out the scandals, the attempts to justify a bad foreign policy, the grasping at motherhood/apple-pie issues like those nasty old internal combustion engines we all love, and the attempt to impose a socially conservative agenda on the nation’s failing schools. No doubt about it. The man was floundering.

Well, you all should know where I sit on the issues. I watched and was surprised at the lack of the usual (at least as we came to expect during the Clinton years) litany of almost-accomplishments. We didn’t hear all that much beyond a brief nod to emerging democracy around the world, a booming stock market, low unemployment, stable interest rates, and the outcome of lowering taxes on our general prosperity. We did get some honest appraisal of failures in things like the Palestinian elections, the constraint of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, the response to natural disasters, and even influence peddling in Congress. The candor, at least to me, seemed refreshing.

I don’t agree with all of the proposals. While I definitely want to stay the course in Iraq, support Israel against Hamas, and deny Iran nuclear weapons, I’m not in favor of some of the domestic suggestions. Just as when Bill Clinton got 100,000 cops enacted into law, the proposal to hire 70,000 science and math teachers isn’t going to do much. Spread that seemingly large number across the nation and you get much less than one teacher per school. Worst of all you increase the amount of federal capacity to interfere in that which is and should be a function of the states.

I don’t think we can realistically over any foreseeable short term wean ourselves from oil. Let’s admit that we have some foreign dependency, but it is by choice, not necessity. We can develop proven reserves in the Gulf, in Alaska, in California, and in Texas. We can develop refining infrastructure to cope with increasing demands. We can exploit oil shale resources with new technologies. We should develop alternative energy sources, but it isn’t wind and sunshine that we need. It’s nuclear power generation. At least that’s my opinion.

But, what really astonished me this morning while perusing the daily fishwrapper, was the appearance of that left-wing side-show, Cindy Sheehan on page three. Yep, there was old Cindy, being ejected from the House chamber because of…drumroll, here…violating the published and agreed to rules of decorum. C’mon, she’s worn out the grieving mother thing already. She isn’t the first to lose a son in a war she didn’t understand. She isn’t even the first to become a public figure for her anti-war stance. She isn’t a lot of things.

She clearly isn’t the sharpest knife in the international relations drawer. She isn’t the most disciplined, well-reasoned or rational of debaters. She isn’t very well grounded in issues, but she certainly is a bundle of emotional appeals and guerilla theater. And, apparently, she isn’t very fashion conscious. Who would seriously attend an event such as a joint-session of Congress wearing a T-shirt—particularly one with a questionable political message on it?

That’s why I loved this fairly extended opinion piece by James Taranto: This Guy Gets It

He points out a lot of things worth considering, ranging from media mis-reporting to Ms Sheehan’s non-issues to the Valerie Plame brouhaha. It takes a lot of facts to convince folks that the mainstream media has veered a long way from reporting in America. How, indeed, does Cindy Sheehan become “the story”?

The more important question, however, is the very basic one: Why does the media want so much to see America defeated, embarrassed and destroyed?