[!!]
There was a time in America, when unions made sense. Dangerous working conditions, disregard for fair compensation, collusion between major owners of factories and industry to deny workers an equitable voice in their own condition, all led to the creation, by necessity, of labor unions to protect and advance the interests of working-class Americans.
However, the present TWU strike in New York City is a strange anomaly in union history, but is also sadly typical of union arrogance in the last generation. According to USA Today, the transit workers already average $63,000 a year in pay, plus pension and benefits. As a comparison, that’s more than an NYPD cop makes, even a veteran. It’s almost twice the starting salary of a FDNY firefighter.
So, what’s the beef? Are the transit workers worried they are about to be laid off? Actually, no, no one has suggested there were going to be layoffs or a reduction in employment numbers. Were they worried about getting a pay cut? Again, no, there was already a 3% annual pay raise planned to take effect. Were they going to lose their benefits. Not really; the Authority wanted employees to contribute 1% of their salary towards their health coverage, very much like tens of millions of Americans already do, although most Americans have to pay far more than 1% towards their healthcare programs. And while it is true that the Authority wanted to move the effective age of pensions from 55 to 62, that is still earlier than the age at which most people expect to see any sort of pension money, assuming they are fortunate enough to have a pension plan offered. In other words, there was no substantive reason for the union to strike. Also, the strike is illegal, and will cost the union millions of dollars, which is to say that many union members will have to pay out of their own pockets for the stupidity and callous arrogance of their leadership, to say nothing of the two days’ wages every union member is being personally docked for every day on strike.
What’s more, the union has chosen an especially poor time and means to bring their grievance to public attention. At the moment, public support appears to be overwhelmingly with the MTA, not the union. And small wonder. Who, facing the dilemma of suddenly having to replan long trips through ice and snow to go to and from a job which generally pays far less in salary and benefits than these workers already enjoyed, would decide that the tactics of shutting down the city to serve their personal greed should be rewarded? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
So, why on earth would the TWU do something like this? Surely they understand that this act of theirs is suicidal, that the more permanent effect of this venture is further loss of credibility and stature, and that choosing a clearly illegal option will cost them in the courts as well. What on earth could possess these people to believe the strike was a good plan?
Simply put, they had little choice. While the unions are largely in denial about the fact, the plain truth is that union membership nationwide is in decline, and what’s worse for these people, they have no relevance to modern conditions. Put simply, the leadership of modern unions have nothing to offer the country, the plane of modern business, or even their own members. All they have left is their history and their pride, and so that is what motivates and drives their decisions.
How did this come about? Remember at the beginning, I noted that unions came about largely to address the grievances of regular employees against their management and company owners. Well, the owners got smart. They created Personnel departments to address employee concerns, and they hired people who had studied Economics and Labor Law, and while no one would say that the upper management of most corporations puts their employees first, it is a fact that companies generally put a high value on employee satisfaction and in rewarding high performers. The unions, for their part, did nothing to move from their base position of addressing all issues in the Collective sense. That is, any union has power and authority only in the sense of Collective Bargaining, not at the level of the individual, and this is a fatal flaw.
Consider that unions exist to primarily protect the collective interests of their members. That is, they will sacrifice the individual to protect the group as a whole. This means that workers who stand out, by definition will find the union unsuited to their personal needs and priorities.
Consider a company, which has determined that to do as well in 2005 as they did in 2004, they needed their factory employees to average producing 400 quality-controlled products a week per employee. Now, let’s say that there are three employees, Adam, Bruce, and Charley, whose average production is 500, 400, and 300 quality-controlled products a week, respectively. Between them, they are averaging the needed 400 q-c products the company needs to stay where they are, and if these three men all worked for a union, the union might claim that should be good enough for the company, but there’s a problem. First, of course, no union is ever happy to just stay where they are, which means this union would be demanding pay and benefit raises for meeting the standard, even though that standard demonstrates no actual improvement in company production as a whole. Also, the company would dislike the union’s position regarding Charley. The company would like to motivate Charley to either improve his performance, or else the company would like to replace Charley with an employee who can keep up with the 400-product standard. The union, holding an obligation to protrect all their members, would necessarily be defending an admittedly poor employee for no reason other than he is a union member. That means that the company’s owners and management would naturally find themselve in opposition to union demands over compensation and standards, from the start.
But the union has a problem, too, and it’s a big one. Remember Adam, the 500 product a week guy? He’s doing an impressive job, and so naturally he wants to be recognized for it. It’s in the company’s interest to reward Adam; he not only represents high productivity they want, but if employees see Adam rewarded for superior work, that may motivate some to also produce superior results. This is great for the company, and great for the employees being rewarded on the real basis of their work. It’s not great for the union, however.
If the union allows Adam to be rewarded for superoir performance, then they end up allowing merit pay, better pay for better work. Inevitably that logic means that poor performers like Charley don’t get the rewards for excellence, and the union cannot allow that kind of system to be put into place. So, the union has no choice but to demand that Adam be denied extra rewards for his superior performance; it’s that sacrifice of the individual to protect the group I mentioned. But the natural effect of this kind of system, is to drive superior performers like Adam away from the union, to other companies which do reward excellence. And the union becomes a group of sup-par performers by definition, as more and more excellence-driven workers seek their hard-earned reward.
So what does the union do? In a work, extortion. If you think about it, that’s all a strike is, for instance – ‘do as I demand, or I will hurt you'. In the end, that kind of strategy is a sure loser. But it also led to union-only shops and contracts for a long time, until the NLRA ruled that practice illegal. But unions continue a number of practices, which could reasonably only be compared in their intent and effect to Organized Crime.
So, what does all this have to do with the TWU strike in New York? The end is near, folks, and the union bosses know it. Just as the Democrats continue to use the courts to try to create laws they could never hope to pass in open legislature, unions hope to create and establish and protect the privileges they have held for so long. They know their membership is declining, their tactics are outraging many millions of honest people, and the tide is moving against them. They are grabbing now whatever they can take, like an Iraqi Baathist in 2002 on his way out the door, they know they don’t have very long, and so this strike is a desperate attempt to grab what they cannot hope to have by any right or agreement. Coercion is all they have available to them. But in the end, all this will do is confirm the need, not to make unions or help them gain power again, but to wipe them out as the corrupt gangs they are in actual fact.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Addressing A Boor
.[].
Richard Cohen, feeling rather full of himself, lectures the President of the United States about Accountability. If you have any doubt about what form Cohen’s article took, just recall that Cohen writes under a copyright called the “Washington Post Writer’s Group”.
Anyway, in a rant in the New York Daily News entitled “Enough. Let’s Try ‘Accountability’”, Cohen goes off on Dubya, and like most Liberals, he ignores the facts and just goes off on a tantrum. Given his scale of audience, it seems appropriate to answer him according to context and perspective.
Cohen begins, as a good Liberal, by attacking the President on Iraq, saying “In his Sunday night speech to the nation, Bush once again ran up this tattered rhetorical banner: ``I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.'"
Yes, Mr. Cohen, the President made clear that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein, install a democratic republic, rebuild the infrastructure and protect the security of the entire region was his choice. That’s hardly “tattered”, Mister Cohen, especially in the light of the just-completed elections in Iraq, where turnout was extremely high and confidence extremely strong. Many millions of people, including many Americans, consider this to be a good thing, actually even a sign of victory and a wise decision by the President. It speaks volumes that Cohen would still regard the decision as a mistake, something which seems to be the starting point for any Liberal talking point.
Cohen goes on:
“I take responsibility,'' he said Sept. 13 about the botched Hurricane Katrina relief effort.”
Of course, anyone familiar with the actual events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, is well aware that the breakdown began with Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco, and it was only when the federal officials were allowed to take charge, that supplies and organized relief began to work. So again, where the actual actions by the President were effective and useful, Cohen prefers to assign blame, in clear defiance of the evidence and actual events.
Cohen, having displayed clear Liberal credentials, now moves into his true message:
“This recitation of the obvious is a bit of clumsy rhetorical strutting, but also a way of ducking the ultimate in responsibility: accountability. This is something Bush will not accept or countenance. He will not be trammeled or constrained or answer to any person. He will, as we recently learned, not give a fig for the law as passed by Congress when it comes to restrictions on domestic spying. He asserts, but does not show, that asking for a warrant from the special intelligence court would endanger the country and -- his idea of a jolly-good debating point -- shows irritation when pressed.”
Here Cohen proves himself quite the fool. In the first place, the Liberal assertion that President Bush must take blame and prostrate himself for the unforgivable sin of doing his job is the usual flame game we see from pompous asses like Cohen in places like New York or Los Angeles. But more, Cohen fails to recognize that the authority for the surveillance came from Congress. As much as Cohen would like to cast Bush as a dictator who cares nothing for the law, Cohen would do well to go back and actually take a look at the Congressional bills passed since September 11th.
I also find the “domestic spying” canard amusing, although the malicious deceit applied by the Mainstream Media is a bit disturbing. That is, the “spying” means that certain phone calls, under certain conditions, are surveilled, examined to see if they represent a threat. This is no different than a police officer following a car which is acting strangely, to decide whether it may be driven by a drunk driver, or whether the driver is involved in some other illicit activity. Drug smugglers have been caught, specifically because a police officer followed their truck or car for a while to see why they were acting strangely. That has never been illegal, and in practical use, paying attention to people who mention bombs, names of specific terrorist individuals and groups, or otherwise reference suspicious behavior.
Further, the United States has done this for years under a variety of circumstances and conditions, it’s not something which just started under President Bush. During the War of 1812, troops would enter the house of a suspected spy to determine whether the person inside was acting against American security. Same during the Civil War, and in all the Wars of the 20th Century, from the First World War through the Second, Korea, and Vietnam, the government regularly intercepted mail and phone calls involving international communications and soldiers, and this was commonly understood to be a necessary security action to protect lives and secrets. That has not changed now, despite Mister Cohen’s intense desire to protect the sanctity of people discussing terrorists and bombs while on the phone to foreign countries.
Undeterred by facts or a functional sense of history, Coehn then says “It was the same with the intelligence failure that was Bush's prime justification for the war. The president asserts repeatedly that he's responsible for that -- but so is Congress. It saw the same intelligence. But it is the president who runs the spy agencies, not Congress, and it is he who ought to be accountable for their dismal performance.”
If anything proves Cohen to be both an idiot and a liar, this claim does it. Liberals have always screamed about the need for a Congressional Authorization for War, even though the 2002 Congressional action was the first undeniable authorization for the use of force in almost half a century. Actually, I think that’s the heart of it – Liberals are outraged that President Bush can point to a clear, specific authorization by Congress.
What’s more, Cohen surely remembers that the reason we went to war in Iraq was because the Intelligence Community, not just here in the U.S., but also in the United Kingdom, in Russia, even in France, agreed that Saddam very likely had WMD, and if he had them he certainly planned to use them. In fact, David Kay explained later that if anything, the instability in Iraq in 2002 made Saddam even more dangerous than we thought, and Kay said the decision to invade was the right one. Does Cohen mean to say that President Bush also controls the opinions and recommendations of Intelligence Agencies in Europe and Asia, too? And no, Bush does not “run” the “spy agencies”, he appoints the Director of the CIA. Other agencies are overseen by the military, and by Congress. We should also recall that the chief deficiency of the Intelligence Community in answering the question of WMD, was Human Intelligence, and for that issue we must fall back to the Clinton Doctrine of depending on Satellite Reconnaissance and reducing field agents. In other words, if you feel you have to pin the Intel blunder on a specific person, the “Gorelick” Wall at the Department of Justice, and the Clinton Doctrine of reducing HUMINT in the region are the two chief causes for the poor information used to make such a critical decision. I have no intention of blaming President Clinton for this, because I understand the limits to what a President can anticipate and plan, but I observe that Cohen has wholly missed the cause and nature of the error – it’s just so much easier for him to lie so that he can blame President Bush.
So, one must wonder why Mister Cohen is so desperate to smear President Bush. Surely he realizes that President Bush, with a rising Approval rate and a solidly Republican Congress, is not about to be cowed by a man who can’t bother to get his facts straight, and whose hatred for the President has clearly unbalanced him. The truth comes out as Mister Cohen closes his little rant:
“He works with the same team of happy incompetents who failed him once (bad intelligence), then again (going to war), then again (the administration of it) and then again (postwar reconstruction). A responsible leader would get some people around him with the guts to challenge him. This is a White House of the meek.
Finally, the ``responsibility president'' would understand that his crew has lost all credibility. He cannot expect a nation, and in particular its military, to accept the assurances of people who will be mocked by history or to have faith in leaders whose failures are sadly obvious in the only ledger that really matters -- the body count in Iraq.”
And there it is. The Bush Administration, far from being the dismal band of failures Mister Cohen hopes we will believe, is actually quite accomplished in their success. It occurs to me that Mister Cohen might perceive what I do; that while Neither Bush nor Cheney will be running for office in 2008 (although Cohen seems to have the Liberal’s requisite fear of anything involving Cheney), there are others within the White House who may do quite well indeed in a Presidential campaign run. Cohen and his ilk would hate, beyond words, the effectiveness of a Republican President elected in 2008, if that Republican happened to be named Rice or Chertoff, or someone who thinks like Bush, say, Kyl or Barbour. So, they must be demonized, by proxy and as a group until they know at whom to aim their vitriol.
In summary, only a fool, a malicious liar, that is to say, a Liberal spokesman, would pretend that the war in Iraq is of no import beyond counting bodies. That was not the ledger for victory in any war of consequence, and it is a typical but mean slap form the Left, to so attempt to diminish the work and accomplishment of our military, and of their Commander in Chief. Millions of Iraqis and Afghanistans are free to build their own future, because of Bush’s decision and the efforts of the U.S. Military. The entire Middle East is more secure because the United States acted with decision and resolve. The authority and influence of the United States is unmatched, because President Bush was clear and thorough in his decisions, promises, and actions. You are fooling nobody, Mister Cohen, and there is no honor in your blatant attempt to smear a far better man than yourself.
Richard Cohen, feeling rather full of himself, lectures the President of the United States about Accountability. If you have any doubt about what form Cohen’s article took, just recall that Cohen writes under a copyright called the “Washington Post Writer’s Group”.
Anyway, in a rant in the New York Daily News entitled “Enough. Let’s Try ‘Accountability’”, Cohen goes off on Dubya, and like most Liberals, he ignores the facts and just goes off on a tantrum. Given his scale of audience, it seems appropriate to answer him according to context and perspective.
Cohen begins, as a good Liberal, by attacking the President on Iraq, saying “In his Sunday night speech to the nation, Bush once again ran up this tattered rhetorical banner: ``I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.'"
Yes, Mr. Cohen, the President made clear that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein, install a democratic republic, rebuild the infrastructure and protect the security of the entire region was his choice. That’s hardly “tattered”, Mister Cohen, especially in the light of the just-completed elections in Iraq, where turnout was extremely high and confidence extremely strong. Many millions of people, including many Americans, consider this to be a good thing, actually even a sign of victory and a wise decision by the President. It speaks volumes that Cohen would still regard the decision as a mistake, something which seems to be the starting point for any Liberal talking point.
Cohen goes on:
“I take responsibility,'' he said Sept. 13 about the botched Hurricane Katrina relief effort.”
Of course, anyone familiar with the actual events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, is well aware that the breakdown began with Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco, and it was only when the federal officials were allowed to take charge, that supplies and organized relief began to work. So again, where the actual actions by the President were effective and useful, Cohen prefers to assign blame, in clear defiance of the evidence and actual events.
Cohen, having displayed clear Liberal credentials, now moves into his true message:
“This recitation of the obvious is a bit of clumsy rhetorical strutting, but also a way of ducking the ultimate in responsibility: accountability. This is something Bush will not accept or countenance. He will not be trammeled or constrained or answer to any person. He will, as we recently learned, not give a fig for the law as passed by Congress when it comes to restrictions on domestic spying. He asserts, but does not show, that asking for a warrant from the special intelligence court would endanger the country and -- his idea of a jolly-good debating point -- shows irritation when pressed.”
Here Cohen proves himself quite the fool. In the first place, the Liberal assertion that President Bush must take blame and prostrate himself for the unforgivable sin of doing his job is the usual flame game we see from pompous asses like Cohen in places like New York or Los Angeles. But more, Cohen fails to recognize that the authority for the surveillance came from Congress. As much as Cohen would like to cast Bush as a dictator who cares nothing for the law, Cohen would do well to go back and actually take a look at the Congressional bills passed since September 11th.
I also find the “domestic spying” canard amusing, although the malicious deceit applied by the Mainstream Media is a bit disturbing. That is, the “spying” means that certain phone calls, under certain conditions, are surveilled, examined to see if they represent a threat. This is no different than a police officer following a car which is acting strangely, to decide whether it may be driven by a drunk driver, or whether the driver is involved in some other illicit activity. Drug smugglers have been caught, specifically because a police officer followed their truck or car for a while to see why they were acting strangely. That has never been illegal, and in practical use, paying attention to people who mention bombs, names of specific terrorist individuals and groups, or otherwise reference suspicious behavior.
Further, the United States has done this for years under a variety of circumstances and conditions, it’s not something which just started under President Bush. During the War of 1812, troops would enter the house of a suspected spy to determine whether the person inside was acting against American security. Same during the Civil War, and in all the Wars of the 20th Century, from the First World War through the Second, Korea, and Vietnam, the government regularly intercepted mail and phone calls involving international communications and soldiers, and this was commonly understood to be a necessary security action to protect lives and secrets. That has not changed now, despite Mister Cohen’s intense desire to protect the sanctity of people discussing terrorists and bombs while on the phone to foreign countries.
Undeterred by facts or a functional sense of history, Coehn then says “It was the same with the intelligence failure that was Bush's prime justification for the war. The president asserts repeatedly that he's responsible for that -- but so is Congress. It saw the same intelligence. But it is the president who runs the spy agencies, not Congress, and it is he who ought to be accountable for their dismal performance.”
If anything proves Cohen to be both an idiot and a liar, this claim does it. Liberals have always screamed about the need for a Congressional Authorization for War, even though the 2002 Congressional action was the first undeniable authorization for the use of force in almost half a century. Actually, I think that’s the heart of it – Liberals are outraged that President Bush can point to a clear, specific authorization by Congress.
What’s more, Cohen surely remembers that the reason we went to war in Iraq was because the Intelligence Community, not just here in the U.S., but also in the United Kingdom, in Russia, even in France, agreed that Saddam very likely had WMD, and if he had them he certainly planned to use them. In fact, David Kay explained later that if anything, the instability in Iraq in 2002 made Saddam even more dangerous than we thought, and Kay said the decision to invade was the right one. Does Cohen mean to say that President Bush also controls the opinions and recommendations of Intelligence Agencies in Europe and Asia, too? And no, Bush does not “run” the “spy agencies”, he appoints the Director of the CIA. Other agencies are overseen by the military, and by Congress. We should also recall that the chief deficiency of the Intelligence Community in answering the question of WMD, was Human Intelligence, and for that issue we must fall back to the Clinton Doctrine of depending on Satellite Reconnaissance and reducing field agents. In other words, if you feel you have to pin the Intel blunder on a specific person, the “Gorelick” Wall at the Department of Justice, and the Clinton Doctrine of reducing HUMINT in the region are the two chief causes for the poor information used to make such a critical decision. I have no intention of blaming President Clinton for this, because I understand the limits to what a President can anticipate and plan, but I observe that Cohen has wholly missed the cause and nature of the error – it’s just so much easier for him to lie so that he can blame President Bush.
So, one must wonder why Mister Cohen is so desperate to smear President Bush. Surely he realizes that President Bush, with a rising Approval rate and a solidly Republican Congress, is not about to be cowed by a man who can’t bother to get his facts straight, and whose hatred for the President has clearly unbalanced him. The truth comes out as Mister Cohen closes his little rant:
“He works with the same team of happy incompetents who failed him once (bad intelligence), then again (going to war), then again (the administration of it) and then again (postwar reconstruction). A responsible leader would get some people around him with the guts to challenge him. This is a White House of the meek.
Finally, the ``responsibility president'' would understand that his crew has lost all credibility. He cannot expect a nation, and in particular its military, to accept the assurances of people who will be mocked by history or to have faith in leaders whose failures are sadly obvious in the only ledger that really matters -- the body count in Iraq.”
And there it is. The Bush Administration, far from being the dismal band of failures Mister Cohen hopes we will believe, is actually quite accomplished in their success. It occurs to me that Mister Cohen might perceive what I do; that while Neither Bush nor Cheney will be running for office in 2008 (although Cohen seems to have the Liberal’s requisite fear of anything involving Cheney), there are others within the White House who may do quite well indeed in a Presidential campaign run. Cohen and his ilk would hate, beyond words, the effectiveness of a Republican President elected in 2008, if that Republican happened to be named Rice or Chertoff, or someone who thinks like Bush, say, Kyl or Barbour. So, they must be demonized, by proxy and as a group until they know at whom to aim their vitriol.
In summary, only a fool, a malicious liar, that is to say, a Liberal spokesman, would pretend that the war in Iraq is of no import beyond counting bodies. That was not the ledger for victory in any war of consequence, and it is a typical but mean slap form the Left, to so attempt to diminish the work and accomplishment of our military, and of their Commander in Chief. Millions of Iraqis and Afghanistans are free to build their own future, because of Bush’s decision and the efforts of the U.S. Military. The entire Middle East is more secure because the United States acted with decision and resolve. The authority and influence of the United States is unmatched, because President Bush was clear and thorough in his decisions, promises, and actions. You are fooling nobody, Mister Cohen, and there is no honor in your blatant attempt to smear a far better man than yourself.
Monday, December 19, 2005
What Is Really Going On
.<>.
Liberals hate the PATRIOT Act. That's commonly understood, but how many people think about why that is so?
In February 2004, POTUS wanna-be John Kerry explained that we need "not only a strong military, but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds. " Kerry, however accidentally, endorsed the PATRIOT Act in that statement, because the PATRIOT Act was the most signifiant tool given to agencies to find and apprehend terrorist cells before they could strike American targets. The simple fact is, the tools that Liberals and the MSM are calling 'spying on Americans', are tools which have long been in use to catch mob bosses and child predators. Terrorists certainly deserve no better treatment than the Mafia or some pervert trying to snatch your kid.
Back in January, I wrote this about President George W. Bush, and it is still true today:
"George W. Bush is weird. That’s either a really bad thing, or a really good thing, depending on your perspective. The strong emotions surrounding this President are unique; while every President has his supporters and critics, no one in memory has suffered the absolute hate that has been spewed at Dubya, nor has a President often enjoyed the sort of loyalty that GW Bush has created. I believe this comes, in large part, from the clear and decisive policies and plans of this Bush Administration. Most Presidents try to set their policies in such a manner as to minimize conflict, which reduces outright anger but also dilutes their effectiveness. Dubya puts 100% into accomplishing his goals, but 0% into sugar-coating them".
The PATRIOT Act should not be controversial at all. It should be understood not only for the vital purpose it serves, but also for the fact that without it, we will be significantly more vulnerable. And if you should be wondering about whether renewing it would damage your Civil Rights, consider the number of civil cases won against the Government for civil rights violations via the PATRIOT Act: zero. Padilla's case notwithstanding (which was procedural, rather than a civil rights case per se), there has not yet been even a single case against the U.S. Government, not one suit which has been brought to trial on the claim that a specific person's civil rights have been violated, much less a judgment in support of such a claim. The facts bear out the truth, but there is no truth in the Liberal attack on the PATRIOT Act.
Once again, one stands either with the people defending the nation against terrorists, or against the defenders. There is no other position.
Liberals hate the PATRIOT Act. That's commonly understood, but how many people think about why that is so?
In February 2004, POTUS wanna-be John Kerry explained that we need "not only a strong military, but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds. " Kerry, however accidentally, endorsed the PATRIOT Act in that statement, because the PATRIOT Act was the most signifiant tool given to agencies to find and apprehend terrorist cells before they could strike American targets. The simple fact is, the tools that Liberals and the MSM are calling 'spying on Americans', are tools which have long been in use to catch mob bosses and child predators. Terrorists certainly deserve no better treatment than the Mafia or some pervert trying to snatch your kid.
Back in January, I wrote this about President George W. Bush, and it is still true today:
"George W. Bush is weird. That’s either a really bad thing, or a really good thing, depending on your perspective. The strong emotions surrounding this President are unique; while every President has his supporters and critics, no one in memory has suffered the absolute hate that has been spewed at Dubya, nor has a President often enjoyed the sort of loyalty that GW Bush has created. I believe this comes, in large part, from the clear and decisive policies and plans of this Bush Administration. Most Presidents try to set their policies in such a manner as to minimize conflict, which reduces outright anger but also dilutes their effectiveness. Dubya puts 100% into accomplishing his goals, but 0% into sugar-coating them".
The PATRIOT Act should not be controversial at all. It should be understood not only for the vital purpose it serves, but also for the fact that without it, we will be significantly more vulnerable. And if you should be wondering about whether renewing it would damage your Civil Rights, consider the number of civil cases won against the Government for civil rights violations via the PATRIOT Act: zero. Padilla's case notwithstanding (which was procedural, rather than a civil rights case per se), there has not yet been even a single case against the U.S. Government, not one suit which has been brought to trial on the claim that a specific person's civil rights have been violated, much less a judgment in support of such a claim. The facts bear out the truth, but there is no truth in the Liberal attack on the PATRIOT Act.
Once again, one stands either with the people defending the nation against terrorists, or against the defenders. There is no other position.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Christmas - The Culture War
[][]
Well, it’s that time again, with angry types on the Right complaining that there isn’t enough Christ in Christmas, and angry types on the Left arguing that we should be having Christmas at all. So far, that’s the usual routine. I really think there are people who feel obliged to bicker just to do so, to go through the motions of not only having an opinion, but fighting for it to somehow prove their devotion. At least, that’s the only way I can explain the bitter hostility to things like Santa Claus and Christmas Trees.
Yes, that’s right. Here in Houston there was actually a group protesting displays which included the jolly old elf and brightly decorated trees. I took a few religion courses back in school, and there is nothing in Christian doctrine of any major denomination, which connects the myth of Santa Claus to the faith, nor emphasizes the use of indoor foilage as a sign of piety. But there you are; the fat guy and the gaudy tree have been connected to that whole Christanity thing in the public mind, and so that perception is driving a counter-offensive against it. It seems extraordinarily silly, but then to me, so does proving your love by blowing the limit on your credit card.
Part of it can be blamed on the ‘Narnia’ movies. Liberals, who understand the meaning of symbolism and metaphor, are alarmed at the apparent indoctrination of children to such things as love for others, devotion to truth and good, or a sense of personal responsibility. They apparently prefer to have children made to appreciate class warfare, reverse race and sexism, the campaigns of victimization, or the evils of dominant cultures. Anyway, I think it really hit home this year, when ‘Harry Potter’ introduced not only the sixth book in the series, but also the fourth movie. While extremists on the Right were offended by what they saw as glamorization (pun intended) of Witchcraft, extremists on the Left were appalled to discover that the protagonists in the ‘Harry Potter’ series were exhibiting behavior that could reasonably be described as, gasp, Christian. The horror!
So here we are, with a campaign to abolish Santa Claus. Of course, it’s been in the works for a while; the original Saint Nick smoked a pipe. Can’t have that now. I figure in ten years or so, we’ll start seeing a Santa Claus who is on the latest diet, and would never think of intruding on a family without their knowledge and permission. That is, a non-magic, non-ofensive, totally banal Santa Clause. From ‘HO HO HO’ to ‘hum hum hum’.
As for me, while my faith hardly requires it, it’s a fat, happy, smoking Santa Claus for my decor, and a tree wrapped in foil and lights. It’s not about fighting anything you understand, but my daughter likes such things, and that makes it important for me to encourage her joy.
Well, it’s that time again, with angry types on the Right complaining that there isn’t enough Christ in Christmas, and angry types on the Left arguing that we should be having Christmas at all. So far, that’s the usual routine. I really think there are people who feel obliged to bicker just to do so, to go through the motions of not only having an opinion, but fighting for it to somehow prove their devotion. At least, that’s the only way I can explain the bitter hostility to things like Santa Claus and Christmas Trees.
Yes, that’s right. Here in Houston there was actually a group protesting displays which included the jolly old elf and brightly decorated trees. I took a few religion courses back in school, and there is nothing in Christian doctrine of any major denomination, which connects the myth of Santa Claus to the faith, nor emphasizes the use of indoor foilage as a sign of piety. But there you are; the fat guy and the gaudy tree have been connected to that whole Christanity thing in the public mind, and so that perception is driving a counter-offensive against it. It seems extraordinarily silly, but then to me, so does proving your love by blowing the limit on your credit card.
Part of it can be blamed on the ‘Narnia’ movies. Liberals, who understand the meaning of symbolism and metaphor, are alarmed at the apparent indoctrination of children to such things as love for others, devotion to truth and good, or a sense of personal responsibility. They apparently prefer to have children made to appreciate class warfare, reverse race and sexism, the campaigns of victimization, or the evils of dominant cultures. Anyway, I think it really hit home this year, when ‘Harry Potter’ introduced not only the sixth book in the series, but also the fourth movie. While extremists on the Right were offended by what they saw as glamorization (pun intended) of Witchcraft, extremists on the Left were appalled to discover that the protagonists in the ‘Harry Potter’ series were exhibiting behavior that could reasonably be described as, gasp, Christian. The horror!
So here we are, with a campaign to abolish Santa Claus. Of course, it’s been in the works for a while; the original Saint Nick smoked a pipe. Can’t have that now. I figure in ten years or so, we’ll start seeing a Santa Claus who is on the latest diet, and would never think of intruding on a family without their knowledge and permission. That is, a non-magic, non-ofensive, totally banal Santa Clause. From ‘HO HO HO’ to ‘hum hum hum’.
As for me, while my faith hardly requires it, it’s a fat, happy, smoking Santa Claus for my decor, and a tree wrapped in foil and lights. It’s not about fighting anything you understand, but my daughter likes such things, and that makes it important for me to encourage her joy.
PFL Week Fifteen
. .
Week Fifteen Scoreboard
Teddy Roosevelt (15-0) 42, Jackson (6-8) 6
Washington (15-0) 31, Polk (10-4) 17
George W Bush (14-0) 61, Fillmore (2-12) 6
Jefferson (13-2) 19, Eisenhower (13-1) 18
Reagan (14-0) 66, Coolidge (3-11) 3
FDR (13-2) 27, JFK (10-4) 9
Grant (12-2) 21, JQ Adams (7-7) 15
Monroe (11-3) 64, A Johnson (0-14) 3
Truman (11-3) 19, Wilson (7-8) 10
Lincoln (10-5) 18, Madison (7-7) 15
Taft (9-5) 32, Tyler (4-10) 9
John Adams (8-6) 61, Harding (2-12) 6
Cleveland (8-6) 39, Buchanan (0-14) 9
McKinley (8-6) 50, W Harrison (2-12) 9
Hayes (7-7) 19, Nixon (7-7) 18
Arthur (7-7), idle
GHW Bush (7-7), idle
Van Buren (5-9) 25, Taylor (6-8) 9
Ford (6-8), idle
B Harrison (5-9), idle
Carter (4-10), idle
Garfield (3-11) 31, Clinton (0-14) 15
LBJ (2-12) 22, Pierce (2-12) 18
Hoover (2-12), idle
Division A
[02] Washington (15-0) Division Champion
[09] Monroe (11-3)
[12] Polk (10-4)
Division B
[05] Eisenhower (13-1) Playoff berth clinched
[06] Jefferson (13-2) Playoff berth clinched
Division C
[01] T Roosevelt (15-0) Division Champion
[08] Grant (12-2)
Division D
[03] George W Bush (14-0) Division Champion
[10] Truman (11-3)
Division E
[04] Reagan (14-0) Division Champion
[13] Lincoln (10-5)
Division F
[07] FDR (13-2) Division Champion
[11] JFK (10-4)
Week Fifteen Scoreboard
Teddy Roosevelt (15-0) 42, Jackson (6-8) 6
Washington (15-0) 31, Polk (10-4) 17
George W Bush (14-0) 61, Fillmore (2-12) 6
Jefferson (13-2) 19, Eisenhower (13-1) 18
Reagan (14-0) 66, Coolidge (3-11) 3
FDR (13-2) 27, JFK (10-4) 9
Grant (12-2) 21, JQ Adams (7-7) 15
Monroe (11-3) 64, A Johnson (0-14) 3
Truman (11-3) 19, Wilson (7-8) 10
Lincoln (10-5) 18, Madison (7-7) 15
Taft (9-5) 32, Tyler (4-10) 9
John Adams (8-6) 61, Harding (2-12) 6
Cleveland (8-6) 39, Buchanan (0-14) 9
McKinley (8-6) 50, W Harrison (2-12) 9
Hayes (7-7) 19, Nixon (7-7) 18
Arthur (7-7), idle
GHW Bush (7-7), idle
Van Buren (5-9) 25, Taylor (6-8) 9
Ford (6-8), idle
B Harrison (5-9), idle
Carter (4-10), idle
Garfield (3-11) 31, Clinton (0-14) 15
LBJ (2-12) 22, Pierce (2-12) 18
Hoover (2-12), idle
Division A
[02] Washington (15-0) Division Champion
[09] Monroe (11-3)
[12] Polk (10-4)
Division B
[05] Eisenhower (13-1) Playoff berth clinched
[06] Jefferson (13-2) Playoff berth clinched
Division C
[01] T Roosevelt (15-0) Division Champion
[08] Grant (12-2)
Division D
[03] George W Bush (14-0) Division Champion
[10] Truman (11-3)
Division E
[04] Reagan (14-0) Division Champion
[13] Lincoln (10-5)
Division F
[07] FDR (13-2) Division Champion
[11] JFK (10-4)
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Why I Won’t Be Watching “Brokeback Mountain”
. pew .
The Liberal Glitterati, which is to say Hollywood, is all a-twitter over the Golden Globe nominations for the gay cowboy film “Brokeback Mountain”. And as required in Liberal World bylaws, anyone who is not automatically impressed with a gay film/artwork/business/whatever must ergo be a Neocon fascist. Whatever.
It is true that I have not seen “Brokeback Mountain”, nor do I plan to, but it’s not because the film is about two cowboys who happen to be homosexual. It’s because the film is presented as a gay experience, in essence. It is not so much a story told on-screen, but more a lecture on how we should appreciate gays, an agenda on film, which is to say the director and producer have no idea what the audience wants, or worse, they presume to demand that we abandon entertainment for the purpose of the lesson. I never saw “Showgirls” for the same reason I am giving “Brokeback Mountain” a miss – I want a movie, not an insult to my intelligence. I want a plot, some action, or at the very least a reason to think I will enjoy the film.
Remember Ellen Degeneres? Leave off some of her statements for a minute, and focus on two points, please. The “Ellen” show, her sit-com on television, was funny for a while, enjoyable. Then someone decided it was time for Ellen’s character to “come out” on her show, and suddenly, the show became a critique on the producer’s perception of normative American values. Leaving aside the gross inability of the writers to understand the complexities inherent in a cosmopolitan nation of over three hundred million people, the show stopped being funny. And guess what? When a comedy stops being funny, people stop watching. After “Ellen” became 'Gay Ellen’, it tanked, and naturally the producers blamed conservatives and closed-minded Americans. It never once occurred to them, that we don’t watch sitcoms for social commentary or to be told what to think, we watch sitcoms to laugh. I don’t want to hear a comedian lecture me as if I were uneducated or intolerant, any more than I want that from my deli counter guy when I order a sandwich, or my mechanic when I need to get the brakes fixed. Just do your job, OK?
Well, when I go to the movies, I generally don’t care about politics or the moral outrage of this actor or that director. I want to see romance, comedy, action, whatever I feel is worth my money. I don’t agree much with Ellen Degeneres’ lifestyle choices, but you know what? I liked the job she did in “Finding Nemo”. George Clooney is a raving moron when he tries to lecture people on things he obviously knows nothing about, but I will admit he’s OK in some of his films. I have made an exception for Sean Penn – he’s a great actor, but he’s become so totally demented that I cannot in good conscience spend money which might encourage the man. So no, thank you, I do not feel the need to pay the money I worked for, just to be lectured instead of entertained. The only lectures I feel like paying for, come from academic professionals who really know what they’re talking about, and sorry Mr. McMurtry, you do not meet that standard. I will be happy to pay for a movie which actually offers me an intriguing plot and characters which act more in composition with each other, and who do not seem to be trying to insult the audience. But “Brokeback Mountain” does not meet that standard, and I do not owe you a penny of my money or a moment of my time for something you have not begun to earn.
The Liberal Glitterati, which is to say Hollywood, is all a-twitter over the Golden Globe nominations for the gay cowboy film “Brokeback Mountain”. And as required in Liberal World bylaws, anyone who is not automatically impressed with a gay film/artwork/business/whatever must ergo be a Neocon fascist. Whatever.
It is true that I have not seen “Brokeback Mountain”, nor do I plan to, but it’s not because the film is about two cowboys who happen to be homosexual. It’s because the film is presented as a gay experience, in essence. It is not so much a story told on-screen, but more a lecture on how we should appreciate gays, an agenda on film, which is to say the director and producer have no idea what the audience wants, or worse, they presume to demand that we abandon entertainment for the purpose of the lesson. I never saw “Showgirls” for the same reason I am giving “Brokeback Mountain” a miss – I want a movie, not an insult to my intelligence. I want a plot, some action, or at the very least a reason to think I will enjoy the film.
Remember Ellen Degeneres? Leave off some of her statements for a minute, and focus on two points, please. The “Ellen” show, her sit-com on television, was funny for a while, enjoyable. Then someone decided it was time for Ellen’s character to “come out” on her show, and suddenly, the show became a critique on the producer’s perception of normative American values. Leaving aside the gross inability of the writers to understand the complexities inherent in a cosmopolitan nation of over three hundred million people, the show stopped being funny. And guess what? When a comedy stops being funny, people stop watching. After “Ellen” became 'Gay Ellen’, it tanked, and naturally the producers blamed conservatives and closed-minded Americans. It never once occurred to them, that we don’t watch sitcoms for social commentary or to be told what to think, we watch sitcoms to laugh. I don’t want to hear a comedian lecture me as if I were uneducated or intolerant, any more than I want that from my deli counter guy when I order a sandwich, or my mechanic when I need to get the brakes fixed. Just do your job, OK?
Well, when I go to the movies, I generally don’t care about politics or the moral outrage of this actor or that director. I want to see romance, comedy, action, whatever I feel is worth my money. I don’t agree much with Ellen Degeneres’ lifestyle choices, but you know what? I liked the job she did in “Finding Nemo”. George Clooney is a raving moron when he tries to lecture people on things he obviously knows nothing about, but I will admit he’s OK in some of his films. I have made an exception for Sean Penn – he’s a great actor, but he’s become so totally demented that I cannot in good conscience spend money which might encourage the man. So no, thank you, I do not feel the need to pay the money I worked for, just to be lectured instead of entertained. The only lectures I feel like paying for, come from academic professionals who really know what they’re talking about, and sorry Mr. McMurtry, you do not meet that standard. I will be happy to pay for a movie which actually offers me an intriguing plot and characters which act more in composition with each other, and who do not seem to be trying to insult the audience. But “Brokeback Mountain” does not meet that standard, and I do not owe you a penny of my money or a moment of my time for something you have not begun to earn.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Generation Geezer And Business School
(x-y)(n/x)
I admit it; I made a mistake by not pursuing a Business degree at Baylor. But I was turned off by the attitude of so many of the B-School students. Nothing was good enough for them, unless it reflected money. For this attitude to be so prevalent at a Baptist University, was something I found more than slightly annoying.
Now, a couple decades later and here I am, trying to get in the door of a respectable Business School for my MBA. Of course, I could claim that I am not doing this so much for the money, or at least not out of any impulse of greed. It seems so much more palatable to remind myself that my intention is to acquire the tools and knowledge to do my job, to make myself attractive for the positions I should already be in line to receive, and yes, to provide for my family’s material needs in the most effective way possible. Still, I also want to avoid arrogance and foolhardy decisions.
I am going to make the people at the University of Phoenix unhappy with me, but there’s no avoiding that now. By this point in my school search, I have discovered that UoP carries a distinctly bad reputation in business circles, and while this may be unfair to the school, I cannot ignore that factor in choosing a school. In fact, while the for-profit schools boast valid accreditation, at least regionally, and their actual coursework may be everything they claim, there is a real stigma attached to the for-profit schools at the executive level. Anyone with a degree from a for-profit school is going to be labeled as having had to “settle” for a mass-production degree. At my age and with my commitments, that is a liability I cannot accept.
So where to go, then? Fortunately, there are a large number of “traditional” schools which offer an Online MBA, with little or no actual residency requirement, and some of them are even AACSB accredited. Also, there are a number of “traditional” schools in the Houston area, which offer a part-time MBA with schedules I might be able to keep.
I want to stop here and explain why I am writing this article, as well as the ones to come. There are many useful and interesting sites about how to pursue post-graduate education, but most of them are either too biased in favor of one school or type, while many other sites seem to cater to the very young, top-stratosphere students who want to be CEOs before they turn 30. As I am already forty-five years old, with some success in my career but not what the Strato class would call an impressive ‘portfolio’, I have not found much to suggest that people in my position have a great deal of support or even notice. We will fail or succeed on our own, unless we look after each other. These other sites are very useful in terms of information, so I am by no means slamming them, but I think it could be useful to present my experience for other people like me – Generation Geezer, if you will. I cannot help but believe there are other people like myself out there, and if I can succeed, I want to share what I learn with anyone interested.
At this point, I am studying for the GMAT, the requisite test which score will largely decide what schools I can think about for my degree. I also need to seriously decide whether I want to pursue my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, Finance, or whether I should pursue an Executive MBA.
More to come...
I admit it; I made a mistake by not pursuing a Business degree at Baylor. But I was turned off by the attitude of so many of the B-School students. Nothing was good enough for them, unless it reflected money. For this attitude to be so prevalent at a Baptist University, was something I found more than slightly annoying.
Now, a couple decades later and here I am, trying to get in the door of a respectable Business School for my MBA. Of course, I could claim that I am not doing this so much for the money, or at least not out of any impulse of greed. It seems so much more palatable to remind myself that my intention is to acquire the tools and knowledge to do my job, to make myself attractive for the positions I should already be in line to receive, and yes, to provide for my family’s material needs in the most effective way possible. Still, I also want to avoid arrogance and foolhardy decisions.
I am going to make the people at the University of Phoenix unhappy with me, but there’s no avoiding that now. By this point in my school search, I have discovered that UoP carries a distinctly bad reputation in business circles, and while this may be unfair to the school, I cannot ignore that factor in choosing a school. In fact, while the for-profit schools boast valid accreditation, at least regionally, and their actual coursework may be everything they claim, there is a real stigma attached to the for-profit schools at the executive level. Anyone with a degree from a for-profit school is going to be labeled as having had to “settle” for a mass-production degree. At my age and with my commitments, that is a liability I cannot accept.
So where to go, then? Fortunately, there are a large number of “traditional” schools which offer an Online MBA, with little or no actual residency requirement, and some of them are even AACSB accredited. Also, there are a number of “traditional” schools in the Houston area, which offer a part-time MBA with schedules I might be able to keep.
I want to stop here and explain why I am writing this article, as well as the ones to come. There are many useful and interesting sites about how to pursue post-graduate education, but most of them are either too biased in favor of one school or type, while many other sites seem to cater to the very young, top-stratosphere students who want to be CEOs before they turn 30. As I am already forty-five years old, with some success in my career but not what the Strato class would call an impressive ‘portfolio’, I have not found much to suggest that people in my position have a great deal of support or even notice. We will fail or succeed on our own, unless we look after each other. These other sites are very useful in terms of information, so I am by no means slamming them, but I think it could be useful to present my experience for other people like me – Generation Geezer, if you will. I cannot help but believe there are other people like myself out there, and if I can succeed, I want to share what I learn with anyone interested.
At this point, I am studying for the GMAT, the requisite test which score will largely decide what schools I can think about for my degree. I also need to seriously decide whether I want to pursue my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, Finance, or whether I should pursue an Executive MBA.
More to come...
Thursday, December 15, 2005
WARNING: Blogger May Be Less Sane Than He Appears
* ^ *
I am, and this sure feels more and more like a risky venture, finally going after my MBA starting in 2006, and I've gotten a lot of good intellectual information, and more than a few intimidating lessons in how far behind the cut I am likely to be, unless I can plan my course very carefully.
I have been to GMATClub.com, where I have discovered that being 45 years old with a Liberal Arts degree and a less-than-sparkling GPA, is a distinct liability.
** sigh **
Of course, those guys are all trying to get into the "Elite" schools, while I'm just trying to find the balance between one I can get into and afford, but which degree will be worth everything I will be putting into its attainment.
Lets see. First off, no scholarship. Those are mostly for full-time students, which is not an option for me. I'm going to be either part-time or Online.
Next up, why I'm going for a degree. Like most males, I spent a part of my life making stupid decisions, and three of mine were doozies:
Bad Idea #1: My dad was an engineer, so I had a vague idea at 18, that I would be one too. I figured I would get my B.S. in Chemistry from Baylor, snag a Fellowship and get my M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M. That plan fell apart when, as an "Honors" student, I took advanced courses in both Calculus and Chemistry, and failed both of them. Twice each, too.
Bad Idea #2: When it dawned on me that my only way to get through school with any kind of degree was to get away from the Chemistry major (after a 0.4 first-semester GPA, Baylor took care of me and the whole 'Honors Program' thing as any chance of a distraction, and put me instead into another program they called "Academic Probation"), I made a horrible mistake and listened to my Guidance Counselor, who assured me that an English degree was the way to go. It never occurred to me, that someone who had never been in the actual workforce could not speak for actual priorities and conditions in the workforce. As a result, my total number of job interviews my Senior year at Baylor, was zero.
Bad Idea #3: They say when you find yourself in a hole, job one is to stop digging. I did not manage to find a position with a major corporation until 2000, so that while I can honestly say that I have succeeded in my positions, the companies I have worked for are unlikely to open any eyes, much less any doors.
So here I am, having done fairly well for someone with a Liberal Arts BA, but to move up in my present company, or to seriously contend for a position with significantly better career prospects, I need the MBA. I've actually already done the work, I just need to prove the academic documentation.
The University of Phoenix has been relentless in pursuing me, but to be honest I worry about the reputation of a school which does not seem to measure the chance of success before accepting students; they don't even want a GMAT score, for example!
And the people I spoke with at GMATClub.com left no doubt that they consider getting an MBA from one of the for-profit schools to be like wearing a duck costume to an interview; sure you can do it, and theoretically it's not supposed to hurt your chances, but they are convinced in reality it won't get me where I need to be. Of course, these are the same people who fully expect to be working for six-figure salaries right after they get their MBA's, so I really need to hear from real-world people.
So here I am, sorting out which schools to apply to, how to pay for the thing, and to make sure I don't get in over my head (or is it too late already?).
I am, and this sure feels more and more like a risky venture, finally going after my MBA starting in 2006, and I've gotten a lot of good intellectual information, and more than a few intimidating lessons in how far behind the cut I am likely to be, unless I can plan my course very carefully.
I have been to GMATClub.com, where I have discovered that being 45 years old with a Liberal Arts degree and a less-than-sparkling GPA, is a distinct liability.
** sigh **
Of course, those guys are all trying to get into the "Elite" schools, while I'm just trying to find the balance between one I can get into and afford, but which degree will be worth everything I will be putting into its attainment.
Lets see. First off, no scholarship. Those are mostly for full-time students, which is not an option for me. I'm going to be either part-time or Online.
Next up, why I'm going for a degree. Like most males, I spent a part of my life making stupid decisions, and three of mine were doozies:
Bad Idea #1: My dad was an engineer, so I had a vague idea at 18, that I would be one too. I figured I would get my B.S. in Chemistry from Baylor, snag a Fellowship and get my M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M. That plan fell apart when, as an "Honors" student, I took advanced courses in both Calculus and Chemistry, and failed both of them. Twice each, too.
Bad Idea #2: When it dawned on me that my only way to get through school with any kind of degree was to get away from the Chemistry major (after a 0.4 first-semester GPA, Baylor took care of me and the whole 'Honors Program' thing as any chance of a distraction, and put me instead into another program they called "Academic Probation"), I made a horrible mistake and listened to my Guidance Counselor, who assured me that an English degree was the way to go. It never occurred to me, that someone who had never been in the actual workforce could not speak for actual priorities and conditions in the workforce. As a result, my total number of job interviews my Senior year at Baylor, was zero.
Bad Idea #3: They say when you find yourself in a hole, job one is to stop digging. I did not manage to find a position with a major corporation until 2000, so that while I can honestly say that I have succeeded in my positions, the companies I have worked for are unlikely to open any eyes, much less any doors.
So here I am, having done fairly well for someone with a Liberal Arts BA, but to move up in my present company, or to seriously contend for a position with significantly better career prospects, I need the MBA. I've actually already done the work, I just need to prove the academic documentation.
The University of Phoenix has been relentless in pursuing me, but to be honest I worry about the reputation of a school which does not seem to measure the chance of success before accepting students; they don't even want a GMAT score, for example!
And the people I spoke with at GMATClub.com left no doubt that they consider getting an MBA from one of the for-profit schools to be like wearing a duck costume to an interview; sure you can do it, and theoretically it's not supposed to hurt your chances, but they are convinced in reality it won't get me where I need to be. Of course, these are the same people who fully expect to be working for six-figure salaries right after they get their MBA's, so I really need to hear from real-world people.
So here I am, sorting out which schools to apply to, how to pay for the thing, and to make sure I don't get in over my head (or is it too late already?).
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Lunch With Lyndon
***
I was sitting at my desk late this morning, trying to decide when to take lunch, when an unexpected visitor sat down and peered at me with a look of consternation.
“May I help you?” I asked him. He leaned forward and extended a long arm to shake my hand.
“Johnson,” he said. “Lyndon Baines Johnson.”
“Well, your parents must have had a different sense of humor,” I began, then I stopped. Johnson was staring back at me with a perfectly straight face. A very familiar face…
“Hey, you look just like him.” I muttered, less than brilliantly.
“Ah ought to” muttered the man, “even after being dead for a few years.”
“Yeah”, was all I could think to say at first. “So, why are you here?”
“Lunch, mostly”, replied LBJ, “and to set the record straight on you lambasting mah poor party like you are. And any chance to come back to Texas is as close to Heaven as a poor bastard like me is like to see.
“By the way, you got some purple ink all over your finger there. You might want to wash up before we eat.”
“Oh, that’s to celebrate the Iraqi voter and show solidarity,” I explained. “And your “poor party” is doing itself no favors, I’m sure you know.”
“Huh,” snorted Johnson, “In mah day we didn’t go painting ourselves up to show we’d voted, we picked our man and made sure we got him elected. Ah must’ve voted five, six times myself in some elections.
“But yeah, that Dean fella is some kind of freak, yah got me there. And his crowd is no better. Harry S. says he’s got some choice words waiting for them.”
“Harry Truman’s in hell?” I asked.
“Naw, but he comes by to visit us time and again. Also, he likes to make sure Tojo is getting the full trip he earned.
“But enough gab for now, let’s go eat!”
So we set out for Luther’s to get some barbeque.
After we’d eaten a fair portion of flank steak and sausage, I asked LBJ what he was doing, walking around topside.
“Well,” he shrugged, “to be honest Ah’ve been roasting in hell, but they let me out every so often for a number of reasons. First off and mainly, Ah’m good to dogs –“
“Wait a minute,” I interrupted, “I remember you used to pull your old hound up by her ears-“
“Yes, and she liked it,” retorted Johnson. “Now stop interrupting me, it’s not polite.”
“Sorry,” I said, and LBJ continued.
“Ah also had to get out of there for a little bit, because Tookie’s arriving today, and all the gang-bangers are going absolutely crazy. The Crips and the Al Qaeda are having a big cookout to celebrate.”
“Say, that reminds me.” I said. “You seen Osama bin Laden down there? Folks up here would like to know if he’s dead yet.”
“Sorry,” replied Johnson. “Ah’m not supposed to let you know things you haven’t already figured out for yourself, but Ah will say that it is not wise to hide in caves when the Yew-Essay has bombs that collapse caverns.
“But listen heah,” continued Johnson, as he stuffed more beef and sauce into his mouth, “Ah’m a reasonable man and I know ya’ll gots to have your hobbies, but what do ya’ll blahggers mean by tearing up my beloved Democratic Party?”
“Well, we didn’t start it,” I explained. “You ever hear of Dan Rather?”
“Fine man, fine man,” nodded Johnson.
“Debatable claim,” I retorted, “You may have heard that Rather and CBS tried to sway the last Presidential election? We caught them, and proved they were liars and frauds.”
“You ever heah of Waltah Cronkite?” countered Johnson. “Damn, we were winning in Viet Nam, until Unka Waltah said we couldn’t win. No way I could win re-election after that.”
“Uhhh, and Senator McCarthy?” I ventured.
“Shaddup” muttered LBJ.
We ate in silence for a little while, then Johnson spoke again.
“Ya’ll know you have it easy with your boy Dubya in the Oval Office. Ah’d be careful about assuming it will be that easy later on.”
“I agree we’ll have a harder time with someone else after Bush,” I agreed, “but you have to admit the Left has not cooperated with him at all.”
Johnson chuckled.
“Take a look at History son, and you’ll see the Left wasn’t all too kind to me, or the Rehpublicans either. Ah’ll tell yah son, it’s a breeze being a Righty President with a Righty Congress, not near the same thing being a Democrat President with a so-called Democrat Congress.”
Curious, I asked LBJ to elaborate.
“Well hell son, I took a landslide into 1965, got damn near everyone in Congress to sign onto the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and by 1967 I still couldn’t get those bastards to keep their word. At least over on the Right, you have a few straight shooters you can trust.”
“And the 'Great Society'?” I asked.
Johnson stopped, and put down his fork.
“Look son, I screwed up there, I know that now. But I was trying to do the right thing, and don’t yew doubt for a minute it was an easy job.
“By the way, I’ve been watching your little blogging articles, and Ah’ve read what yew think of me as President. Screw yew! Until yew’ve been in mah shoes for a month, yew don’t have the first idea what kind of slahmballs and con artists you have to get past to make anything happen. It was a different time, and if Ah have to speak on mah own behalf, Ah will insist on pointing out Ah didn’t make any deals with Communists or Preverts.”
“Except Hoover”, I couldn’t resist adding.
Johnson made a face.
“Ah swear I nevah knew he was into that stuff!”
Just then, a tall man in a FUBU sweatsuit, with a familiar face and an unruly pile of hair stepped in, looked around, and approached us.
“Lyndon? It’s time to go back,” he said, ignoring me. Johnson stared at the man with clear disdain.
“Andy, where in the hell did you get the idea this was a good look for you?” demanded Johnson. The face clicked in my mind.
“Andrew Jackson?” I asked the tall man standing by us.
“Fer Shizzle” quipped President Jackson. Johnson groaned.
I was sitting at my desk late this morning, trying to decide when to take lunch, when an unexpected visitor sat down and peered at me with a look of consternation.
“May I help you?” I asked him. He leaned forward and extended a long arm to shake my hand.
“Johnson,” he said. “Lyndon Baines Johnson.”
“Well, your parents must have had a different sense of humor,” I began, then I stopped. Johnson was staring back at me with a perfectly straight face. A very familiar face…
“Hey, you look just like him.” I muttered, less than brilliantly.
“Ah ought to” muttered the man, “even after being dead for a few years.”
“Yeah”, was all I could think to say at first. “So, why are you here?”
“Lunch, mostly”, replied LBJ, “and to set the record straight on you lambasting mah poor party like you are. And any chance to come back to Texas is as close to Heaven as a poor bastard like me is like to see.
“By the way, you got some purple ink all over your finger there. You might want to wash up before we eat.”
“Oh, that’s to celebrate the Iraqi voter and show solidarity,” I explained. “And your “poor party” is doing itself no favors, I’m sure you know.”
“Huh,” snorted Johnson, “In mah day we didn’t go painting ourselves up to show we’d voted, we picked our man and made sure we got him elected. Ah must’ve voted five, six times myself in some elections.
“But yeah, that Dean fella is some kind of freak, yah got me there. And his crowd is no better. Harry S. says he’s got some choice words waiting for them.”
“Harry Truman’s in hell?” I asked.
“Naw, but he comes by to visit us time and again. Also, he likes to make sure Tojo is getting the full trip he earned.
“But enough gab for now, let’s go eat!”
So we set out for Luther’s to get some barbeque.
After we’d eaten a fair portion of flank steak and sausage, I asked LBJ what he was doing, walking around topside.
“Well,” he shrugged, “to be honest Ah’ve been roasting in hell, but they let me out every so often for a number of reasons. First off and mainly, Ah’m good to dogs –“
“Wait a minute,” I interrupted, “I remember you used to pull your old hound up by her ears-“
“Yes, and she liked it,” retorted Johnson. “Now stop interrupting me, it’s not polite.”
“Sorry,” I said, and LBJ continued.
“Ah also had to get out of there for a little bit, because Tookie’s arriving today, and all the gang-bangers are going absolutely crazy. The Crips and the Al Qaeda are having a big cookout to celebrate.”
“Say, that reminds me.” I said. “You seen Osama bin Laden down there? Folks up here would like to know if he’s dead yet.”
“Sorry,” replied Johnson. “Ah’m not supposed to let you know things you haven’t already figured out for yourself, but Ah will say that it is not wise to hide in caves when the Yew-Essay has bombs that collapse caverns.
“But listen heah,” continued Johnson, as he stuffed more beef and sauce into his mouth, “Ah’m a reasonable man and I know ya’ll gots to have your hobbies, but what do ya’ll blahggers mean by tearing up my beloved Democratic Party?”
“Well, we didn’t start it,” I explained. “You ever hear of Dan Rather?”
“Fine man, fine man,” nodded Johnson.
“Debatable claim,” I retorted, “You may have heard that Rather and CBS tried to sway the last Presidential election? We caught them, and proved they were liars and frauds.”
“You ever heah of Waltah Cronkite?” countered Johnson. “Damn, we were winning in Viet Nam, until Unka Waltah said we couldn’t win. No way I could win re-election after that.”
“Uhhh, and Senator McCarthy?” I ventured.
“Shaddup” muttered LBJ.
We ate in silence for a little while, then Johnson spoke again.
“Ya’ll know you have it easy with your boy Dubya in the Oval Office. Ah’d be careful about assuming it will be that easy later on.”
“I agree we’ll have a harder time with someone else after Bush,” I agreed, “but you have to admit the Left has not cooperated with him at all.”
Johnson chuckled.
“Take a look at History son, and you’ll see the Left wasn’t all too kind to me, or the Rehpublicans either. Ah’ll tell yah son, it’s a breeze being a Righty President with a Righty Congress, not near the same thing being a Democrat President with a so-called Democrat Congress.”
Curious, I asked LBJ to elaborate.
“Well hell son, I took a landslide into 1965, got damn near everyone in Congress to sign onto the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and by 1967 I still couldn’t get those bastards to keep their word. At least over on the Right, you have a few straight shooters you can trust.”
“And the 'Great Society'?” I asked.
Johnson stopped, and put down his fork.
“Look son, I screwed up there, I know that now. But I was trying to do the right thing, and don’t yew doubt for a minute it was an easy job.
“By the way, I’ve been watching your little blogging articles, and Ah’ve read what yew think of me as President. Screw yew! Until yew’ve been in mah shoes for a month, yew don’t have the first idea what kind of slahmballs and con artists you have to get past to make anything happen. It was a different time, and if Ah have to speak on mah own behalf, Ah will insist on pointing out Ah didn’t make any deals with Communists or Preverts.”
“Except Hoover”, I couldn’t resist adding.
Johnson made a face.
“Ah swear I nevah knew he was into that stuff!”
Just then, a tall man in a FUBU sweatsuit, with a familiar face and an unruly pile of hair stepped in, looked around, and approached us.
“Lyndon? It’s time to go back,” he said, ignoring me. Johnson stared at the man with clear disdain.
“Andy, where in the hell did you get the idea this was a good look for you?” demanded Johnson. The face clicked in my mind.
“Andrew Jackson?” I asked the tall man standing by us.
“Fer Shizzle” quipped President Jackson. Johnson groaned.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Big Dog
** wuf **
Some people just don’t like big dogs. There have been new mini-breeds of yap-yap dogs created to suit those for whom serious size is just too much. Some folks are plain intimidated by big dogs, no matter how well-trained or behaved they are; simply being big, as in powerful and capable, is enough. And that brings me to the United States.
A few days ago, I compared a few select people to various breeds of dog. And disqualified certain other people from claiming any right to be a dog at all. But that comparison is even more obvious, when we apply the measurement to militaries. The Russians still have a respectable military, and Japan does well for its size and budget. Nobody comes in and messes with the Israeli Defense Force on equal terms. And China has imposing numbers for size and growth of capability. But make no mistake, the US is still the biggest freaking dog on the planet, big enough to eat any other dog out there, and big enough to make a joke out of the yap-yap military outfits currently on parade in Europe, Britain excepted.
In 1991, a somber Chairman Gorbachev showed a classified presentation to the Politburo, of US forces in action during the Gulf War. After the end of the film, Gorbachev solemnly informed the stunned room that “we cannot possibly defeat a force such as this”. At about the same time, whatever the Mandarin equivalent of “oh crap” was making the rounds in Beijing, as so many of the cutting-edge weapons Saddam bought from China failed to even slow down American tanks and infantry. In 2003, just to reinforce the message, even newer Chinese weapons proved equally ineffective in combat conditions against the US. It’s not just that American material is still superior, but that US battle doctrine and training was immeasurably superior to anything even guessed at in other countries. Other countries grow and improve, but US doctrine and training leaps. This is in part due to the all-volunteer character of American military, but also the career perspective many US soldiers take towards their work, and the commitment by the majority of one major political party to supply, train, and prepare for necessary actions.
The military is not everything, of course, which brings me to American business. Left for dead by so many in the MSM, American business has re-created its success over and over again in many places and ways. A key example is the loss of VCR technology to Japan in the 1980s; while the Japanese celebrated their victory in cornering the market of VCR players, which hold they eventually lost to competition from South Korea and other rising contenders, the US continued to dominate in the far more lucrative domain of videotape recordings. Even today, the United States is the majority shareholder of the Video and DVD market, especially in profits. Almost every major city on the planet has several chains of American fast-food and franchise merchandise; you can get a pair of GAP jeans in Shanghai or Dubai as easily as you can in Big Sky, after all.
And then there is that little matter of the Purple Finger. Kerry’s Purple Hearts, however he got them, are no match for free elections, especially for millions of women who voted for the first time, not just in their lives, but women voting for the first time in their country, ever. That counts as a big bark, folks.
So let the French have their poodles, let Germany have little dogs to match their little wieners, let the Left whine and yap about the big bad Army, big bad Business, big bad “Ownership Society”. In the end, everyone knows who is the Big Dog, and who is just bitching about it.
Some people just don’t like big dogs. There have been new mini-breeds of yap-yap dogs created to suit those for whom serious size is just too much. Some folks are plain intimidated by big dogs, no matter how well-trained or behaved they are; simply being big, as in powerful and capable, is enough. And that brings me to the United States.
A few days ago, I compared a few select people to various breeds of dog. And disqualified certain other people from claiming any right to be a dog at all. But that comparison is even more obvious, when we apply the measurement to militaries. The Russians still have a respectable military, and Japan does well for its size and budget. Nobody comes in and messes with the Israeli Defense Force on equal terms. And China has imposing numbers for size and growth of capability. But make no mistake, the US is still the biggest freaking dog on the planet, big enough to eat any other dog out there, and big enough to make a joke out of the yap-yap military outfits currently on parade in Europe, Britain excepted.
In 1991, a somber Chairman Gorbachev showed a classified presentation to the Politburo, of US forces in action during the Gulf War. After the end of the film, Gorbachev solemnly informed the stunned room that “we cannot possibly defeat a force such as this”. At about the same time, whatever the Mandarin equivalent of “oh crap” was making the rounds in Beijing, as so many of the cutting-edge weapons Saddam bought from China failed to even slow down American tanks and infantry. In 2003, just to reinforce the message, even newer Chinese weapons proved equally ineffective in combat conditions against the US. It’s not just that American material is still superior, but that US battle doctrine and training was immeasurably superior to anything even guessed at in other countries. Other countries grow and improve, but US doctrine and training leaps. This is in part due to the all-volunteer character of American military, but also the career perspective many US soldiers take towards their work, and the commitment by the majority of one major political party to supply, train, and prepare for necessary actions.
The military is not everything, of course, which brings me to American business. Left for dead by so many in the MSM, American business has re-created its success over and over again in many places and ways. A key example is the loss of VCR technology to Japan in the 1980s; while the Japanese celebrated their victory in cornering the market of VCR players, which hold they eventually lost to competition from South Korea and other rising contenders, the US continued to dominate in the far more lucrative domain of videotape recordings. Even today, the United States is the majority shareholder of the Video and DVD market, especially in profits. Almost every major city on the planet has several chains of American fast-food and franchise merchandise; you can get a pair of GAP jeans in Shanghai or Dubai as easily as you can in Big Sky, after all.
And then there is that little matter of the Purple Finger. Kerry’s Purple Hearts, however he got them, are no match for free elections, especially for millions of women who voted for the first time, not just in their lives, but women voting for the first time in their country, ever. That counts as a big bark, folks.
So let the French have their poodles, let Germany have little dogs to match their little wieners, let the Left whine and yap about the big bad Army, big bad Business, big bad “Ownership Society”. In the end, everyone knows who is the Big Dog, and who is just bitching about it.
Monday, December 12, 2005
History In Context
MMV
Morton Keller wrote an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. What I found particularly interesting, is that while he and I agree in the general theme that Presidents are often blamed for making the hard calls in military decisions, in at least one major case he and I differ on the evidence and what it meant.
Historian John Toland, whom Keller dismisses as “eccentric”, wrote a book in 1982 entitled "Infamy", which detailed the evidence concerning whether President Roosevelt knew about Japan’s plans to attack Pearl Harbor in advance of the raid, and whether he meant to use the attack as the flashpoint to bring the United States into the Second World War. Keller dismissed, unfairly I think, a great deal of testimony and evidence which indicated there was intelligence indicating that Japan was on its way to attack Pearl Harbor, especially the “Winds” intercept as testified by Laurence Safford, a naval officer of quite literally unimpeachable character and veracity. The reason I find this rejection unreasonable, is not because I believe that FDR or his Administration did indeed comprehend that an attack by Japan was imminent, but that the nature of the command structure, the political discussions between the United States and Japan, the communication process of the day, and other salient factors which influenced the decisions and statements made by the Roosevelt Administration in late 1941. People who are familiar with the documents and testimony were therefore left even further convinced of FDR’s complicity, because historians like Keller rejected them without proper inspection, and historians like Toland applied them without considering the appropriate context. As an example, Toland also noted the creation and demise of the “modus vivendi” which could have completely prevented a Japan-America war, or at least delayed its inception by a year or more, which demonstrates that the Roosevelt Administration, while hopeful of finding a reason for the United States to enter the war against Germany, was not inclined to seek a reason to also fight Japan. Indeed, the allocation of resources and planning is sufficient to indicate that Rosoevelt did not seriously anticipate war with Japan, and so could not fairly be accused of trying to bring it about.
The relevance between Toland’s contentions and evidence, Keller’s article, and my opinion as regards the Iraq War, is that same crucial need to understand context. As of 2002, It was well-known that Saddam Hussein had not only developed Weapons of Mass Destruction, but had used them, both in war and against his own citizens. The discovery in 1991 of further-than-anticipated progress in WMD research further alarmed Coalition nations, and the Cease-Fire included specific mandatory requirements as a condition to prevent resumption of hostilities. The fact that Hussein’s Baath government had, by 1998, fired on Coalition aircraft, attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and had not only obstructed but physically threatened them, all constituted violations of the Cease-Fire, which led to the 1998 Act of Congress declaring Regime Change in Iraq the official policy of the United States government, which President Bill Clinton signed into law. The 2002 votes in Congress gave clear authorization for the war, based on information which both the President and leaders in both major political parties saw and evaluated. These are the facts which formed the context and consensus of the 2002 decision to go to war.
The reason Conservatives find the Democrats’ wailing on Iraq hypocritical, is because the Democrats saw the same information, in the same context, as the Administration, and their own statements bear out that they reached the same conclusions as to the threat posed by Saddam and the Baath regime in Iraq. But now that they perceive a possible political benefit to lying, the leadership of the Democratic Party sees no problem in putting a trick ahead of the national interest. If the Mainstream Media were not complicit, this could not work for the Democrats, but the sort of people willing to try to sway a Presidential election with forged documents are hardly going to object on moral grounds to lying about the facts of a major military decision. Fortunately, in the age of Information the facts are retrievable, and prove the matter in both point and context. The decision to invade Iraq was the most legitimate and fully-informed decision made by the Congress and President in cooperation in the last 60 years, and nothing the Democrats claim now can change that.
Morton Keller wrote an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. What I found particularly interesting, is that while he and I agree in the general theme that Presidents are often blamed for making the hard calls in military decisions, in at least one major case he and I differ on the evidence and what it meant.
Historian John Toland, whom Keller dismisses as “eccentric”, wrote a book in 1982 entitled "Infamy", which detailed the evidence concerning whether President Roosevelt knew about Japan’s plans to attack Pearl Harbor in advance of the raid, and whether he meant to use the attack as the flashpoint to bring the United States into the Second World War. Keller dismissed, unfairly I think, a great deal of testimony and evidence which indicated there was intelligence indicating that Japan was on its way to attack Pearl Harbor, especially the “Winds” intercept as testified by Laurence Safford, a naval officer of quite literally unimpeachable character and veracity. The reason I find this rejection unreasonable, is not because I believe that FDR or his Administration did indeed comprehend that an attack by Japan was imminent, but that the nature of the command structure, the political discussions between the United States and Japan, the communication process of the day, and other salient factors which influenced the decisions and statements made by the Roosevelt Administration in late 1941. People who are familiar with the documents and testimony were therefore left even further convinced of FDR’s complicity, because historians like Keller rejected them without proper inspection, and historians like Toland applied them without considering the appropriate context. As an example, Toland also noted the creation and demise of the “modus vivendi” which could have completely prevented a Japan-America war, or at least delayed its inception by a year or more, which demonstrates that the Roosevelt Administration, while hopeful of finding a reason for the United States to enter the war against Germany, was not inclined to seek a reason to also fight Japan. Indeed, the allocation of resources and planning is sufficient to indicate that Rosoevelt did not seriously anticipate war with Japan, and so could not fairly be accused of trying to bring it about.
The relevance between Toland’s contentions and evidence, Keller’s article, and my opinion as regards the Iraq War, is that same crucial need to understand context. As of 2002, It was well-known that Saddam Hussein had not only developed Weapons of Mass Destruction, but had used them, both in war and against his own citizens. The discovery in 1991 of further-than-anticipated progress in WMD research further alarmed Coalition nations, and the Cease-Fire included specific mandatory requirements as a condition to prevent resumption of hostilities. The fact that Hussein’s Baath government had, by 1998, fired on Coalition aircraft, attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and had not only obstructed but physically threatened them, all constituted violations of the Cease-Fire, which led to the 1998 Act of Congress declaring Regime Change in Iraq the official policy of the United States government, which President Bill Clinton signed into law. The 2002 votes in Congress gave clear authorization for the war, based on information which both the President and leaders in both major political parties saw and evaluated. These are the facts which formed the context and consensus of the 2002 decision to go to war.
The reason Conservatives find the Democrats’ wailing on Iraq hypocritical, is because the Democrats saw the same information, in the same context, as the Administration, and their own statements bear out that they reached the same conclusions as to the threat posed by Saddam and the Baath regime in Iraq. But now that they perceive a possible political benefit to lying, the leadership of the Democratic Party sees no problem in putting a trick ahead of the national interest. If the Mainstream Media were not complicit, this could not work for the Democrats, but the sort of people willing to try to sway a Presidential election with forged documents are hardly going to object on moral grounds to lying about the facts of a major military decision. Fortunately, in the age of Information the facts are retrievable, and prove the matter in both point and context. The decision to invade Iraq was the most legitimate and fully-informed decision made by the Congress and President in cooperation in the last 60 years, and nothing the Democrats claim now can change that.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
PFL Week Fourteen
* grunt *
Week Fourteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0), idle
Teddy Roosevelt (14-0) 43, JQ Adams (7-6) 3
Washington (14-0) 28, Monroe (10-3) 20
George W. Bush (13-0) 72, W Harrison (2-11) 0
Reagan (13-0) 70, Harding (2-11) 6
Jefferson (12-2) 36, Cleveland (7-6) 6
FDR (12-2) 43, LBJ (1-12) 9
Grant (11-2) 52, Clinton (0-13) 7
JFK (10-3), idle
Polk (10-3), idle
Truman (10-30), idle
Lincoln (9-5) 30, John Adams (7-6) 15
Taft (8-5) 37, Pierce (2-11) 6
Madison (7-6), idle
McKinley (7-6) 22, Wilson (7-7) 15
Nixon (7-6) 28, Hoover (2-12) 18
Carter (4-10) 24, Taylor (6-7) 12
Arthur (7-7) 21, Tyler (4-9) 12
GHW Bush (7-7) 30, Coolidge (3-10) 3
Jackson (6-7), idle
Hayes (6-7) 38, Buchanan (0-13) 6
Ford (6-8) 24, Fillmore (2-11) 9
B Harrison (5-9) 21, Garfield (2-11) 15
Van Buren (4-9) 46, A Johnson (0-13) 9
Division A
[02] Washington (14-0) division clinched
[10] Monroe (10-3)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[04] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (12-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (13-0) division clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (12-2)
[09] JFK (10-3)
Division E
[01] T Roosevelt (14-0) division tie clinched
[08] Grant (11-2)
Division F
[03] George W Bush (13-0) division tie clinched
[12] Truman (10-3)
Week Fourteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0), idle
Teddy Roosevelt (14-0) 43, JQ Adams (7-6) 3
Washington (14-0) 28, Monroe (10-3) 20
George W. Bush (13-0) 72, W Harrison (2-11) 0
Reagan (13-0) 70, Harding (2-11) 6
Jefferson (12-2) 36, Cleveland (7-6) 6
FDR (12-2) 43, LBJ (1-12) 9
Grant (11-2) 52, Clinton (0-13) 7
JFK (10-3), idle
Polk (10-3), idle
Truman (10-30), idle
Lincoln (9-5) 30, John Adams (7-6) 15
Taft (8-5) 37, Pierce (2-11) 6
Madison (7-6), idle
McKinley (7-6) 22, Wilson (7-7) 15
Nixon (7-6) 28, Hoover (2-12) 18
Carter (4-10) 24, Taylor (6-7) 12
Arthur (7-7) 21, Tyler (4-9) 12
GHW Bush (7-7) 30, Coolidge (3-10) 3
Jackson (6-7), idle
Hayes (6-7) 38, Buchanan (0-13) 6
Ford (6-8) 24, Fillmore (2-11) 9
B Harrison (5-9) 21, Garfield (2-11) 15
Van Buren (4-9) 46, A Johnson (0-13) 9
Division A
[02] Washington (14-0) division clinched
[10] Monroe (10-3)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[04] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (12-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (13-0) division clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (12-2)
[09] JFK (10-3)
Division E
[01] T Roosevelt (14-0) division tie clinched
[08] Grant (11-2)
Division F
[03] George W Bush (13-0) division tie clinched
[12] Truman (10-3)
Saturday, December 10, 2005
War Planning
*******
America fights wars differently from other countries. This essential fact is missed by many people, especially since this comes from both a unique national character and perspective, but also a different mind-set in planning for war. To understand how we got where we are now, and to prepare for upcoming conflicts, it is important to study the base assumptions and adjustments made in U.S. War Planning.
A 1996 research paper presented to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force examined the most likely scenarios for the coming three decades. The paper, titled “Alternate Futures for 2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise”, defined the “drivers” of American worldview, technical means, and world dispensation of power, and from that combination derived future conditions and conflict causality.
This was an indicator of interest in forecasting likely needs and threats, in a JCS project dubbed “Joint Vision 2020”. This combined the planning in 1999 for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard for the next two decades. The different services made projections to different degrees, the Air Force projecting as far as 2025, while the U.S. Army projection was only forecast to 2010.
The different services took different approaches to the task of planning and preparation. The Air Force paper took the widest approach and addressed issues in broad terms. The Army paper was the most specific in doctrine advances and material commitments. The Marines Corps produced an eye-catching PDF presentation in full color, which addressed readiness and doctrinal policy only in a general sense, but emphasized a scalable USMC, from Marine Expeditionary Forces for major operations all the way down in size to specialized units tagged 'SPMAGTF's, or “Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces”, for anything from Rescue to Incident Response missions. As for the Coast Guard, their brochure was weak on specifics but essentially anticipated no change of priorities or mission from the job they have done since the end of World War II.
Some specific papers shed light on the direction military theories were heading in the days of Clinton. Michael Renner published a disappointing paper in 2000 for the U.S. Navy, titled “ALTERNATIVE FUTURES IN WAR AND CONFLICT”. The paper gave far too much credence to unproven claims of environmental impact and further presumed that planning should depend more on the United Nations, although he admitted “the international community would do well to build some redundancy into the conflict-prevention apparatus”, which amounts to an admission that the UN has a poor record in preventing or addressing conflicts. Renner endorsed the Clinton Doctrine of sending in small, essentially token forces, to many places, to send a political signal of U.S. interest, in the hopes that this would influence regional actors to refrain from violence. Renner included no case studies from actual events, in all likelihood because the actual situations would demonstrate the fallacies of his assumptions, as in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq, where U.S. presence inspired gunfire rather than negotiations, and the small size and lack of support created conditions of high risk against poor opportunity for the men on the ground.
A similarly poor set of assumptions was made by Dr. Peter Dombrowski, whose 2000 paper titled “Alternative Futures in War and Conflict; Implications for U.S. National Security in the Next Century” essentially played the ‘focus group' game with war planning, so that “Participants felt that conflict between major powers was increasingly unlikely but that wars between lesser powers would continue”, and also that “In strategic terms the United States might simply “muddle through”—an approach which some participants favored or at least did not object to given America’s preponderance of power in the international system for the foreseeable future.”. This sort of thinking helps to explain why key warnings about Al Qaeda were not examined when they could have prevented the growth of the terrorist group into a major threat. Dombrowski’s study is useful, however, in that it displays the variety of threats to consider, and also displays a window into the mind of the National Intelligence Council, who advise the President through the PDB documents of threats and concerns. Dombrowski’s group, for example, went so far as to suggest that “the U.S. Marines could play more of a constabulary function” instead of preparing for war as they have always done. Such an essential blunder by men so close to the top of the decision chain reflects a serious problem in the Academic circles, even when studying warfare.
Also of interest was the late-20th Century self-appraisal of the Intelligence Community. The 1996 document titled “Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence”, noted that the Intelligence agencies for the United States need to work more closely with the people they serve, especially policy makers and those who need specific information for action decisions. The paper also correctly feared that “administrative barriers often prevent or impede cooperation between agencies”, and that the Intelligence Community needs cooperation and interaction with Law Enforcement agencies.
To their credit, the writers of these reports and their agencies have not tried to hide away these embarrassing documents, but left them unclassified and available for review and study, which I recommend to students of History and Military operations. It is interesting, however, to notice the radical changes in military doctrine under the Administration of George W. Bush, which may help to explain the broad support “Dubya” enjoys from the military demographic, to the continued bafflement of the Left. That is to say, where President Clinton seems to have bought into the advice of the focus group advisors, Bush trusted men with actual battle experience and a clear plan for victory. And Bush knows his history.
A cursory overview of American military history should, if nothing else, show an important lesson in American Psychology: Americans go “all in” when they fight a war. Nothing but victory is acceptable. Also, Americans do not begin wars with a desire to pick a fight, but once committed to the action the resolve is sure and strong. This must be emphasized, when confronting some of the more pernicious myths presented by the Left. When the American colonies broke with England, the initial intent was to bring about honest negotiations and reform of the arrangement between Crown and Colony. Only when this was clearly impossible, did open revolt and revolution come into action, and the United States born of necessity. Before the War of 1812, it was the sincere desire of the United States to negotiate issues with England to avoid conflict. Once this was impossible, the United States resolved to demonstrate that they could not be invaded with impunity. Before the debates over Slavery and States’ Rights finally boiled over into violence, the South would have done well to study the then-short history of our country, and so understand that the conflict would be forcefully resolved – either the South would completely overwhelm the North and so reshape the structure of the country, or else the North would overwhelm the South and impose a stern control, as came to pass. The Southern hope to force a partitioned existence dividing the United States into a Federal Union to the North and the Confederate States to the South was one which the nation refused to accept, at any cost. In the Spanish-American War, the decision to fight Spain led to a complete campaign to bar the Old Hemisphere from building any more colonies in the West, which also reshaped control of territories in the Pacific Ocean . As for the wars of the 20th Century, many observers have failed to note that public support has actually been strong for American objectives, and unforgiving of half-measures. The borders of the United States were never threatened during the Century, by Germany under either the Kaiser or even Hitler, by Japan under Tojo or Italy under Mussolini, or by North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung, or Saddam Hussein. But we went into war in all those places, and we either won or should have. And where the political will was too weak to finish the job, the people reacted and demanded a price. Truman lost his chance to run again in 1952, because he was seen as the man who gave up on Korea. LBJ could hardly have handled Vietnam any worse, and GHW Bush will always be remembered as the man who didn’t “finish the job” in Iraq. And returning to Vietnam for a moment, this was a war we could and should have won. The opinion of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid notwithstanding, the American people supported the war when we were serious about it, as when Nixon finally bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, and looked like he meant to invade. We only lost because the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to keep its agreements, and essentially invited the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army to roll into Saigon. The American people do not like losses, and there is a segment of the population which opposes even the most just and necessary of wars, but the people in general are not about to give up on our troops. Our whole history is one where the people appreciate the troops, and our troops do a magnificent job, and a complete one.
The threat of Global Terrorism is not a police matter. And very few people who study the problem are fooled into thinking that terrorist groups do not receive training, support, and protection from countries which find their tactics useful for their own agenda. It is in the most basic interest of the United States’ National Security, to wipe out any base of operations which is used by a significant terrorist organization, or which is likely to become one. Al Qaeda has run a number of operations which have earned them attention from the U.S. Military, including the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders. The Taliban in Afghanistan sheltered and supplied the terrorist group, which is all the justification needed to invade Afghanistan and establish a nascent democracy, which is precisely what has happened there. Intelligence showed that Iraq’s support for terrorist groups made them a likely next stop for Al Qaeda, which created a functional need to take action; the justification was already established by chronic breaches of the terms of the1991 Cease-fire to the First Gulf War. The additional offenses of firing at Coalition observation aircraft, as well as the attempted assassination of a former United States President, certainly meet the standard as acts of war themselves. Strategically, invading Iraq was an obvious choice as well. Besides the elimination of a rogue regime as mandated in 1998 by Congress, the invasion of Iraq made the Middle East the theater of operations against the most formidable networks of terrorists, far superior to waiting for them to build forces and attack U.S. installations and personnel. And this point requires a necessary stop, to examine the nature of Global Terrorism.
In the new era of post-Cold War stature, the United States has moved beyond “Superpower” to an effectively supreme position in any venture to which it acts militarily. As a consequence, nations which once felt secure in defying American intentions, either because of alliance with the Soviet bloc, Another cartel or group capable of standing against available US forces, or the belief that the US would be stretched too thin to take them on, are now uncomfortably aware that the United States may chose to act as it pleases. Where comparable force is no longer an option therefore, asymmetrical warfare gains in attraction, and for some nations, the use of terrorism offers a relatively effective and inexpensive means for fighting the United States. This is because of responses by leaders like the Clinton Administration, giving the image that the United States has no stomach for a prolonged or messy conflict, but also enjoys popularity because their supporters have long believed they could use terrorists without discovery, or at least without proof. The invasion of Iraq not only destabilized the Middle East base of many terrorist bases, networks, supply lines and communications, but also proved the lie of supporting terrorism without cost. A clear message has been sent throughout the Middle East, not only that the United States intends to pursue the dissolution of any significant force acting against Americans and our allies, but also that we will work to destabilize those regimes, by supporting popular revolt against oppression; it has not gone unnoticed in the United States, that most nations which have been willing to support terrorist groups are repressive against civil rights in their own countries. A new reciprocity is in effect; attempt to attack the United States’ citizens or our infrastructure, and we will make war against your regime, with the use of truth and a demand for justice. It is not commonly publicized, but dissident leaders in a number of key countries receive indirect help from the United States – not overtly, for a number of reasons, but the effect is still improved by the action.
It would be unreasonable to claim that the United States intends to make “clone states” in the Middle East – even were such a thing possible, the nature of any true democratic republic is such that it molds itself to meet the needs and demands of its own people. This is what happened in Germany and in Japan, and ideally will also take place in the Middle East – a network of nations which are genuinely committed to the rights and welfare of their own citizens, and for whom the rule of law will be established by a just constitution and equal access to the courts. The best way to prevent future wars is to eliminate the causes of such nations as would choose to make war against us.
America fights wars differently from other countries. This essential fact is missed by many people, especially since this comes from both a unique national character and perspective, but also a different mind-set in planning for war. To understand how we got where we are now, and to prepare for upcoming conflicts, it is important to study the base assumptions and adjustments made in U.S. War Planning.
A 1996 research paper presented to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force examined the most likely scenarios for the coming three decades. The paper, titled “Alternate Futures for 2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise”, defined the “drivers” of American worldview, technical means, and world dispensation of power, and from that combination derived future conditions and conflict causality.
This was an indicator of interest in forecasting likely needs and threats, in a JCS project dubbed “Joint Vision 2020”. This combined the planning in 1999 for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard for the next two decades. The different services made projections to different degrees, the Air Force projecting as far as 2025, while the U.S. Army projection was only forecast to 2010.
The different services took different approaches to the task of planning and preparation. The Air Force paper took the widest approach and addressed issues in broad terms. The Army paper was the most specific in doctrine advances and material commitments. The Marines Corps produced an eye-catching PDF presentation in full color, which addressed readiness and doctrinal policy only in a general sense, but emphasized a scalable USMC, from Marine Expeditionary Forces for major operations all the way down in size to specialized units tagged 'SPMAGTF's, or “Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces”, for anything from Rescue to Incident Response missions. As for the Coast Guard, their brochure was weak on specifics but essentially anticipated no change of priorities or mission from the job they have done since the end of World War II.
Some specific papers shed light on the direction military theories were heading in the days of Clinton. Michael Renner published a disappointing paper in 2000 for the U.S. Navy, titled “ALTERNATIVE FUTURES IN WAR AND CONFLICT”. The paper gave far too much credence to unproven claims of environmental impact and further presumed that planning should depend more on the United Nations, although he admitted “the international community would do well to build some redundancy into the conflict-prevention apparatus”, which amounts to an admission that the UN has a poor record in preventing or addressing conflicts. Renner endorsed the Clinton Doctrine of sending in small, essentially token forces, to many places, to send a political signal of U.S. interest, in the hopes that this would influence regional actors to refrain from violence. Renner included no case studies from actual events, in all likelihood because the actual situations would demonstrate the fallacies of his assumptions, as in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq, where U.S. presence inspired gunfire rather than negotiations, and the small size and lack of support created conditions of high risk against poor opportunity for the men on the ground.
A similarly poor set of assumptions was made by Dr. Peter Dombrowski, whose 2000 paper titled “Alternative Futures in War and Conflict; Implications for U.S. National Security in the Next Century” essentially played the ‘focus group' game with war planning, so that “Participants felt that conflict between major powers was increasingly unlikely but that wars between lesser powers would continue”, and also that “In strategic terms the United States might simply “muddle through”—an approach which some participants favored or at least did not object to given America’s preponderance of power in the international system for the foreseeable future.”. This sort of thinking helps to explain why key warnings about Al Qaeda were not examined when they could have prevented the growth of the terrorist group into a major threat. Dombrowski’s study is useful, however, in that it displays the variety of threats to consider, and also displays a window into the mind of the National Intelligence Council, who advise the President through the PDB documents of threats and concerns. Dombrowski’s group, for example, went so far as to suggest that “the U.S. Marines could play more of a constabulary function” instead of preparing for war as they have always done. Such an essential blunder by men so close to the top of the decision chain reflects a serious problem in the Academic circles, even when studying warfare.
Also of interest was the late-20th Century self-appraisal of the Intelligence Community. The 1996 document titled “Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence”, noted that the Intelligence agencies for the United States need to work more closely with the people they serve, especially policy makers and those who need specific information for action decisions. The paper also correctly feared that “administrative barriers often prevent or impede cooperation between agencies”, and that the Intelligence Community needs cooperation and interaction with Law Enforcement agencies.
To their credit, the writers of these reports and their agencies have not tried to hide away these embarrassing documents, but left them unclassified and available for review and study, which I recommend to students of History and Military operations. It is interesting, however, to notice the radical changes in military doctrine under the Administration of George W. Bush, which may help to explain the broad support “Dubya” enjoys from the military demographic, to the continued bafflement of the Left. That is to say, where President Clinton seems to have bought into the advice of the focus group advisors, Bush trusted men with actual battle experience and a clear plan for victory. And Bush knows his history.
A cursory overview of American military history should, if nothing else, show an important lesson in American Psychology: Americans go “all in” when they fight a war. Nothing but victory is acceptable. Also, Americans do not begin wars with a desire to pick a fight, but once committed to the action the resolve is sure and strong. This must be emphasized, when confronting some of the more pernicious myths presented by the Left. When the American colonies broke with England, the initial intent was to bring about honest negotiations and reform of the arrangement between Crown and Colony. Only when this was clearly impossible, did open revolt and revolution come into action, and the United States born of necessity. Before the War of 1812, it was the sincere desire of the United States to negotiate issues with England to avoid conflict. Once this was impossible, the United States resolved to demonstrate that they could not be invaded with impunity. Before the debates over Slavery and States’ Rights finally boiled over into violence, the South would have done well to study the then-short history of our country, and so understand that the conflict would be forcefully resolved – either the South would completely overwhelm the North and so reshape the structure of the country, or else the North would overwhelm the South and impose a stern control, as came to pass. The Southern hope to force a partitioned existence dividing the United States into a Federal Union to the North and the Confederate States to the South was one which the nation refused to accept, at any cost. In the Spanish-American War, the decision to fight Spain led to a complete campaign to bar the Old Hemisphere from building any more colonies in the West, which also reshaped control of territories in the Pacific Ocean . As for the wars of the 20th Century, many observers have failed to note that public support has actually been strong for American objectives, and unforgiving of half-measures. The borders of the United States were never threatened during the Century, by Germany under either the Kaiser or even Hitler, by Japan under Tojo or Italy under Mussolini, or by North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung, or Saddam Hussein. But we went into war in all those places, and we either won or should have. And where the political will was too weak to finish the job, the people reacted and demanded a price. Truman lost his chance to run again in 1952, because he was seen as the man who gave up on Korea. LBJ could hardly have handled Vietnam any worse, and GHW Bush will always be remembered as the man who didn’t “finish the job” in Iraq. And returning to Vietnam for a moment, this was a war we could and should have won. The opinion of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid notwithstanding, the American people supported the war when we were serious about it, as when Nixon finally bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, and looked like he meant to invade. We only lost because the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to keep its agreements, and essentially invited the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army to roll into Saigon. The American people do not like losses, and there is a segment of the population which opposes even the most just and necessary of wars, but the people in general are not about to give up on our troops. Our whole history is one where the people appreciate the troops, and our troops do a magnificent job, and a complete one.
The threat of Global Terrorism is not a police matter. And very few people who study the problem are fooled into thinking that terrorist groups do not receive training, support, and protection from countries which find their tactics useful for their own agenda. It is in the most basic interest of the United States’ National Security, to wipe out any base of operations which is used by a significant terrorist organization, or which is likely to become one. Al Qaeda has run a number of operations which have earned them attention from the U.S. Military, including the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders. The Taliban in Afghanistan sheltered and supplied the terrorist group, which is all the justification needed to invade Afghanistan and establish a nascent democracy, which is precisely what has happened there. Intelligence showed that Iraq’s support for terrorist groups made them a likely next stop for Al Qaeda, which created a functional need to take action; the justification was already established by chronic breaches of the terms of the1991 Cease-fire to the First Gulf War. The additional offenses of firing at Coalition observation aircraft, as well as the attempted assassination of a former United States President, certainly meet the standard as acts of war themselves. Strategically, invading Iraq was an obvious choice as well. Besides the elimination of a rogue regime as mandated in 1998 by Congress, the invasion of Iraq made the Middle East the theater of operations against the most formidable networks of terrorists, far superior to waiting for them to build forces and attack U.S. installations and personnel. And this point requires a necessary stop, to examine the nature of Global Terrorism.
In the new era of post-Cold War stature, the United States has moved beyond “Superpower” to an effectively supreme position in any venture to which it acts militarily. As a consequence, nations which once felt secure in defying American intentions, either because of alliance with the Soviet bloc, Another cartel or group capable of standing against available US forces, or the belief that the US would be stretched too thin to take them on, are now uncomfortably aware that the United States may chose to act as it pleases. Where comparable force is no longer an option therefore, asymmetrical warfare gains in attraction, and for some nations, the use of terrorism offers a relatively effective and inexpensive means for fighting the United States. This is because of responses by leaders like the Clinton Administration, giving the image that the United States has no stomach for a prolonged or messy conflict, but also enjoys popularity because their supporters have long believed they could use terrorists without discovery, or at least without proof. The invasion of Iraq not only destabilized the Middle East base of many terrorist bases, networks, supply lines and communications, but also proved the lie of supporting terrorism without cost. A clear message has been sent throughout the Middle East, not only that the United States intends to pursue the dissolution of any significant force acting against Americans and our allies, but also that we will work to destabilize those regimes, by supporting popular revolt against oppression; it has not gone unnoticed in the United States, that most nations which have been willing to support terrorist groups are repressive against civil rights in their own countries. A new reciprocity is in effect; attempt to attack the United States’ citizens or our infrastructure, and we will make war against your regime, with the use of truth and a demand for justice. It is not commonly publicized, but dissident leaders in a number of key countries receive indirect help from the United States – not overtly, for a number of reasons, but the effect is still improved by the action.
It would be unreasonable to claim that the United States intends to make “clone states” in the Middle East – even were such a thing possible, the nature of any true democratic republic is such that it molds itself to meet the needs and demands of its own people. This is what happened in Germany and in Japan, and ideally will also take place in the Middle East – a network of nations which are genuinely committed to the rights and welfare of their own citizens, and for whom the rule of law will be established by a just constitution and equal access to the courts. The best way to prevent future wars is to eliminate the causes of such nations as would choose to make war against us.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Racist Gang Founder Changes Tune Now That It Is His Turn
XXZ
Governor Schwarzenegger of California is deliberating the possibility of commuting the sentence of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who was convcted of murdering four people in cold blood, and who helped to found the notorious and disgusting "Crips" gang nationwide, thereby escalating a serious law enforcement crisis. The same man who laughed at watching helpless victims die in their own blood, now is reportedly crying at the possibility that the sentence he earned will finally be carried out. I wrote on this issue a few days ago, but because of the present focus, am revisiting it again.
"Of course I want to live" says Williams, which makes me wonder if he ever considered that his victims just wanted the same thing. Certainly, the available evidence demonstrates that he didn't care about what they wanted. Williams' victims were the wrong place at the wrong time, and they were the wrong color. Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang, and Yee-Chen Lin were unarmed and compliant, they were potential witnesses - and they weren't black.
Witnesses to the murders reported that Williams referred to the Asians he murdered as "Buddaheads", and laughed about murdering Albert Owens, saying "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams has never apologized to the Owens or Yang or Lin families, nor expressed a single word of remorse for the murders. Williams has also consistently refused to assist police in any investigation involving the "Crips" gang he helped to found. The full extent of Williams' 1997 "apology", was only that Williams was sorry that blacks killed other blacks, an indication that Williams' hatred and racism has in no way changed.
Think, Governor Schwarzenegger. Do you want to represent the people of California, who overwhelmingly support the Death Penalty for monsters like Williams, or do you agree with murder by a racist thug? It really comes down to that.
Governor Schwarzenegger of California is deliberating the possibility of commuting the sentence of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who was convcted of murdering four people in cold blood, and who helped to found the notorious and disgusting "Crips" gang nationwide, thereby escalating a serious law enforcement crisis. The same man who laughed at watching helpless victims die in their own blood, now is reportedly crying at the possibility that the sentence he earned will finally be carried out. I wrote on this issue a few days ago, but because of the present focus, am revisiting it again.
"Of course I want to live" says Williams, which makes me wonder if he ever considered that his victims just wanted the same thing. Certainly, the available evidence demonstrates that he didn't care about what they wanted. Williams' victims were the wrong place at the wrong time, and they were the wrong color. Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang, and Yee-Chen Lin were unarmed and compliant, they were potential witnesses - and they weren't black.
Witnesses to the murders reported that Williams referred to the Asians he murdered as "Buddaheads", and laughed about murdering Albert Owens, saying "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams has never apologized to the Owens or Yang or Lin families, nor expressed a single word of remorse for the murders. Williams has also consistently refused to assist police in any investigation involving the "Crips" gang he helped to found. The full extent of Williams' 1997 "apology", was only that Williams was sorry that blacks killed other blacks, an indication that Williams' hatred and racism has in no way changed.
Think, Governor Schwarzenegger. Do you want to represent the people of California, who overwhelmingly support the Death Penalty for monsters like Williams, or do you agree with murder by a racist thug? It really comes down to that.
The PATRIOT Act
...
Well, as the week nears its end and the minds of Congress turn from camera time to tee times, the GOP has spared some attention to consideration of extending the PATRIOT Act.
Apparently, the Republicans have agreed amongst themselves that, at least for the next four years, it would be a good thing to continue to give Intelligence and Security agencies the same tools we use to catch mob bosses and child kidnappers, and to allow wiretaps to follow the suspects if they switch phones. It would also be nice to lock the bank accounts of people who fund terrorists, and to provide protection for the victims of terrorism in the United States, all of which is addressed in the Act. The de riguer hysteria from the Democrats is, no doubt, being scheduled as we speak.
For those curious as to what the PATRIOT Act really says, read this.
Well, as the week nears its end and the minds of Congress turn from camera time to tee times, the GOP has spared some attention to consideration of extending the PATRIOT Act.
Apparently, the Republicans have agreed amongst themselves that, at least for the next four years, it would be a good thing to continue to give Intelligence and Security agencies the same tools we use to catch mob bosses and child kidnappers, and to allow wiretaps to follow the suspects if they switch phones. It would also be nice to lock the bank accounts of people who fund terrorists, and to provide protection for the victims of terrorism in the United States, all of which is addressed in the Act. The de riguer hysteria from the Democrats is, no doubt, being scheduled as we speak.
For those curious as to what the PATRIOT Act really says, read this.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
We’re Number One. Some Folks Think That’s A Bad Thing
::
Fred Kaplan at Slate thought it was time, back in January, for a “brave” politician to step up and declare that America is a “declining power”. It seems Kaplan believes the United States is on its way out, to be replaced by a “multi-polar” world where the U.S. is just one player among several.
Kaplan says that this is a fact, because of an early-2005 report from the CIA. In Kaplan’s mind, the CIA has no political agenda, and therefore must be taken as unvarnished truth. Apparently then, in Kaplan’s mind Joe Wilson is a dedicated public servant who had no axe to grind, and Valerie Plame was truly a deep-cover secret agent, whose life was put in danger by evil political forces, and not by her press releases and photo ops, her CIA parking sticker or her suggestion that hubby Joe should be sent on a classified mission then talk to everybody on the planet about it afterwards. No politics at the CIA here, just ignore the weasels with the Washington Post number scribbled on sticky notes next to their work stations.
The favorite section of the report cited by Kaplan reads:
“The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.”
In this age of global strategy, it’s important to keep out focus on the challenges and stakes. We are number one, and for a very good reason. Sure, China and India, and for that matter Brazil and Venezuela and Indonesia too, will be chasing after us and looking for ways to get ahead, but we saw that from Japan, from Russia, from the European Union back when you could say “EU” with a straight face. We saw that from OPEC and many of our fair-weather allies, and of course, regularly from the United Nations and the World Court. But we won anyway, time and time again, despite setbacks and outright collaboration by other nations.
We have won militarily, economically, and socially. The United States is able to fight anyone, anywhere that becomes necessary. The dollar, whatever its ups and downs, is readily accepted worldwide and is the most-favored means of currency, especially as security; even Cuba and China hold U.S. dollars and bonds for reserves. And even a short trip outside the United States reveals the impact of American media, films, music, and social icons. Sure, the French hate us for it and Anarchists everywhere see it as a broad conspiracy, but closer examination reveals that besides its seductive side, the American Dream holds tremendous appeal on the universal level. Who wouldn’t want to own their own home, to choose their career and elect leaders who feel responsible to the population? Who wouldn’t want to be free to practice whatever religion they believe in, or none at all? Who wouldn’t want to be able to trust that the electricity, water, police, fire, and medical services are truly public servants, and not wholly based on the ability to bribe your way ahead in a long line? The people who think America is trying to make clones of the rest of the world have it backwards – while everyone wants to protect and revere their own heritage and culture, many billions of people want what Americans have, and see no reason why they should not rise to that level.
We’re winning, and not everyone can deal with that fact. In many ways, the whole problem with the Left comes down to that essential point.
Fred Kaplan at Slate thought it was time, back in January, for a “brave” politician to step up and declare that America is a “declining power”. It seems Kaplan believes the United States is on its way out, to be replaced by a “multi-polar” world where the U.S. is just one player among several.
Kaplan says that this is a fact, because of an early-2005 report from the CIA. In Kaplan’s mind, the CIA has no political agenda, and therefore must be taken as unvarnished truth. Apparently then, in Kaplan’s mind Joe Wilson is a dedicated public servant who had no axe to grind, and Valerie Plame was truly a deep-cover secret agent, whose life was put in danger by evil political forces, and not by her press releases and photo ops, her CIA parking sticker or her suggestion that hubby Joe should be sent on a classified mission then talk to everybody on the planet about it afterwards. No politics at the CIA here, just ignore the weasels with the Washington Post number scribbled on sticky notes next to their work stations.
The favorite section of the report cited by Kaplan reads:
“The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.”
In this age of global strategy, it’s important to keep out focus on the challenges and stakes. We are number one, and for a very good reason. Sure, China and India, and for that matter Brazil and Venezuela and Indonesia too, will be chasing after us and looking for ways to get ahead, but we saw that from Japan, from Russia, from the European Union back when you could say “EU” with a straight face. We saw that from OPEC and many of our fair-weather allies, and of course, regularly from the United Nations and the World Court. But we won anyway, time and time again, despite setbacks and outright collaboration by other nations.
We have won militarily, economically, and socially. The United States is able to fight anyone, anywhere that becomes necessary. The dollar, whatever its ups and downs, is readily accepted worldwide and is the most-favored means of currency, especially as security; even Cuba and China hold U.S. dollars and bonds for reserves. And even a short trip outside the United States reveals the impact of American media, films, music, and social icons. Sure, the French hate us for it and Anarchists everywhere see it as a broad conspiracy, but closer examination reveals that besides its seductive side, the American Dream holds tremendous appeal on the universal level. Who wouldn’t want to own their own home, to choose their career and elect leaders who feel responsible to the population? Who wouldn’t want to be free to practice whatever religion they believe in, or none at all? Who wouldn’t want to be able to trust that the electricity, water, police, fire, and medical services are truly public servants, and not wholly based on the ability to bribe your way ahead in a long line? The people who think America is trying to make clones of the rest of the world have it backwards – while everyone wants to protect and revere their own heritage and culture, many billions of people want what Americans have, and see no reason why they should not rise to that level.
We’re winning, and not everyone can deal with that fact. In many ways, the whole problem with the Left comes down to that essential point.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Regimes and Change
-- yuan --
Now that I am back in the good old USA, I feel free to note a few things about the government presently in custody of Hong Kong. Not that my opinions won’t be thoroughly predictable, but it is important for people to understand why, while is indeed the Pacific Centuryt, it bodes better for America than China in that regard.
Hong Kong has a less than perfect birth story. In short order, when the British Empire found it difficult to import Opium into China in exchange for the goods it desired, because of opposition from the Celestial Court, the Crown set up the island of Hong Kong as a port city under its firm control. The Chinese Emperor was unable to dislocate the island fortress, and summarily a treaty was drawn up, which made Hong Kong a British protectorate until 1997, when it reverted to China. It should be understood, however, that there essentially was no such city as Hong Kong before the British built it up, and this has everything to do with the character of the island.
China wanted Hong Kong back for two main reasons; pride and profit. Pride, because a foreign foothold on Chinese soil was perceived as an insult, and profit because Hong Kong was a shining diamond among Asian cities for commerce, banking, commodities, and all manner of investment. Even the Politburo in Beijing understood the value in holding Hong Kong, which is why Hong Kong is an “autonomous” region, which in practical terms just means that Beijing still runs things, but differently than other areas.
The first five years back under Chinese rule were abysmal. The mainland government very nearly killed the golden goose, with heavy restrictions on business and even heavier taxes. It is no surprise that many businesses moved the bulk of their capital into Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand, where the governments were more welcoming and better eductated in business priorities. But China gradually came around. Using Shanghai as an economic laboratory of sorts, lessons were learned and the Beijing government set up offices to approach targeted businesses directly, trying to lure strategic industries and investors to the city which once represented the pinnacle of business in Asia.
But the Midas touch has a problem for the Communists. You cannot handle large amounts of money at close hand without considering what it can do, and money has always bought a sort of perspective which clashes with the sort found in the Little Red Book. Beijing has discovered it is all but impossible to give people access to computers, faxes. and satellite reception on a wide scale, and still expect to control the flow of information and communication. The next Tienemen Square will not take place in a stone plaza, but across a network of chat rooms, and there is no way to get a division of tanks there.
Now that I am back in the good old USA, I feel free to note a few things about the government presently in custody of Hong Kong. Not that my opinions won’t be thoroughly predictable, but it is important for people to understand why, while is indeed the Pacific Centuryt, it bodes better for America than China in that regard.
Hong Kong has a less than perfect birth story. In short order, when the British Empire found it difficult to import Opium into China in exchange for the goods it desired, because of opposition from the Celestial Court, the Crown set up the island of Hong Kong as a port city under its firm control. The Chinese Emperor was unable to dislocate the island fortress, and summarily a treaty was drawn up, which made Hong Kong a British protectorate until 1997, when it reverted to China. It should be understood, however, that there essentially was no such city as Hong Kong before the British built it up, and this has everything to do with the character of the island.
China wanted Hong Kong back for two main reasons; pride and profit. Pride, because a foreign foothold on Chinese soil was perceived as an insult, and profit because Hong Kong was a shining diamond among Asian cities for commerce, banking, commodities, and all manner of investment. Even the Politburo in Beijing understood the value in holding Hong Kong, which is why Hong Kong is an “autonomous” region, which in practical terms just means that Beijing still runs things, but differently than other areas.
The first five years back under Chinese rule were abysmal. The mainland government very nearly killed the golden goose, with heavy restrictions on business and even heavier taxes. It is no surprise that many businesses moved the bulk of their capital into Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand, where the governments were more welcoming and better eductated in business priorities. But China gradually came around. Using Shanghai as an economic laboratory of sorts, lessons were learned and the Beijing government set up offices to approach targeted businesses directly, trying to lure strategic industries and investors to the city which once represented the pinnacle of business in Asia.
But the Midas touch has a problem for the Communists. You cannot handle large amounts of money at close hand without considering what it can do, and money has always bought a sort of perspective which clashes with the sort found in the Little Red Book. Beijing has discovered it is all but impossible to give people access to computers, faxes. and satellite reception on a wide scale, and still expect to control the flow of information and communication. The next Tienemen Square will not take place in a stone plaza, but across a network of chat rooms, and there is no way to get a division of tanks there.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Sister Cities and Jet Lag
## zzzz ##
Well, I’m back home in Houston again, which means, besides the jet lag and the future shock of credit card bills, I can sit at my desk, and in between attempts to regain control of my e-mail and deadlines, reflect on the similarities between Houston and Hong Kong.
Houston and Hong Kong could be sister cities, if they had the mind to make the connection. First off, there is the fact that many Hong Kongese now live here in H-town, and there are more than a couple Houstonians who have taken up residence in the Big Lychee. Also, there are other obvious similarities which make the cities very much like each other; friendly people, all kinds of cultures represented in the town, many malls and businesses, some top-rate medical and scientific facilities, and a lot of truly excellent restaurants. Two things Cantonese cooking and Texas cuisine have in common is a rich and wide use of sauces, as well as large portions. It’s also worth noting that Hong Kong is part of the South portion of Asia, Canton province which has always maintained a special identity within China, and Houston is located in Texas, which is, well, Texas.
The weather is even the same, slightly humid but generally warm, with rain coming in from the coast. There is a lot of fishing, for business and sport, in both towns. And just as there are many people in Houston who speak Cantonese, there are many in Hong Kong who speak perfect English, which allows to them to generally understand Americans.
There are also differences, of course. Hong Kong’s public transportation actually works, includes a subway, and unlike Houston’s Light Rail is on-time, under-budget and generally does not hit passenger vehicles. Personal firearms are generally unknown to the civilian population in Hong Kong, as is gangsta rap. On the other hand, Hong Kong has a lot of Gambling businesses, and in places looks a lot like Atlantic City. Hong Kong also has parts of town which are basically controlled by Organized Crime; the OCTB stays much more busy than HPD’s Gang Unit, and hopefully Houston can keep it that way. And of course, trying to use Hong Kong dollars in Houston is a futile effort, but American dollars are readily accepted in many Hong Kong businesses. And finally, Hong Kong pays little attention to sports, unless there is gambling involved, while in Houston it is generally foolish to bet on the local team these days.
Did I mention how long it takes to get back on a regular sleep cycle after spending time in Hong Kong? The sun is up, but I’m dead tired. If you see snoring in the text later this week, you’ll know I’m still not all the way back.
San Tan Far Luck!
Well, I’m back home in Houston again, which means, besides the jet lag and the future shock of credit card bills, I can sit at my desk, and in between attempts to regain control of my e-mail and deadlines, reflect on the similarities between Houston and Hong Kong.
Houston and Hong Kong could be sister cities, if they had the mind to make the connection. First off, there is the fact that many Hong Kongese now live here in H-town, and there are more than a couple Houstonians who have taken up residence in the Big Lychee. Also, there are other obvious similarities which make the cities very much like each other; friendly people, all kinds of cultures represented in the town, many malls and businesses, some top-rate medical and scientific facilities, and a lot of truly excellent restaurants. Two things Cantonese cooking and Texas cuisine have in common is a rich and wide use of sauces, as well as large portions. It’s also worth noting that Hong Kong is part of the South portion of Asia, Canton province which has always maintained a special identity within China, and Houston is located in Texas, which is, well, Texas.
The weather is even the same, slightly humid but generally warm, with rain coming in from the coast. There is a lot of fishing, for business and sport, in both towns. And just as there are many people in Houston who speak Cantonese, there are many in Hong Kong who speak perfect English, which allows to them to generally understand Americans.
There are also differences, of course. Hong Kong’s public transportation actually works, includes a subway, and unlike Houston’s Light Rail is on-time, under-budget and generally does not hit passenger vehicles. Personal firearms are generally unknown to the civilian population in Hong Kong, as is gangsta rap. On the other hand, Hong Kong has a lot of Gambling businesses, and in places looks a lot like Atlantic City. Hong Kong also has parts of town which are basically controlled by Organized Crime; the OCTB stays much more busy than HPD’s Gang Unit, and hopefully Houston can keep it that way. And of course, trying to use Hong Kong dollars in Houston is a futile effort, but American dollars are readily accepted in many Hong Kong businesses. And finally, Hong Kong pays little attention to sports, unless there is gambling involved, while in Houston it is generally foolish to bet on the local team these days.
Did I mention how long it takes to get back on a regular sleep cycle after spending time in Hong Kong? The sun is up, but I’m dead tired. If you see snoring in the text later this week, you’ll know I’m still not all the way back.
San Tan Far Luck!
Sunday, December 04, 2005
An Open Response to Tom Tancredo
[]<>[]
The Immigration and Borders debate is finally starting to get going. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to get people to engage in debate. Rather, far too many people like to shoot down positive suggestions with real merit, simply because they are not perfect. And because the President, while clearly superior in many elements of his job, is something less than eloquent when he explains his programs and ideas, so I am doing what I can here to eludicidate.
Tom Tancredo, a strong proponent of Immigration but unfortunately not known for giving Dubya any credit for his initiatives, once again failed to see the purpose and value in Bush’s ideas, and essentially played the Democrat’s lackey by shooting at the program before its Congressional debate. While Mr. Tancredo is free to exprses his opinions, I must comment that it is he, and not the President, who has things “exactly backward”.
I will start with the obvious, Mr, Tancredo may be well-educated in many aspects of Immigration, but he gets an ‘F’ in perceiving the difference between a desire for perfection, and a plan that works in the real world. If there is one glaring error Tancredo makes, over and over agin, it is that he disparages President Bush in terms that suggest Bush is unaware of the nature and magnitude of illegal entry into the United States. Given that Bush is a former Governor of Texas, I would contend that his knowledge and experience are actually far superior to Mr. Tancredo’s. This must be considered when weighing why Bush supports one action over another alternative.
Mr. Tancredo makes a series of false statements in his article, which I feel demand a proper response. The statements are here, along with my response:
“But until we have actually demonstrated that we have achieved border security and enforcement of our laws, it is dishonest to propose another amnesty as a solution“
Find a dictionary, Mr. Tancredo. An “amnesty” forgives wrongful and criminal acts of whatever nature and frequency. That is not what the President has suggested. What Bush wants is to separate people who are already here into two groups - those who show they are willing to begin the legitimate process, and those who are not. This reduces the stress on the enforcement measures, and stages the actions to address themost serious threats first. You and your side have yet to propose a functional plan in detail, instead demanding “perfection now”.
“What proponents of true border security have proposed in several bills now before Congress is a comprehensive system of border security that will include a fence, added sensors and cameras, airborne surveillance, and a doubling of Border Patrol manpower. These proposals also include new resources for interior enforcement beyond the border region, including vigorous enforcement of our labor laws.”
If you had bothered to pay attention to the President, Mr. Tancredo, you would have observed that the President’s plan does almost all of those things alreasy, and beyond that establishes liason between law enforcement and the Intelligence Community to address border concerns directly.
“If we follow the president's plan and authorize a new amnesty for another 10 million people who came across our borders illegally, it will only encourage the next wave of illegal aliens on the hope and expectation that they, too, will eventually be granted amnesty. That has been the sorry history of the last 30 years, and it is time to call a halt to that nonsense.”
That sir, is a lie. In the first place, no one is suggesting we simply let in “another 10 million people” illegally, and I should also note that the “last 30 years”, while problematic, has hardly been a showcase of Congress or the President trying to protect the illegals, but unfortunately necessary corrections have failed, because various groups and high-profile names have refused to support anything that was not both a perfect answer, and their own proposal. I contend, Mister Tancredo, that attitudes such as yours are not only adding nothing to the solution, you are distinctly prolonging and worsening the problem, because no one is ever good enough by your lights.
“The president's temporary worker proposal is also lacking in realism. He asks Americans to believe that after six years on a temporary worker visa, these workers will go home voluntarily. Who believes that? Citizens in Europe can tell you that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker.”
More evidence that you have not paid attention to how this will actually work. Rather than, say, the French method of issuing a residency card and forgetting about the alien, hoping for the best, this plan registers individuals with a series of identification measures designed to make their location and (if necessary) capture more feasible. Bearing in mind these are people who are already in the country and would have to come forward of their own volition, this does not increase illegal entry by even a single person, but identifies a key demographic within the community - individuals who are willing to become legitimate, given the chance. This is critically important for two reasons - first off, every person already in the country who demonstrates a desire to begin abiding by the law must be encouraged to do so. Providing a way for someone to work here temporarily then leave or begin the formal application for permanent residency or citizenship, is always going to be better than reinforcing the status quo of unknown numbers in unknown places, with no incentive for cooperation. Also, the worst illegals, the career criminals, the coyotes who traffic in smuggling of humans, drugs, and various contraband, and potential cells for terrorists, are known to hide in communities of illegal aliens. If even one person in that community begins to cooperate with law enforcement, that community is denied the criminal element, and it becomes easier to find and intercept that element. I have never yet heard how you intend for DHS to capture illegal alien criminals already in the United States, Mister Tancredo, so in my book you are out of line for trashing a feasible plan for addressing the greatest threat, when you have none of your own.
“Another red herring is that the only alternative to amnesty is to have a mass deportation of 10 million people. That is nonsense. All we have to do is to begin enforcing our laws and establish genuine border security. When the jobs slowly disappear because employers prefer to raise wages and attract legal workers instead of going to jail, most illegal workers will go home voluntarily. That strategy is called "enforcement first," and it is better than amnesty.”
Ever hear of Prohibition, Mister Tancredo? If a law is not supported by the people, it will fail. While everyone is concerned about violent criminals coming across the border, and people generally support the notion of enforcing immigration laws, it’s a different thing entirely when you suggest we can solve basic problems without addressing the cause. The problem with illegal immigration, you are correct, is that many laws are not enforced, but that reflects a social version of laissez faire for people who are willing to live and work peacefully. There is no public support for higher prices without a clear benefit, or for more punitive laws without a clear explanation for why this is necessary, and why it is consistent with our Constitution to treat people differently on the basis of their appearance and culture, as will be necessary in actual practice to enforce the laws. That is not to say such actions are not necessary, but to remind you that neither the President nor the Congress has any power to change these perceptions, but it must begin at the local and county level. Your harangues against the President are doing nothing to address this grassroots issue, which suggests to me that you are more about the image of a fighter, than a true general seeking victory in a crisis. The President is working on the base problem, by separating the gentle immigrant, legal or not, from the violent one, and the one willing to begin obeying the law now, from the one who has no such intentions. With proper support, Bush’s plan will make it simpler and easier and more popular to pursue the worst of those crossing our borders, which should be everyone’s first objective.
“An honest debate on immigration reform must start with that fact, and only people who don't really want to stop illegal border traffic can propose such amnesty with a straight face.”
I agree we need an honest debate. I would therefore like to see you put away your false claims, support the good ideas Bush has presented, and work to propose specific and realistic solutions for the future.
The Immigration and Borders debate is finally starting to get going. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to get people to engage in debate. Rather, far too many people like to shoot down positive suggestions with real merit, simply because they are not perfect. And because the President, while clearly superior in many elements of his job, is something less than eloquent when he explains his programs and ideas, so I am doing what I can here to eludicidate.
Tom Tancredo, a strong proponent of Immigration but unfortunately not known for giving Dubya any credit for his initiatives, once again failed to see the purpose and value in Bush’s ideas, and essentially played the Democrat’s lackey by shooting at the program before its Congressional debate. While Mr. Tancredo is free to exprses his opinions, I must comment that it is he, and not the President, who has things “exactly backward”.
I will start with the obvious, Mr, Tancredo may be well-educated in many aspects of Immigration, but he gets an ‘F’ in perceiving the difference between a desire for perfection, and a plan that works in the real world. If there is one glaring error Tancredo makes, over and over agin, it is that he disparages President Bush in terms that suggest Bush is unaware of the nature and magnitude of illegal entry into the United States. Given that Bush is a former Governor of Texas, I would contend that his knowledge and experience are actually far superior to Mr. Tancredo’s. This must be considered when weighing why Bush supports one action over another alternative.
Mr. Tancredo makes a series of false statements in his article, which I feel demand a proper response. The statements are here, along with my response:
“But until we have actually demonstrated that we have achieved border security and enforcement of our laws, it is dishonest to propose another amnesty as a solution“
Find a dictionary, Mr. Tancredo. An “amnesty” forgives wrongful and criminal acts of whatever nature and frequency. That is not what the President has suggested. What Bush wants is to separate people who are already here into two groups - those who show they are willing to begin the legitimate process, and those who are not. This reduces the stress on the enforcement measures, and stages the actions to address themost serious threats first. You and your side have yet to propose a functional plan in detail, instead demanding “perfection now”.
“What proponents of true border security have proposed in several bills now before Congress is a comprehensive system of border security that will include a fence, added sensors and cameras, airborne surveillance, and a doubling of Border Patrol manpower. These proposals also include new resources for interior enforcement beyond the border region, including vigorous enforcement of our labor laws.”
If you had bothered to pay attention to the President, Mr. Tancredo, you would have observed that the President’s plan does almost all of those things alreasy, and beyond that establishes liason between law enforcement and the Intelligence Community to address border concerns directly.
“If we follow the president's plan and authorize a new amnesty for another 10 million people who came across our borders illegally, it will only encourage the next wave of illegal aliens on the hope and expectation that they, too, will eventually be granted amnesty. That has been the sorry history of the last 30 years, and it is time to call a halt to that nonsense.”
That sir, is a lie. In the first place, no one is suggesting we simply let in “another 10 million people” illegally, and I should also note that the “last 30 years”, while problematic, has hardly been a showcase of Congress or the President trying to protect the illegals, but unfortunately necessary corrections have failed, because various groups and high-profile names have refused to support anything that was not both a perfect answer, and their own proposal. I contend, Mister Tancredo, that attitudes such as yours are not only adding nothing to the solution, you are distinctly prolonging and worsening the problem, because no one is ever good enough by your lights.
“The president's temporary worker proposal is also lacking in realism. He asks Americans to believe that after six years on a temporary worker visa, these workers will go home voluntarily. Who believes that? Citizens in Europe can tell you that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker.”
More evidence that you have not paid attention to how this will actually work. Rather than, say, the French method of issuing a residency card and forgetting about the alien, hoping for the best, this plan registers individuals with a series of identification measures designed to make their location and (if necessary) capture more feasible. Bearing in mind these are people who are already in the country and would have to come forward of their own volition, this does not increase illegal entry by even a single person, but identifies a key demographic within the community - individuals who are willing to become legitimate, given the chance. This is critically important for two reasons - first off, every person already in the country who demonstrates a desire to begin abiding by the law must be encouraged to do so. Providing a way for someone to work here temporarily then leave or begin the formal application for permanent residency or citizenship, is always going to be better than reinforcing the status quo of unknown numbers in unknown places, with no incentive for cooperation. Also, the worst illegals, the career criminals, the coyotes who traffic in smuggling of humans, drugs, and various contraband, and potential cells for terrorists, are known to hide in communities of illegal aliens. If even one person in that community begins to cooperate with law enforcement, that community is denied the criminal element, and it becomes easier to find and intercept that element. I have never yet heard how you intend for DHS to capture illegal alien criminals already in the United States, Mister Tancredo, so in my book you are out of line for trashing a feasible plan for addressing the greatest threat, when you have none of your own.
“Another red herring is that the only alternative to amnesty is to have a mass deportation of 10 million people. That is nonsense. All we have to do is to begin enforcing our laws and establish genuine border security. When the jobs slowly disappear because employers prefer to raise wages and attract legal workers instead of going to jail, most illegal workers will go home voluntarily. That strategy is called "enforcement first," and it is better than amnesty.”
Ever hear of Prohibition, Mister Tancredo? If a law is not supported by the people, it will fail. While everyone is concerned about violent criminals coming across the border, and people generally support the notion of enforcing immigration laws, it’s a different thing entirely when you suggest we can solve basic problems without addressing the cause. The problem with illegal immigration, you are correct, is that many laws are not enforced, but that reflects a social version of laissez faire for people who are willing to live and work peacefully. There is no public support for higher prices without a clear benefit, or for more punitive laws without a clear explanation for why this is necessary, and why it is consistent with our Constitution to treat people differently on the basis of their appearance and culture, as will be necessary in actual practice to enforce the laws. That is not to say such actions are not necessary, but to remind you that neither the President nor the Congress has any power to change these perceptions, but it must begin at the local and county level. Your harangues against the President are doing nothing to address this grassroots issue, which suggests to me that you are more about the image of a fighter, than a true general seeking victory in a crisis. The President is working on the base problem, by separating the gentle immigrant, legal or not, from the violent one, and the one willing to begin obeying the law now, from the one who has no such intentions. With proper support, Bush’s plan will make it simpler and easier and more popular to pursue the worst of those crossing our borders, which should be everyone’s first objective.
“An honest debate on immigration reform must start with that fact, and only people who don't really want to stop illegal border traffic can propose such amnesty with a straight face.”
I agree we need an honest debate. I would therefore like to see you put away your false claims, support the good ideas Bush has presented, and work to propose specific and realistic solutions for the future.
PFL Week Thirteen
** grunt **
Week Thirteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0) 43, Cleveland (7-5) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (13-0) 61, Clinton (0-12) 12
Washington (13-0) 55, Van Buren (3-9) 3
George W Bush (12-0) 31, Wilson (7-6) 3
Reagan (12-0) 28, Lincoln (8-5) 9
Polk (10-3) 18, Monroe (10-2) 15 (OT)
Jefferson (11-2) 41, Hayes (5-7) 3
FDR (11-2) 30, Taft (7-5) 9
Grant (11-2) 24, B Harrison (4-9) 15
JFK (10-3) 38, LBJ (1-11) 0
Truman (10-3) 30, McKinley (6-6) 10
John Adams (7-5) 23, Madison (7-6) 22
JQ Adams (7-5) 18, Jackson (6-7) 12
Nixon (6-6), idle
Taylor (6-6), idle
Arthur (6-7) 25, Pierce (2-10) 0
GHW Bush (6-7) 37, Harding (2-10) 10
Ford (5-8) 24, W Harrison (2-10) 21
Tyler (4-8), idle
Coolidge (3-9), idle
Carter (3-10) 30, A Johnson (0-12) 12
Fillmore (2-10), idle
Garfield (2-10), idle
Hoover (2-11) 30, Buchanan (0-12) 15
STANDINGS
Division A
[03] Washington (13-0)
[09] Monroe (10-2)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[01] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (11-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (12-0) Division Clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (11-2)
[10] JFK (10-3)
[17] Taft (7-5)
Division E
[02] Teddy Roosevelt (13-0)
[08] Grant (10-2)
Division F
[04] George W Bush (12-0)
[12] Truman (10-3)
Week Thirteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0) 43, Cleveland (7-5) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (13-0) 61, Clinton (0-12) 12
Washington (13-0) 55, Van Buren (3-9) 3
George W Bush (12-0) 31, Wilson (7-6) 3
Reagan (12-0) 28, Lincoln (8-5) 9
Polk (10-3) 18, Monroe (10-2) 15 (OT)
Jefferson (11-2) 41, Hayes (5-7) 3
FDR (11-2) 30, Taft (7-5) 9
Grant (11-2) 24, B Harrison (4-9) 15
JFK (10-3) 38, LBJ (1-11) 0
Truman (10-3) 30, McKinley (6-6) 10
John Adams (7-5) 23, Madison (7-6) 22
JQ Adams (7-5) 18, Jackson (6-7) 12
Nixon (6-6), idle
Taylor (6-6), idle
Arthur (6-7) 25, Pierce (2-10) 0
GHW Bush (6-7) 37, Harding (2-10) 10
Ford (5-8) 24, W Harrison (2-10) 21
Tyler (4-8), idle
Coolidge (3-9), idle
Carter (3-10) 30, A Johnson (0-12) 12
Fillmore (2-10), idle
Garfield (2-10), idle
Hoover (2-11) 30, Buchanan (0-12) 15
STANDINGS
Division A
[03] Washington (13-0)
[09] Monroe (10-2)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[01] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (11-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (12-0) Division Clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (11-2)
[10] JFK (10-3)
[17] Taft (7-5)
Division E
[02] Teddy Roosevelt (13-0)
[08] Grant (10-2)
Division F
[04] George W Bush (12-0)
[12] Truman (10-3)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
