The Rice Advantage

.
.
.
In an earlier post, I suggested that Republicans should get behind Condi Rice for 2008 (yes, it’s very early, but then there’s hardly any question that certain Democrats have already decided to run in 2008, so it only makes sense to prepare our best candidates). One of my readers, Pawnking, asked the following questions in return, which I feel would be good to answer here:


1) Will she run?

That’s really the big question. The answer, I think, lies in the fact that Rice originally planned to only serve the first term as NSA (it is rumored, that Rice was offered the post of President of Harvard). Secretary of State was never in the picture when Rice joined Team W. Rice, by a number of accounts, is not overly ambitious, but she is so competent, that she becomes the obvious choice once she is considered. It happened at Stanford, at the NSC under Bush I, now in her selection as SecState. Dr. Rice understands her competency, so if she can be shown that she represents the best hope to continue the essential elements of Bush’s doctrine, I believe Dr. Rice will agree to run.


2) What red states will she risk losing?
3) What blue states will she have a good chance at stealing?

Condi Rice enjoys a unique position. For those who demand experience, she can point to six years plus under Presidents George .H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. But because she has not run before, Rice can also qualify as an outsider, untainted by the sort of scheming we have seen from McCain, Clinton, Frist, or Kerry. Rice also can begin without any apparent liabilities, so that whatever is drawn against her will have start, essentially, from scratch.

Condi’s campaign would, if successful, have three basic stages. The first stage is educating the nation at large about her qualifications. The existing grass-roots organizations (I belong to one, as an example) are already working to that end. The seond stage is the GOP race, where Condi would be at a slight disadvantage in states which have a guy they already like from previous elections (Jeb in Florida, Frist in Tennessee, etc.), but would do well in the Blue states, where she provides a welcome alternative to previous choices.

Assuming Condi could take the nomination, things would turn around. The Red states would not be likely at all to go for whatever the Democrats put out, so Condi would naturally enjoy their support, though like any party nominee, Rice would need to build support up in certain states, like Iowa and Missouri and Florida, which have traditionally been more Purple of late than Red or Blue. The Democrats would still own most of the Northeast, where Common Sense appears to have been banned, but a Rice ticket would be very attractive in California, creating a truly nightmarish scenario for the Left.


4) Will she be able to campaign effectivly with no experience?

The answer to that lies in Dr. Rice’s performance at the public 9/11 Committee character assassination hearings. Ben Veniste and his cohorts launched an all-out attack on Rice and Bush, and tried every manner of insinuation against her. Rice was polite and eloquent, never giving an inch yet never lowering herself to the level of her attckers. Rice can handle the Democrats, as she’s already shown, and that means she can handle her GOP rivals, as well. Think about it. Race and gender used to be considered liabilities, but does anybody doubt that Dr. Rice nullifies that possibility. Only Democrats would be dumb enough to believe that the average Republican is racist or sexist, and if Rice wins the GOP nomination, just imagine the match-up with any potential Democrat nominee. The Dems seem willing to choose between a poseur (Hillary pretending to be a Centrist), or a radical Leftist (Kerry says he’ll run again, Dean says he might). Rice may well not take the majority of the black vote, but would doubtless take a greater share than any Republican in our time. Rice is well-established as intelligent and competent, so the old stereotype of the ‘weak’ or overly sensitive female is also not an issue. Speaking of issues, there is not one significant issue where the Democrats would enjoy an advantage over Rice. National Security, in all likelihood the biggest issue in the 2008 Election, will remain firmly GOP territory if Rice is the nominee. Social Security reform will either be a hot issue to take up again, or a Bush win which needs to be continued to take best effect. In either case, Rice is not going to let the Left demagogue the issue the way they’re playing it now. As for Abortion or Affirmative Action, Rice has kept her positions largely private, not because they may be liabilities, but because she is focused on the major issues for here and now. That makes it unlikely that Democrats would be able to distract her in an election condition.

It is Conventional Wisdom that only an elected official does well in campaigning, but we can see from recent history, that this is a fallacy. Ross Perot was a strange sort of mind, but it should be remembered that he led the 1992 Presidential Race for the early part of the year. Arnold Schwarzenegger had no political experience of any kind before his victory as Governor of California. A candidate needs to show they are qualified for the job, and competent in the race. Dr. Rice meets those standards, in fact her resume is better-suited for the job than anyone else out there. Yes, from her experience and past public appearances, tere is no real doubt that Dr. Rice can campaign very well. She did a great job making Bush look good, so it makes sense she will be adept in her own advocacy.

Thanks Pawnking, for the great questions.

A Quick Thought

For those who are undecided about who to back for President in 2008, ask yourself these questions:

1. What is the most important issue we face in the forseeable future?

2. Since W can't run in 2008, what is the best way to ensure his policies are continued?

3. Who is most competent to handle the War on Terrorism from the Oval Office, who also understands and supports President Bush on every critical issue?

4. Who scares Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean the most?



Please vote for President Rice in 2008. Thank you.

Murder by Indolence

..
..
Against all odds, Terry Schiavo is still alive. That could be the starting sentence to a piece about the miracles of modern medicine, or the will to live, or the strength of family, but it is not. It is an examination into deliberate cruelty, the continuing attempt by many to pronounce a social blessing on an expedient murder. Yet by the grace of God, Terry Schiavo remains alive.

Some pretend that this case is complex. In truth, that’s not really so, but some of the parties involved have done their worst to blur the facts and suggest a moral equivalency between their position and the truth, with just a nudge more to their own side, so they can get their way without having to consider the evil their choice represents.

In 1990, Terry Schiavo suffered a heart attack, and because of complications (which resulted in a successful malpractice claim) became unable to care for herself, specifically to eat and drink on her own due to brain damage. From this point, two opinions have been set out – one contends that Terry Schiavo is in a “persistent vegetative state” and should be allowed to die, while the other contends that Terry is not only alive but conscious. Unfortunately, the question cannot be scientifically confirmed one way or the other. There is clear brainwave activity and motor activity in muscles, denying the traditional notion of a person being kept alive by a machine. In fact, Terry does not need artificial breathing or cardiac assistance, so except for the feeding tube, she is as alive as many senior citizens or mentally disabled children. On the other hand, Terry is unable to speak or write to express herself in a manner confirming she is aware of the world.

The matter is distilled, in most minds, to four pieces of evidence. First, is a video made by Terry’s parents, which appears to show the woman making eye contact, and responding to people around her. That is compelling on a subjective level, but since it cannot be repeated under laboratory controls, it does not sway scientists and doctors, even as it hardens the conviction of the 'Let Terry Live’ faction that to remove her feeding tube is murder.

Next, is the legal definition of Michael Schiavo as Terry’s legal guardian. Like it or not, as Terry’s husband, Michael has the legal authority to speak for Terry.

Third, is the matter of the ‘PVS’ condition. There is no clinical definition, especially as there have been cases where patients regained consciousness from similar conditions to Terry Schiavo’s, most famously Sarah Scantlin (hat tip: Jollyblogger), and Terry’s parents have produced doctors who testified that Terry’s condition does not meet the definition of PVS. We must therefore, bear in mind that the decision to kill Terry depends on an unproven claim, even among the medical witnesses.

The fourth condition is the most critical: Terry had no ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order or any sort of ‘Right to Die’ document drawn up. Also, Michael Schiavo has not been able to support his contention that Terry would want to die in these circumstances. As a result, any decision to remove the feeding tube must be made in the knowledge that the patient did not consent to the action. To kill someone against their consent, who has not been convicted of a capital crime, is murder by any reasonable measure.

Why does Michael want Terry dead? Is he greedy, looking for money, or is he trying to cover up a past history of abuse, as some have claimed? Is he just tired after more than a decade with Terry in this condition, or is the fact that he has a girlfriend who lives with him in the house an indicator of his rejection of his wife? Why doesn’t he just let Terry’s parents take over as her guardians, divorce her and move on? I don’t know and I don’t care, really. Michael has done nothing to convince me he is thinking about Terry’s welfare, and that’s all there is to that. As to the courts, I find it laughable, that the last verdict claimed that the court could not step in. The courts have seen fit to redefine what a marriage is, what racism is, what religion is, what the rights of a legislature is, even what the Constitution means, yet they don’t feel they can step in to protect a woman from being murdered, simply because a couple people find her condition inconvenient to her lifestyles. Consider the hypocrisy here; less than a month ago, the US Supreme Court said that convicted murderers could not be put to death if they were teens at the time they murdered people, but an Appeals Court has ruled that an innocent woman may be murdered in her bed because her husband is tired of her. Imagine that system deciding your fate, because sooner or later it very well might.

May God save Terry Schiavo from her husband, and our nation from our judges.

SandLand

[][]
[][]
One of the problems of modern media, is that people get so much information, they can begin to think they fully understand an issue, when in fact they are just scratching the surface. This is particularly true in the case of war, which the media has used for the past generation not only as a means of entertainment (movies and television shows), but also as a platform to advance Leftist agendas and politics. As a result, many people have been unable to understand the nature of the conflict in the Middle East, especially Iraq. This article evaluates the essential nature and effects of the so-called ‘insurgency’ in its true character as guerrilla warfare, and is intended to demonstrate why it cannot succeed, and has been turned on itself to drive the wave of representative government ahead.

It is a stale truism, that generals generally prepare to refight the last war. This is not surprising, really, since wars also repeat themselves in many respects. The American Revolution was not very different, in logistics and tactics, than the French-and-Indian Wars before them. Many of Hitler’s generals in World War 2, simply followed the same successful routes they used in World War 1 to invade France. Communists in Angola overthrew the government in a rebellion patterned after Castro’s successful uprising in Cuba. But some people are able to also look to the past and learn lessons for the present. Patton used his knowledge of military history to select the best roads and to anticipate weather conditions. Japan used a successful raid from a war against Russia, as a pattern for their successful raid on Pearl Harbor. It follows that while knowing the future is impossible, planning for the future may be as simple as learning the lessons from past events.

Karl von Clausewitz is a staple among political leftists, who all too often forgot his letter to his wife, wherein the general warned his wife that he had by no means completed his works, and “should the work be interrupted by my death, then what is found can only be called a mass of conceptions not brought into form... open to endless misconception”. Indeed, von Clausewitz succumbed to Cholera in 1830, and it was his estate which edited and published his collected works, including “On War”. It happened, therefore, that Clausewitz’s disciples picked up his maxims and rules without any sort of caveat or balance from their teacher. In any case, Clausewitz wrote little on guerrilla warfare, ignoring totally the brilliant effect Wellington put the Basques to in Spain in his harassment of Napoleon, as an example Clausewitz certainly knew about. He wrote a small chapter on the subject, which he buried in Book VI after 30 chapters on other matters. Clausewitz made his disinterest in guerrilla warfare clear from his apportionment of so little space to it.

T.E. Lawrence wrote far more extensively about guerrilla warfare in his book, “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom”. This is of particular interest, since Lawrence wrote about and took part in guerrilla warfare in the Middle East during World War 1. Lawrence’s work was, for more than half a century, the only serious military consideration of guerrilla warfare in the Middle East by a Western military officer. Unfortunately, Lawrence only focused on the offensive value of guerrilla warfare, and never seriously considered that the nature of his warfare hurt the cause for Arab independence from Europe, especially as Arabs came to blame the guerrillas for the harm they caused when the Germans and Turks withdrew.

By far, though, the most interesting work on this topic is B.H. Liddell Hart’s masterpiece, “Strategy”. Hart also spent relatively little attention on guerrilla warfare, and he made the same mistake that Clausewitz and Lawrence did, in believing that the conditions of his day were permanent. In Hart’s case, that included the assumption that the Soviet Union would remain a major player in world events indefinitely, that nuclear confrontation would be a factor in any major military action, and that any guerrilla warfare situation would be a popular revolt against an occupying power. To his credit, however, Hart presented a good working description of the guerrilla method. Hart noted that guerrillas take advantage of “social discontent, racial ferment, and nationalist fervour”. Certainly, these attributes correctly describe the major uprisings since World War 2. Hart also commented that guerrillas enjoyed being “shielded by the population”. However, Hart also noted that guerrillas were very unlikely to accomplish much on their own effort, unless they were supported by a strong regular army. That is, they could be very effective harassing the enemy’s rear if the enemy was already committed to a front, but they could not accomplish major goals on their own. Further, Hart observed that guerrilla warfare also creates the handicap of encouraging the young to defy authority, and any existing government. This makes the eventual rebuilding that much more difficult, especially since the guerrillas often end up connected to organized criminals, who have no intention of giving up a lucrative practice. Stability, wrote Hart, is very difficult “on a foundation undermined by such experience.” And that sums up the strategic condition of the Arab Jihadists, whatever one calls them. They know they cannot win, so for the last half century they have committed themselves to denying peace, stability, or freedom to anyone else. Look at the historical record - Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Zimbabwe, the Sudan. and Iran (as examples) all used insurgencies to overthrow the existing government, but none of them has grown into a stable and prosperous nation.

With all this in mind, I now turn attention to U.S. Military Theory. I have always found the European pride on the matter of military analysis to be amusing in its cheek. Clausewitz is the European’s idea of a master thinker, yet he failed to anticipate and warn the Germans about the possibility of a militant group rising to overthrow the government, as essentially the Nazis did a century after Clausewitz’s death. Lawrence carried encyclopedic knowledge about the tactics and customs of Arabia, but could not understand that the method of warfare he encouraged, created social chaos in the countries he was trying to help, and pushed back their independence instead of bringing it back. And Hart failed to understand that the conditions of guerrilla warfare could also be turned back on themselves, to help stabilize a nation and bring popular support to a government of reform.

After the Vietnam War, American generals spent a lot of time and effort looking at what went wrong, and how to correct it. Despite the slogans and jibes from the Left, the loss came from a variety of causes, but mostly because the United States failed to keep its commitment to South Vietnam. There were, however, improvements in battle management to consider, not the least of which was interaction between the branches. Over a period of time, AirLand was created, which revolutionary changes were made obvious in the first Gulf War during the first President Bush’s Administration. AirLand tested every assumption in military theory, threw out what was faulty and replaced it with a better, functional option. Not only was AirLand a better plan than anything else being practiced in the world, it was not something an enemy could implement on his side. Partly, this was because the U.S. had better weapons systems than anyone else, partly because AirLand had to be trained at all levels, and depended on a level of professionalism you can’t achieve in a short course, or at all using conscripted troops. It was also impossible for our enemies to implement, because it granted troops at every level far more personal authority and discretion of judgment than any autocratic regime can afford to allow their military. AirLand not only improved the performance of military strategy, it established a political prerequisite to that level of ideals, attainable only by those nations least likely to ever fight a war against the United States.

The terrorist organizations of the Middle East largely came into existence during the Cold War, and some of them were originally sponsored, supplied, and trained by the Soviet Union. The clear intent by the Soviets was to destabilize the Middle East, and in this were largely successful. This, however, also explains why the Soviets were themselves unable to accomplish much to their advantage. The Ayatollah Khomeini, for example, certainly hated the United States, but it should also be recalled, that one of his first orders after taking power in Iran, was to find and kill every communist in the country. The removal of the United States from the Middle East, in diplomatic terms, also began to soften the mood against Americans. That is, by the time George W. Bush came to office, most Arabs had heard the hate-filled slogans against America, but had no personal reason to hate the USA. Without a reason to trust Americans, it’s reasonable that Arabs would resent American forces being sent into their part of the world, 9/11 or not, but even then a small number were fed up with the traditional corruption they knew in the Arab world, and hoped that maybe this time things would be different.

The Afghanistan invasion itself was the first sign. Where invaders before had always used overwhelming force, this time the Americans made deals with native Afghans, and threw out a group widely regarded as an oppressive invader itself; the Taliban. When the US made clear that self-rule for Afghanistan was a substantial commitment, it started a ripple. When the US led the invasion into Iraq, it enforced that message, especially as the Coalition was careful to avoid the heavy-handed tactics expected. Al-Jazeera discovered that America bashing was not always applauded, especially as details of Saddam’s brutality began to be revealed.

The Bush Administration understood the nature of guerrilla warfare,and worked to remove the causes for its support. To address social discontent, the United States rebuilt schools, and constructed new water treatment and power plants. The US immediately allowed for licenses to Iraqis, to create and run their own businesses. To address racial ferment, the Coalition made clear that no racial violence would tolerated, nor would the Coalition favor one group over another, except on actual actions against the peace and law. And to address nationalist fervor, the Bush Administration worked hard to rebuild and supply the Iraqi police and Militia. In fact, most of the actions taken now to hunt down terrorist cells in Iraq, are planned and manned by Iraqi Militia. The US assists, but it’s the people of Iraq who are taking their nation back. And this is why the terrorists cannot hope to be shielded by the population. The population now understands they bring nothing but pain and death, and more and more of them are being turned in by Iraqi people.

George W. Bush has shown he understands the culture and nation of Iraq, and has a pretty good grasp of the region. Accordingly, the troops are in good morale and confidence, because they see we are winning. The military retooled and regrouped with a plan named AirLand. I would say that US Foreign Policy has also been revamped, and I would call that plan SandLand.

'Daddypundit' Interview

.
Tom Parsons, over at Daddypundit, is interviewing other bloggers. Here are his questions for me, and my answers:

1. Why did you decide to start a blog?

I have been a talker all my life. I love conversation, especially explaining things. I started leaving long comments on various blogs I liked, and to my surprise, I started getting emails from people suggesting they liked them. I started my own blog in July of 2004, and have been rolling along ever since.


2. Apart from the Bible, what book has had the greatest influence on your life?

Hard choice, picking just one, but I'd have to say B.H.L. Hart's masterpiece, "Strategy". It's a good primer in Military History, and I have always found it thought-provoking, even on non-military topics. The basic theme is that the predictable method fails, while the unexpected very often wins.


3. What is the best and worst thing about living in Houston?

Best - the people. We have folks from over 180 countries living here, with every possible kind of food, music, and art. We have more museums than New York, more top-level medical centers than Los Angeles, and every kind of sport is played here. And of course, there's no better barbeque or chili than what gets served up at our Cookout at the Livestock Show & Rodeo every year.

Worst - political corruption. We haven't had an honest mayor or an effective City Council in my lifetime here.


4. Other than Jesus, what one person in the Bible would you most want to meet? Why?

James. As Jesus' brother, he knew Christ when he was very young, and had a hard time understanding who Jesus really was. His transition from disbelief to devotion is the most compelling of all the disciples to me.


5. What television character best describes you?

Lt. Columbo. Nothing too flashy, sometimes awkward in social situations, but I know when I'm right, and I don't give up easy.

Thanks Tom!



Hey, that was way cool. If you'd like to interview me, or would like me to interview you, just shoot me an email, drummond@ev1.net

MONEY!

...
..
I remember the anecdote of the college professor, who paced across the classroom floor and observed the drowsy stupor of his students. He spoke quietly for a while, then suddenly shouted the word

SEX!!!!

which shook his class back to attention. When I first heard that story, the message was that some words have immediate and deep-seated importance in our minds. I would suggest that when we speak of politics and morality, "Money" also gets our attention. And that is actually a good thing.

The Democrats, and their Liberal subset, are raging at the re-election of the President, and worse, the continuing move to the Right in America. Why such hatred? You see it in their protest signs. "No War for Oil" they demand, failing to accept the nascent democracy forming in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly in places like Lebanon, Egypt, maybe something like representation in Saudi Arabia, maybe a step towards reason in Syria and Iran. You see it in their demand that the US pass a "Global Test", as John Kerry stated it during the Presidential Election Debates last year, unaware that the U.S. Constitution is well suited for our self-governance, and the rest of the world in poor position to suggest that they have a better model. Liberals assume greed on the part of the Right, even as they use the same motivation to scare Seniors into opposing Social Security reform.

But like it or not, and for whatever motivation, the economies of the world will play their roles in our futures. The proven track record of the New York Stock Exchange, shows the clear superiority for attaching Private Savings Accounts to the Stock Market in place of trusting government to suddenly become efficient and productive in providing for the financial security of millions of citizens. The Stock Market also shows up as a valid barometer of health in other places, whether it is the Nikkei in Tokyo, the Mumbai in New Delhi, or any other place where ordinary people are able to trade and invest in shares of corporations. I knew Iraq would succeed as a self-sufficient nation, when I learned that over four thousand Iraqis applied for licenses to open their own businesses the first day they were eligible to do so. That speaks to confidence, and ultimately drives its own success.

I'm amused by the current arguments thrown out by the Left. Essentially, they are assuring us the good times can't last. They say this to cast doubt on the notion of allowing people to put their own money into the Stock Market, which over the past century has grown at an average pace more than ten times the increases in Social Security (which itself depends on a healthy economy for it's strength, but no Liberal will aver admit that inconvenient tidbit), and to suggest that the incipient wave of democratic reform moving in so many countries will perhaps evaporate the next time the market hiccups. In point of fact, we may argue (and economists surely do) about the reason that the United States has more or less exploded in growth since its creation, but the historical fact itself must not be denied, or its significance discounted in the pallid interest of political resurgence.

Which brings me to my conclusion for this article. Money does not make the world go around, but it is true, that you have to pay your way. Reagan recognized that the Soviet economy could not keep up with the American economy, and that became a foundation for the U.S. victory in the Cold War. Before that, in 1941 Admiral Yamamoto warned the Imperial Command in Tokyo, that the Japanese industry could not match the U.S. industry in a protracted war. He was right, and so even though the Nazis and Japanese both exceeded the United States in men under arms and material in 1941, by 1945 the United States had beaten them both. No other continent, let alone single nation, can match the United States in economic power. That is, and will continue to be, the trump card in our affairs in any conflict for the foreseeable future. We can only lose if we first defeat our own confidence.

2005 Democrat Grand Strategy: Hide

<<<
During the 2004 U.S. Presidential Campaign, some observers noted that Kerry did worse in polls when he made any kind of statement on an issue, and so recommended he stay out of sight. It was enough to get him the Democratic Party nomination, and kept him in the General race for awhile, but in the end he couldn't ride the hide into the Oval Office.

Even so, the method was successful enough for Democrats, that now DNC Uberscreamer Howard Dean has taken it on as his raison d' lunacy. ABC News, via 'The Note', has noted that President Bush is "the 10,000-pound gorilla of American politics", suggesting the obvious message that Democrats don't do well in direct confrontation. So, says 'The Note', "Dean has largely eschewed the national political press corps since becoming chair."

Run away!

Run away!


Rather than admit again what they have confessed once, ABC suggests "according to Democrats familiar with the strategy, ... Dean simply doesn't have the time or inclination to sit for interviews right now."
Uh huh.

Sure.

Gotcha.

So, what's the plan?

Well, you could always tape what you want to say, then send it out to media you know is likely to be sympathetic to you (cf Al-Jazeera), and sure enough, that's what Screamy Deany did. 'The Note' relates:

"if the national press corps is wedded to a certain view of you, such as as your alleged propensity to say things that get you in trouble, simply bypass that filter. Dean has taped at least a half dozen interviews with local television stations in the three weeks he's been chair"

Nice to see they've at least learned something from the past year.

Picture Perfect

[][][]

I'm not usually the superficial sort, but I found it interesting that Michelle Malkin has updated her blog photo.

Here is the old photo, and here is the new photo. I leave it to the reader to decide which is more attractive.

I sent Michelle a compliment on her new photo, but to be honest, I originally thought the new photo was older than the one she had before. Certainly, either of the two photos is impressive, and there is no serious doubt that Ms. Malkin is, well, a knock-out beauty.

Why mention this? Michelle tells her readers that some geniuses on the Left have mocked her appearance, insulting her teeth, hair, even her complexion. I'll admit they must have impressive imaginative faculties to be able to suggest such things, but it also goes to show how far from reality some people on the Left can be. I have always tried not to insult people on the basis of their appearance - it's petty and misses the point of articles presented. That, I suspect, is the point. Ms. Malkin's beauty is exceeded by her wit and intelligence. Since her work stands on its own merit, and is fairly nigh unassailable on the basis of any logical critique, her detractors have fallen back to the tactics of 4th grade, and taken to making up insults about her appearance, in the hope of distracting people from the brilliance of her work. It's not working, though. The fallacy of their position is only highlighted by their inability to find any salient point from which to attack. Yet they remain oblivious to this truth, as if hoping against hope that rumor and boorish spite will somehow trump reason and the simple truth of beauty.

I will admit it's a good thing for the VRWC that these dwinbles of liberal malfeasance did not focus on my own photographic congeniality. I kept my own picture off my blog, in hopes I wouldn't scare off my readers. Hopefully, however, my own work will serve to produce an image and reputation of reason, and so attract its own audience in time. I suppose, if I wanted to put up a really beautiful pic, I could let ya'll have a look at my little girl Jagan, but these days, that takes a risk I am not willing. For now, I will taunt the Left with reason and rhetoric, knowing their own is weak enough that it cannot stand. And for the nonce, I leave my own window a mystery, proving the saying once again that I have a "face for radio".

Meanwhile, if Ms. Malkin should desire additional income, it may be time for the good folks at Vogue, Elle, or Allure magazine to discover her.

Charity, Reality, Obscenity, Stupidity

[][]
<>
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the PLO just held what were, arguably, their first free elections ever. What is a liberal, just-beyond-the-horizon paranoid MSM hate rag to do? Why, suggest that the real goals were something other than a representative government and, in true liberal fashion, pretend failure on the part of the Conservative President and the Conservative Congress.

This week, the cover story of TIME magazine does just that. The issue is effectively devoted to a forthcoming book by Jeffrey Sachs, which carries the title “The End of Poverty”. Sachs, however, appears determined not so much to solve problems as to attack the Bush Administration. A highlighted claim, for example, is “U.S. Spent $16 Billion This Year to Address Extreme Poverty;
$500 Billion Was Spent on the Military”, a Moore-esque distortion so misleading it may reasonably be called a lie on its intent. For instance, the tax relief the Bush tax cuts provided to working poor is completely left out by Sachs. Same for the improved Prescription Medicine coverage for Medicare. The main message by Sachs, that the Bush Administration does not care for the poor, is nothing but a liberal lie.

So what is Sachs using for evidence, anyway? The $16 Billion he derides is being spent to help, as Sachs says, “the poorest of the poor, whose societies are destabilized by extreme poverty”, as if spending more money would change the domestic policies of the nations whose citizens are in the worst thralls of poverty. Let’s take a look at that for a moment. Who are the poorest nations, which come to mind? Maybe North Korea, which refused to accept aid from the United States after a chemical explosion last year, out of fear we would use the opportunity to build a profile of the regime’s stability. Maybe the Sudan, where terrorists are killing, raping or enslaving any Christians and Westerners they find, and U.S. charity is accepted only on the condition that we ask no questions about what the government is doing with the money and materials sent, even after much of it has ended up being sold for personal gain of government officials. Maybe Cuba, where the state’s idea of education includes chanting anti-Western slogans. Maybe places like the Iraq under Saddam, which we now know was selling oil for money to support the dictator and his regime, under the explicit approval of several high-ranking United Nations officials, even as Iraqi children starved because food meant for them was diverted. The very notion that the United States is somehow complicit in these conditions, much less insulted for giving billions of dollars a year to nations which spit in the face of the nation which send the aid, is obscene.

Sachs goes on to list “nine steps toward the goal of ending poverty”, none of which works on a government level. Sachs, for example, wants people to make a “personal commitment”, which is fine and worthy, but hardly the action of Congress, now is it?

TIME magazine tries to justify this worship of unreal fantasy by including a note from Managing Editor Jim Kelly, who says “it is impossible to deny that the needless deaths of so many people every year call for action on a global scale”. Such a claim can only be made by someone who believes at least one of two things:

Such a person must either believe that the United Nations, despite all the evidence, is functionally effective in helping nations grow their economies and welfare or their citizens, or that person must honestly believe that the United States has the right to dictate terms and conditions to every nation on earth, even to the point of controlling their economies and distribution of wealth.

It truly worries me, to discover that the Managine Editor of TIME Magazine is truly that far removed from Reality.

Politics and Morality

[][]
[][]

If you read the byline of my profile, you'll see this blog is about "Politics, Morality, and the occasional Idiom". That's what sets this blog apart, I believe; the recognition that there is a connection between the governance of a city, county, state, or nation, and the souls of the people who take on first duty, then pride. Some cannot meet the needs of the first challenge, others fail the second.

Earier this week, Senator John "Sometimes a Republican, Sometimes Something Else" McCain spoke aout against blogs, suggesting that the McCain-Satan Campaign Finance Reform Law should be used to control and regulate blogs. In retrospect, that's not really surprising: The Soviet and Chinese Politburos fear(ed) free expression by the people, and so do autocrats around the globe. Now that the blogs are showing a source of authority and power on their own, it's no wonder the mandarins want it reined. Back at the end of January, I began a program to contact every member of Congress on a series of questions most of my readers here and at Polipundit wanted answered - the results so far have shown an appalling sense of arrogance; only a scant few sent anything more than a form letter, even my own Senators and Representative have completely ignored the questions. It proves a point, but one of great dishonor among these elitist boors.

The original Congressmen were far different from today's lot. I'm not only writing about the racial and gender expansion, but the pervasive taxation and regulation, spurred on by people whose notions of success seem driven by television appearances and favors to/from friends. It shouldn't surprise anyone that a person who takes office through essentially a marketing campaign, for an office paying several times the salary an average American sees, not to mention a huge staff and accompanying budget, loses contact with Reality and the problems of ordinary people along the way. Does anyone expect a Representative, Senator, or President to have the faintest idea what it means to work on an hourly salary, under real-world conditions? I would love to see McCain try to sell products in a retail store, to see Pelosi try to develop a cogent business plan for a corporation, to see Kennedy walk auditors through an annual financial statement. Not likely. Congress is not a real place, yet its actions are depressingly serious in their impact.

Over the next couple months, I will begin to publish my grades for every member of Congress. Don't expect a high GPA for these guys, especially considering how many of them don't seem to be paying attention to the lectures.

Money Management for Idiots

<><>


I’ve been thinking about the whole Social Security/Income Tax/Medicare reform thing for a little while, from the perspective of those whistling wonders, the naysayers who cry out oh-so-desperately that there is no crisis, here, at hand, or on the way. I tried to leave out the obvious political whores, who would say anything for political gain. I will leave the reader to imagine how empty the halls of Congress are when that process is employed.

Anyway, a quick review of the Dow Jones History shows the rises and falls for more than a century, certainly a reasonable time frame. Since 1900, the Dow Jones Average has risen from 66.61 (January 3, 1900) to 10815.3 (June 5, 2000) . Even with the Great Depression, it's impossible to miss the fact that simply investing in an Index Fund produces historically strong returns.

The Social Security Administration has a calculator for people who want to figure out what they'll be getting from SSA, assuming it exists when the tiome comes. As an example, let's run the numbers for an average guy. The results for someone making $50,000 who is now 45 and retiring at age 75, projects $1,392.00 a month in SSA benefits. Contributions from age 22 to retirement, assuming $40,000 in average salary means (at 6.2%) an average of $2,480.00 contributed a year for 53 years, or $131,440.00 put in.

Taking the numbers then and plugging them in as a Stock Market investment, let’s say our guy averages that $2,480.00 each year over the years from 1982 to now. By 1997, my stock portfolio is worth all the money I will have invested by 2035. By 2009, I will have $576,376.05 in the portfolio, enough to pay me 1,440 a month to live on, better than Social Security can promise 26 years later. If I keep putting in that money, at that average rate, I will have $1.6 million saved by the time I am 60 years old. I could retire fifteen years earlier than with Social Security, and give myself $83,000 a year to live off (never touching the principal, by the way, which I can give to my children), against waiting another fifteen years in hopes the government will grant me $16,704 a year.

Even if there is no crisis, how big an idiot do you have to be to not understand the difference here?

Just for fun, I'll be plugging in numbers for various time frames, to determine a best-case/worst-case career investment based on actual stock market performance.

World Coalescence Countdown

...
..
..
.
I was reading the book of Daniel yesterday, and it occurred to me that the book was in large part about seals. The entire book was about end times, and even within the book, there were things which confused Daniel – he reported them faithfully, even though he was perplexed by them. One of the lessons then, is that some things won’t happen until it’s their time. And that applies to the world as well.

There have been some comparisons between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and well there should be. But it occurs to me, that as President Bush is finally beginning to receive credit long-overdue for his efforts to spread Democracy through the world, that it didn’t hurt for the timing to work out as it has.

It took courage, make no mistake of that, for President Bush to go into Iraq when he did. Bush risked losing the 2004 election on that decision, and what’s more, was seriously concerned about the potential cost in lives, and the permanent effect on the region. But unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush made his decision based on the right moral course, not only for America, but for Democracy in general, and he is now seeing results that simply would not have happened without his conviction and stamina. It also helps that Bush saw the time was right for this action.

The Middle East, as we know it today, emerged from the control of the Ottoman Empire after World War One. Essentially, there were three initial factions – the British controlled Egypt, the coastlands which became Israel, Jordan, and present-day Iraq, the French controlled what became Syria, Libya, and Lebanon, and Ibn Saud made a deal for his family to control Arabia, at the time believed to be largely worthless sand, with a bit of oil under it. The boundary lines were artificial, cutting off cultures, races, and historical routes. After World War Two, a number of these countries had tried to accomplish independence through ill-made treaties with the Nazis, and so they found themselves subjected yet again, this time to either the Soviets or the Europeans. The Americans offered the semblance of independence, but usually only on terms favorable to U.S. businesses or the military. The region also gained strategic value, due to its geographical position joining three continents.

I mentioned that brief history, to give a rough idea to the reader, of just how alien the concept of true independence and representative government is, to the peoples in these nations. This does not mean, at all, that they are not ready for it, but that the forces wishing to establish a responsive government truly representative to their people, have had much to overcome. During the Cold War, the United States was opposed by the Soviet Union in many places, and even after that, the nations of continental Europe resisted giving up their lucrative arrangements, even to the extent of selling arms to dictators. I have always found it amusing to count the cries against the U.S. for long-ago mistakes, while those same speakers ignored current and increasing complicity by France, Germany, and Russia in the arming of terrorists. Or did you think Hezbollah made its guns by wishing for them, its bombs by a clever trick with dirt?

When Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi tanks across the border into Kuwait in 1990, he set off the first stroke in a set of events that has gained momentum to the present moment. The first Gulf War proved, absolutely, that the military force of the United States was unparalleled in power and capability. No one even comes close. This set the stage for discussions between many Arab nations, and although those initial talks failed, they were not completely forgotten. In fact, it may reasonably be speculated that terrorists like bin Laden decided to attack the United States directly, because they realized that America would eventually be able to eradicate their networks, and might do so soon. The reluctance of Bill Clinton to take action spurred these groups into planning direct attacks, and also caused the continental Europeans to show their true colors towards the issue of defending Democracy and Liberty, as the Bosnia debacle showed. The absolute corruption of the United Nations was also made evident in that decade of abysmal negligence, from allowing the genocide in Rwanda, to half-hearted measures in Bosnia, to graft and extortion in the Iraq Oil-for-Food program, to outright rape of children and oppression of millions by UN “peacekeepers” in the Congo and other African countries. By 2001, it was clear that the United States, for good or ill, stood almost alone. When we were struck on September 11, it was not only the brazen assault on thousands of innocents by terrorists, it was also a desperate attempt by the forces of evil to bluff the U.S. out of a clear mission. President Bush called that bluff, and has not minced words or proposed half-measures in answering the call.

Do I think the Middle East is now suddenly a happy place of free peoples and true independence? Of course not. We have a lot of work to do, but the ball is rolling. Afghanistan and Iraq have had free elections, and nothing said by the Left can change those facts. We have scared Libya into promising to give up its WMDs, and the people of Lebanon have risen up to throw off a generation of Syrian occupation. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, even Iran have also seen stirrings of a demand for free elections and a responsive government, not by American diplomats, but by their own people. The sparks in a few places are catching on, and frankly, the movement underway now is the most promising thing I have seen in that region in my lifetime. Count the tasks ahead, but count the victories, also.

What about North Korea, some ask? What about China? What, indeed. North Korea has begun to show signs of discontent among its people for their “Dear Leader” and his plans to keep them poor and cold and starving. Nuclear weapons are useless against your own people. And as for China? In 1989, more than a million people tested the notion that China could be free. Then, the PRA killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, and imprisoned thousands more to silence them. Now, the stirrings are beginning again, and this time, there is no guarantee that the government can put it down. The leaders of China may not be wise, but they are not yet complete fools. They may be counted on to make the best deal possible, and while they will tell themselves they are destined for victory, the fact is that more than half of their army spends time working in factories and guarding prisons, to bolster the PRC GDP and guard against the mendacious plots of the Falun Gong, who somehow threaten the regime by exercise and meditation. They find it necessary to occupy Nepal with more troops than the Soviets used in Poland, in order to quell Buddhist monks. The PRC is known to have stolen important plans from the United States, yet has as yet been unable to develop a true ICBM, or a long-range bomber, or a functioning aircraft carrier. China is often described as a rising power in International Trade, yet no independent authority exists to audit their books. If we have learned anything from the Enron debacle, it is that corrupt executives in large organizations will lie to the auditors, and if we have learned anything from the Soviet Union, it is that any nation run by a ‘Politburo’ or ‘Central Committee’ is filled with corrupt executives.

It may well depend on the character of the President who succeeds George W. Bush, but at this moment I would submit that the powers in China, like the old regimes in the Middle East, are discovering that there is a clock on their dominion.

And that clock is counting down.

The Hard Option

[][][]
The American Revolution means different things to different people, but it’s reasonable to believe that it started small, as a minority of people who got sick of continuing the old way of things. I mention this, because it shows the arrogance and false logic of Justice Kennedy’s excuses in the Roper v. Simmons atrocity he delivered yesterday, complicit with four other elitist judges. It’s a fair assumption that none of these worthies has spent more than a few minutes in the general population in the past decade, to so disparage the rights of juries, states, and to so naively frame the threat posed by juvenile murderers in particular. Enough of that, except to say that I fully expect these charlatans to have a hard time of it, when they stand to account for this decision before the Almighty.

American History was never meant to be complicated nor overly technical. Any competent high school student understands the process - The Executive Branch (President) directs actions and proposes budgets and treaties and appointments; The Legislative Branch (Congress) enacts laws and ratifies treaties and amendments to the Constitution, and the Judiciary (Courts) insure that the laws are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. The notion that any of these branches may take on a powers beyond those specifically apportioned by the Constitution, is treasonous by definition. In the past, Presidents have been impeached (A Johnson, Clinton) and censured (Jackson) for such arrogance, and Congressmen have gone to jail (J Traficant) for crossing the lines the way these Justices have done with apparent impunity. It’s clear enough to many Americans, that the time for reform of American Government is well overdue.

I have been looking at the major political events in my lifetime, and one thing which strikes me over and over again, is the way that accomplishments are short-lived; it’s as if a reformer accomplishes one good measure, then loses interest in the movement, allowing for corruption and a shallow routine to take the place of genuine reform. Consider the Property Tax revolt in California which led to the passage of “Prop 13”; that was a clear message, yet Legislators are still wrestling with the balance between fiscal responsibility and playing santa claus with endless social programs. On the Federal level, the problem has simply become a recurring obscenity; one can scarcely imagine the founding fathers setting up a government intended to regulate nearly every aspect of our lives, to put up laws by men who are almost never accessible, much less answerable, to the people governed, and to pass taxes which never end and which are based on a code which even the IRS admits no one person is likely to be able to fully understand.

I was born in 1960, which saw the contentious election of, arguably, the last sane Democrat to occupy the Oval Office. The Democrats brave enough to lead America in the Second World War, however, were not resolved to keep our promises to Vietnam and Cambodia. The Republicans who were wise enough to back Ronald Reagan when he faced down the Soviets, were not tough enough to stand behind George H.W. Bush when the Democrats lied their way back into the White House. The Democrats would stand neither for the wisdom of the Contract With America, nor would they fully embrace Bill Clinton. And now, with the success of George W. Bush’s policies in War and the Economy proven to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, and no end of nations eager for the chance to govern themselves, the Republicans recoil from the hard work of meeting the challenges W has presented them. The Republicans have a clear majority in both houses of Congress. The question is, will they have the resolve to do as they have promised, and reform the Courts, Taxes, Social Security, Foreign Policy, and Medicare, or were those just election-year promises?

More than a month ago, I sent out a questionnaire to every member of the Senate and House of Representatives. The response, so far, was pathetically underwhelming. My own Senators have not responded at all, nor has my Congressman. That silence, I realize, speaks to the method of their routine, but it also confirms that it is time that we stopped knocking politely on the door, and began to kick the thing, hard. Whether you are Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or anything else, it is obvious that our leaders have become complacent cows, munching on the pastures they have known for years. When the Supreme Court ignores the basic rights of a jury to mete out an appropriate sentence, or when the Senate Majority Leader equivocates on an absolute need, or puts critical needs on a back burner, or Republican Leaders play games with promises made in the election, it is time to answer in no uncertain terms. I would counsel the Republican Leaders, to show your stripes. If you are Republican, then stick with President Bush, and stop playing games. If you are Leaders, then take the challenge up and pass what has been promised. I may be Republican, but I and other blogs will hold you accountable. Do not dare to think that promises are enough, or that you get a pass for playing the part of the Conservative. The President could have been speaking to you, when he warned the world: ”You’re either with us, or against us.”

Pick a side. We’re watching.

Justice Denied

..
..
The United States Supreme Court yesterday proved how utterly out of touch they are, from the Constitution of the United States and the general welfare of the people.

In the case of Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons, the USSC ruled 5 to 4 that a murderer who kills his/her victims before the felon reaches his/her 18th birthday, cannot be executed for that crime, regardless of any factors meriting such a punishment.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision, and in so doing cited the 8th and 14th Amendments were violated in assigning the death penalty to Christopher Simmons, for the crime of premeditated murder. Not only did Simmons admit he planned the murder beforehand, bragged about it afterwards to numerous persons, he also recruited Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer into the crime with the specific promise that 'they could "get away with it" because they were minors'. In short, Justice Kennedy assisted a murderer in his effort to suborn the consequences of his crime.

Justice Kennedy claimed a "national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles", but faild to cite compelling evidence supporting such a claim. Further, Kennedy failed to address the clear distinction between a child being put to death, against the fact of a man not even arrested and tried for the crime until he was legally an adult, as in Simmons' case. Kennedy cited a 1968 sociology book as if it were empirical evidence (Identity: Youth and Crisis, by E. Erikson (c)1968) , and demanded that the United States submit to International Consensus ("the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments"). Kennedy even cited treaties to which the U.S. is neither signatory nor participant!

Justice Stevens concurred with Kennedy, claiming that "our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time", going so far as to claim that Alexander Hamilton, were he alive today, would agree with Justice Kennedy.

Justice O'Connor dissented, stating bluntly "The Court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court's moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling." O'Connor went on to note, "the Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case. Nor has it been shown that capital sentencing juries are incapable of accurately assessing a youthful defendant's maturity or of giving due weight to the mitigating characteristics associated with youth."

Justice Scalia also dissented, stating "What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed". Scalia went on to observe "the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter". Scalia also noted "the basic premise of the Court's argument--that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world--ought to be rejected out of hand. In fact the Court itself does not believe it. In many significant respects the laws of most other countries differ from our law--including not only such explicit provisions of our Constitution as the right to jury trial and grand jury indictment, but even many interpretations of the Constitution prescribed by this Court itself. The Court-pronounced exclusionary rule, for example, is distinctively American".

The damage is done, and here is where we stand now:

[] Convicted murderers have their lives and health protected to a degree they have never enjoyed before, even as the unborn child has no legal protection whatsoever, innocent as it is;

[] The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow States to decide the punishment for capital crimes, regardless of the will of the voters;

[] The U.S. Supreme Court does not trust juries to make the appropriate decision in the specific cases of heinous crimes;

[] The U.S. Supreme Court does not trust the United States Constitution to mean what it says, but demands an "evolving" interpretation;

[] Unelected judges, unanswerable to any authority on this earth, have taken upon themselves powers only seen up to now in the hands of dictators and tyrants, without any Constitutional authority or consent of the people affected by their decisions;

[] A message has just been sent to teen gangs and violent youth offenders, that they will not be held accountable for their actions to the same degree as adults. That is, the U.S. Supreme Court has just validated the gang technique of using juveniles for violent crimes, knowing they will escape the most serious consequences;

[] The United States Supreme Court has sent the clearest possible message, that they do not consider themselves bound by the restrictions and responsibilities that other branches of government must accept. Accordingly, there can no longer be any doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court must be reformed to redress this violation of the Constitutional apportionment of powers.

In case you wondered if it still matters who you vote for in Senate of Presidential races (2006-2008-2010), consider where we will be if certain parties or ideologies win these races.

Mr. Frist, it's time for the talk to end, and to "go Nuclear" NOW in the Senate, to make sure we get sober, sane, judges on the bench. We simply cannot take the chance that even more justices like Ginsberg, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, or Breyer will get their claws into power.

Viruses

/ < >
\/

I have been out the past few days, laid low by a case of food poisoning, and a subsequent punishment meted out by my intestinal tract. I will spare you the details, except to warn you to check out the expiration dates on your foods.

As it happens, I also discovered a Trojan Horse on my computer, along with an assortment of viruses sent to me. Apparently, they are a new generation my existing defenses couldn’t whack. Great. I’m working on getting rid of them with a couple new things.

That brings me to the obvious topic of viruses. As I sit here, wondering if I can coax my stomach to accept some soup, and I’m feeling the effects of a mild fever and some annoying but also-mild vertigo, I’m a bit annoyed by the fact that viruses generally don’t announce themselves. You’re fine, you’re fine, you’re fine – wham.

The thing about viruses is, they don’t know any better, they just do what they do. From what I understand, viruses can actually be good in some cases, even if they are just a small virus that inoculates a person against something nastier, like a childhood disease protecting the adult later on. In other cases, there doesn’t seem to be a worthwhile purpose for some viruses, but they exist and we must deal with that fact.

Politically, the virus question naturally finds some relevance in debates between Democrats and Republicans, and between the Old and New Media. Like a virus, the body may be weakened or strengthened by fighting off the invader, or if the invader wins, the virus becomes the new paradigm. I’ve noted before that the Democrats of today bear little resemblance to Andy Jackson’s Democrats, or the Democrats under Franklin Pierce, or the Democrats under Grover Cleveland, or the Democrats under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, or John Kennedy. In their turn, the Republicans of today do not look all that much like the Republicans under Lincoln, under Hayes, under Taft, Harding, Eisenhower, or Nixon. The times change, sometimes drastically, and we are at just such a turning.

It’s always amusing to see each side try to paint the other as the invader to the American body politic, when in fact we all are trying to direct the course as time and events move us forward. I will venture to say that the New Media represents the virus here, but that’s because the Old Media has become a cancer (in the definition that a cancer is a malignant growth that will kill the body if it is not stopped). Blogs, then, are the scalpels, which explains why DufusUnderground and DailyKooks (I think you know which I mean) are hurting themselves by their own efforts; they’re like clumsy wannabes who don’t know what they ‘re doing. And in the end, the New Media will become the standard, absorbing from the OM what works and has value as a gathering tool for news, while the best blogs will develop into news analysis networks worthy of the name.

In the meantime, I will be seeking out topics worthy of a blog, and a healthcare product which can completely remove the room-spinning and headache qualities of my present condition.

The Next Generation of Politics

[]
[]

Every generation goes through the vanity that they have discovered something truly unique. In some cases, the belief is renewed that the new generation has found a new truth. Sometimes it's even true.

I think we've reached that place in American Politics again. Reading through Craig Shirley's book about the 1976 Republican primary race, "Reagan's Revolution", I was struck by Shirley's insights - and his mistakes, as well. Comes with perspective, that.

There is a lot of talk right now about the Democrats being at a crossroads. That's true; the Democrats have been losing every level I can see for the better part of the last ten years. They have not won the White House since 1996, and have not had a majority Popular Vote in a Presidential race since 1976. They have lost control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and continue to lose both proportion of the Congress, and relevance in their participation. It is not unreasonable to say the Democratic Party is in crisis.

The same is true of the Republican Party, however. Even with the majority control in Congress, there is doubt about the fate of some major initiatives, as some Republicans refuse to follow the leadership. The "big tent" philosophy of the GOP means that they do not always have the votes to follow through.

This brings us to the next generation of voters. In addition to the traditional tools, the Internet in general, and Blogs in particular, provide options and research material, as well as in-depth analysis, that was simply never available before.

The question now, is whether people will make use of the tools. Call me cautiously optimistic.

There was a lot of talk in the blogs about Ra^thergate, but politically, the big event was the Trent Lott scandal. Blogs wouldn't let Lott skate on what was a relatively small mis-statement. I don't think, personally, that Lott should have stepped down as a result, but there is no question the blogs had an unexpected impact, and politicians now realize they can not afford to ignore the trend. Most Congressmen at least make an effort to be available by email and website, and while most are still unable to communicate effectiovely with blogs (preferring the comfort zone of their Old Media habits, even though the OM reaches a smaller and smaller audience), the smart ones are learning to make their positions clear on the Web.

On the other end, both Democrats and Republicans have greatly improved their grass roots organizations. Groups which used to be productive only in fund-raising are much, much better at getting information out, and in energizing their base, a fundamental reason turnout was drastically up in the 2004 elections. Of course, that means now that in addition to getting mailers about the parties, you will be a lot more likely to get emails from the parties, but this will also be more likely from the local and county level. At least, that's my prediction for the next development.

Step Up To The Plate

*--===

Every so often, I like to explore idioms. A comedian (I forget which, I’m sorry to say) once observed the United States will never successfully be invaded, because we Americans say things in ways which our formal language doesn’t understand. By the time our invaders figure out how to speak as we do, we’ll have moved on to another way of speaking. In the process though, we sometimes confuse ourselves.

Corie Schweitzer, at Insane Troll Logic, addresses the idiom, “step up to the plate”. Ms. Schweitzer did this in correcting a mis-statement by Miss Alli at Television Without Pity. Corie correctly notes that “In baseball, the question "whose [sic] going to step up the plate" is not about "whose turn is it." The question actually means, "who's going to be our power hitter?" or "who's going to hit one for the team?" . But that answer was not really satisfying enough for me, certainly not enough to explain the popularity of the term.

I love baseball. It’s part of why I became an umpire (OK, it’s also a cool feeling when Mustang League teams ask for you to work their games, because they think you do a cool Elvis impression when you call strikes) . And part of that love for the game, is seeing what players are made of.

Baseball is a good metaphor for Life, in no small part because the game will screw with you. A pitcher will be working his best stuff for three of four innings, then all of a sudden he can’t find the plate. A batter will pound two line drives for loud outs, then end up getting on base because he misjudges the swing and the ball plinks its way past two or three infielders as if it has a mind of its own. Other times, Baseball is relentlessly cruel: If you make a mistake, it will come back and bite you 90% of the time, whether you are a batter, fielder, pitcher, catcher, coach or umpire. You will also see the impossible at least once a week.

Into that strange pocket universe of the ball park, comes the question of stepping up to the plate. If you have never played baseball (no, softball does not count), you’ve never known the feeling of setting your stance with a bat in your hands, and trying to anticipate the pitch. As a little leaguer, even a slow pitch will seem fast to you. And by the time you reach the PONY league, pitchers will be able to put down a decent 80 mph fastball. I remember a rookie catcher settling into a crouch behind the plate for his first game situation in a high school game, and asking ex-Houston Astro Jose Cruz, who was visiting, the difference between a high school pitcher and a major leaguer. “Simple” shrugged Cruz, “they both throw hard, but the major leaguer can better control where the ball goes.” As if on cue, the next pitch was a high fastball, which zinged off the catcher’s facemask and my chest protector.

Now, imagine you are standing in the batter’s box, waiting for a pitch which could come in at more than ninety miles an hour. You know that if you back off a little, you will be a lot less likely to get hit, especially since you get a fraction more reaction time. And the pitcher likes it, when you give him the whole batter’s box for his own territory, forfeiting areas which would be a strike, but you can’t reach by backing off. Or, you can crowd the plate a little, forcing the pitcher to be more accurate, pitch slower, or take the chance of hitting you and giving up a base. Trouble is, the pitcher won’t like that, and more than a few will throw a ‘brush-back’ pitch, which are no fun at all. On a bad day, the pitcher will send a lesson and put one into your ribs. So, it’s not easy to “step up to the plate”; you may be sorry you did.

THAT’s what “step up to the plate” really means. It’s taking the chance you’ll get hurt for a small reward, doing the hard job because it’s necessary. There’s a lot of players who’ll choose to take the easy way, hoping someone else will do the job, and there’s plenty who’ll swing wildly and hope they get lucky. But a coach looks for the player willing to take on the tough job, to meet the responsibility when no one else will.

It’s rare anywhere, but it’s real.

2008 Presidential Election

<><>
<><>
It must seem like a parlor game, to be discussing the 2008 Presidential election this far out, but in reality, it may be vital to consider the political landscape in order to avoid damaging mistakes.

For the Democrats, it is time to make a radical change. VP Gore couldn't win in 2000, in a period of peace and stability. Senator Kerry couldn't win in 2004, even with massive Hollywood support and foreign money, and an Old Media determined to beat President Bush, even committing fraud in the effort. Democrats control less of Congress since any time since the days of Calvin Coolidge. The Dems won't play around in '08. That means, about 98%, that they will roll out their biggest gun: Hilary Clinton.

For the Republicans, it's not necessarily a cake walk. Looking back, the Democrats and Republicans have both found it hard to hold the White House, even as the Oval Office gains more and more influence and power. GHW Bush made it 3 straight for the GOP in 1988, and before that, Truman's 1948 win over Dewey was the 5th straight Democrat White House win. Before that, you have three by the GOP in 1920-28, and before that, 4 more in 1896-1908**. I see a trend there. The Republicans have been able to rack up three straight three times, and because of FDR, the Democrats took 5 in a row at one stretch. The GOP once took six straight, from Lincoln's win in 1860 through Garfield's win in 1880 (although the 1876 election makes this one a lot more iffy). But if you take out Reconstruction (when the Democrats were too weak to really compete), and the New Deal (when Republicans were really as ignored, as the Old Media wishes they would be), the pattern is remarkablly constant: A party may get a term or two, and sometimes a popular President is followed by someone of the same party, but usually only for one more term. Except for very unusual conditions, a party doesn't get more than 3. That means that the GOP is probably looking at one of two conditions:

1. The 2008 GOP Candidate loses; or
2. The 2008 GOP Candidate should plan to have only one term.

This is not cast in stone, by any means, but if the Bush Doctrine is going to get the support it needs, we need to make sure the GOP puts the best candidate out there.

Let's clear the decks quickly: A GOP Senator or Congressman for the Nomination is a clear, loud vote - to give away the White House. Especially since there is no Senator or Congressman in the GOP right now, who excites the nation and represents the sort of vision that George W. Bush does. Yes, there are some good people there. But no Presidents, not right now.

Well, maybe we don't need to know who to pursue right now? Sorry, but yes we do. George W. Bush was a name long before he became a contender. In 1996, people across the nation knew his name. Same, as it happens, for Bill Clinton. He ran late, but got the word out early - he spoke at the 1988 DNC, as a matter of fact. Ronald Reagan was the clear frontrunner for the GOP 1980 ticket, as soon as he stepped off the RNC stage in 1976. And so on. If we don't start moving now, we Republicans are conceding the lead and the momentum to Hillary Clinton, and there's no mistake about that.

OK, so whom do we pursue? Governors are always good for Executive elections, epsecially from a Southern state or a large one. The trouble is, Jeb is not running, and shouldn't. Arnold is not eligible. And Mitt is not from a large Southern state. Sorry, our best chance is not in a governor's mansion right now. As it happens, our best candidate is already at the White House, but in a different chair. If the Republican candidate for President of the United States wins in 2008, it will be because the GOP nominates Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

I hear the disbelief from here. 'She has no resume for the office!', some cry. 'We don't know if she's Conservative enough!' cry others. The funny thing is, those work to her advantage.

Dr. Rice, to begin, is certainly smart and tough enough to run. And I'm going to laugh at anyone trying to toss off the objections about her marital status, race, or gender. The simple facts are these:

No one has to be married to be qualified. The problem in the past has always been, that parties tried so hard to look like the demographic norm (white, married, kids, mortgage) that only cookie-cutter candidates were considered. The road to a long political career is built on that image, that's true. But if you're running as an outsider, who has ideas instead of cronies, who thinks instead of needing to be told what the platform has to be, the wedding ring is as obsolete as the powdered wig.

The only reason that a black has never been President, is that the Democrat and Republican parties were not willing or able to produce a viable black candidate, with true executive skills and a firm grasp of the national priorities. Dr. Rice has those credentials; consider as an example her steely cool under fire from the 9/11 ('Get Bush') Committee. The last black American with this sort of courage and composure was another Doctor, by the name of King, and I am not stretching anything by that comparison.

There are, admittedly, issues with getting people to vote for a woman. On the other hand, the broad support for Hillary Clinton among Democrats shows that gender is not really the issue it was claimed to be, and only the severely demented think that Democrats are less sexist than Republicans. And there is no Republican with better name recognition and a more favorable rep with most voters. That's the Trump card here: Hillary owns the Democrats, Republicans will line up behind Condit, and the swing voters will have a clear choice, and I think that works strongly for Condi.

OK, but what about the issues? Let's start with the big one: We are at war with Terrorism, as in the United States is in a serious, prolonged war to eradicate state-sponsored Terrorism from the globe. With her academic work in the field, her experience as National Security Advisor, and now heading up the State Department, Dr. Rice clearly has qualifications in this area unmatched by any other living person. And there is no second issue that really rises to the level of National Security right now.

On the secondary issues, I should think the former Provost of Stanford would know about delegating tasks and picking qualified advisors in Economics, the Judiciary, and so on. And Dr. Rice has never shown any personal beliefs which are incompatible with the Platform of the Republican Party.

The "litmus" issues? Let's be serious; If Rice were extreme in any direction, we'd have heard by now, and in any case, she resonates with W. That should speak about where her head and heart are - with the Nation.

The task is simple then: Either the GOP vets Dr. Rice in preparation for her 2008 run, finds a diamond hidden in a governor's mansion somewhere in the West or South, or they can load up on lip balm for kissing the shoes of Hillary. As for me, I'm pushing to get Dr. Rice interested in being called "President Rice".


UPDATE: I was not the first, and there seems to already be a movement in the works. Thanks to Ankle Biting Pundits, I have found out about a group founded on November 14, 2004 (Rice's birthday).

Check out 'Americans For Rice'.

** UPDATE II: Boethius reminded me, that with McKinley 1896 and 1900, Teddy 1904, and Taft 1908, the GOP took four straight in that string, not three as I mis-recalled.

The Nuclear Family 2005 - Why GWB Is On the Right Course

[][][]

At the end of August 1945, the United States had unquestionably established itself as the dominant military force in the world. As often happens, Irony was present in this historical point, as the greatest power rested with the major country least inclined to use that power to colonialize territory or subjugate its opponents. Envy, as usual, was present in the collected councils of our enemies. The Soviet Union was well aware that the premier weapons systems in the world were American, along with the best supplies, best trained men, and so on. The Soviets had us beat for numbers, but understood well that we were unmatched strategically. That is why the desperate Soviets scrambled for the secret to nuclear weapons; the Kremlin honestly believed their survival as a regime depended upon it. In August 1949, with the help of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, the Soviet Union successfully tested an atomic bomb.

Why the History lesson? Because of what came next. During the 1950s, the United States and USSR each worked feverishly to develop superior nuclear weapons, and to develop a strategy which could make them work for victory in a global conflict. Along the way, both countries struggled with experimental accidents, lost weapons, and incidents which threatened an unforeseen initiation of nuclear warfare. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is not only noteworthy because of the words and actions of President Kennedy and Premier Khruschev, but also the near-apoplexy of the Joint Chiefs and the Soviet Command at the rejection of their warnings and cautions in advance of the standoff. During the 1960s and 1970s, a number of incidents in the Middle East, the India-Pakistan Wars, and in Southeast Asia also provoked situations to heighten tensions. The SALT and SALT II negotiations, in addition to anything else, were attempts to get the other side to agree that a nuclear war would be prevented if at all possible, that nuclear arsenals would be kept only because they could not be safely discarded. Granted, the Soviets hoped during the Carter years to persuade the United States to abandon nuclear weapons unilaterally, but there is no evidence the Soviets believed it would ever actually happen.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a series of events changed the world radically, so far as the USA-USSR conflict was considered. In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. In 1980, Chairman Breshznev suggested to the Politburo that an invasion of Western Europe might be feasible, but he fell ill shortly after that meeting and never recovered. Two Chairmen later, Yuri Andropov, the former KGB head who succeeded Konstantin Chernenko ordered a test-firing of all missile silos for the first time in Soviet history. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Navy suffered a mutiny at Murmansk and Andropov suddenly died.

There has been a lot written about the discussions between Chairman Gorbachev and President Reagan, but we may never know the details behind those talks. I do know this; there is no evidence that Gorbachev ever thought of nuclear weapons as a useful strategic weapon, only as a deterrent, first against a possible US first strike, then later against insurrection by muslim fanatics to his South and Northwest. In fact , many of his agreements with the US after 1986 were intended to help protect Russia from attack by the breakaway republics.

The point to all of this, is that nuclear weapons are not weapons in the nominal sense, at all. Nations fall into four broad categories, where they are concerned:

1. Nations which do not possess nuclear weapons – there is a general consensus among the nations which have nukes, not to allow the proliferation of them. This is precisely why Iran and North Korea have tried to conceal their programs; they fear an Osirak-style raid.
2. Nations which have a small number of nuclear weapons, but not developed them into any sort of tactical/strategic plan. This where we see Iran, North Korea, and most likely South Africa. I will come back to this set in a moment.
3. Nations which possess a nuclear arsenal. This is demonstrated by aircraft of ships built and tested for the purpose of delivering the weapons reliably.
4. The United States.

Nuclear weapons are not sturdy things. They have to be carefully built and stored, and only work optimally under very strict conditions. While it is possible to set off a 'dirty' explosion using an old nuclear weapon by any number of means, all that really does is provide ample justification for a full-scale retaliatory strike, and that includes groups which acquire them. 9/11 changed the rules on fighting Terrorism; does anybody really think that a radioactive bomb will not provoke a devastating response? We don't have to know the exact location of a group to land a nuke on them, especially if we are reacting to the deaths of 10,000 or more innocents on our side. Even the most unstable dictator understands that, which is why neither Syria nor Iran, North Korea nor Cuba, has allowed a nuclear device into the hands of a terrorist group.

That brings me to the United States. Pray to God it never happens, but even if every nation which has nukes right now decided to attack the United States, we still have the capability to utterly destroy every one of them. As much as nations hate the United States (for whatever motive), you don't attack a guy if he can kill you and all of your family, but you can't kill all of his.

Back to Set 2. Many leaders believe in fairy tales. Not the ones with princesses and happy endings - the ones with them becoming some sort of world power. The reason is different, but what thy all have in common where nukes are concerned, is the myth that if they get a nuclear weapon, everyone will have to show them respect. All it really does, is get attention to the fact that they represent a danger, and that gets weapons pointed at them. I mentioned Iran - they seem to think that no one can attack them if they have a nuke. Actually, all that does is change the order of bombs, pal. And North Korea? Short Leader Kim Makes Me Ill is hoping to bargain his way into money and supplies, since his style of government is killing off his people. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd say that what is far more likely, is that some military leader will arrange for a sudden accident for the Short Leader, followed by abolition of the NK nuclear program as a sign of good faith to the South (meaning South Korea and Japan). As for Syria, they have been on a Wanted poster for a long time. I wouldn't want to be anyone named "Assad" this year or next. The fact that the Bush Administration has not even hinted at talks, tells me Syria is going to get a special treatment, but not one Assad can prepare against.

This doesn't mean, by any stretch, that the world can relax from the dangers of nuclear weapons. There are still well over 80,000 nuclear weapons scattered over the place, and even the ones not fit for warfare are environmental risks to anyone within miles of them. Also, there is no guarantee that one or another terrorist group with more energy than brains won't somehow manage to steal a dirty bomb, and take out their host country along with a number of victims. But the issue needs to be weighed in the balance of what is possible, and who holds the power. And President Bush understands his position, well enough to act boldly in removing the threat by taking out the people most likely to make such a catastrophe possible.

Women Bloggers

<><>
<><>
Lashawn Barber writes about women who blog, and the story by Kevin Drum lamenting their relative lack of numbers. Lashawn tweaks Kevin some, by pointing out that he talks about women bloggers, but doesn’t link to them. That started me thinking.

First off, as to my own credentials. I have annoyed some people in the past, by not choosing to automatically link to everyone. My blogs is pretty small in readership, but I’m pretty picky about who I link to. That is, if someone is on my blogroll, I consider them pretty darn good. With that thought in mind, let’s look at my blogroll. I link to 21 blogs, and three of them are women bloggers (Betsy’s Page, Byrd Droppings, Kitty Litter), and the group blog I write for, Polipundit, has a women on our staff of five. Given the pickings, that’s not too bad. Also, I have mentioned Michelle Malkin and Baldilocks more than just a couple times in my work. My point is not that I am somehow a leader in the equality vanguard, but that I am reasonably familiar with the work of leading women bloggers, enough to speak to the matter.

First off, the obvious: Being man or woman is almost never a quality factoring into the quality of the article. There are some perspectives and experiences unique to the gender, but on the whole, man or woman has nothing to do with the quality of their blog. Looking at the medium, I think I see something more illustrative. Talk Radio is dominated by male personalities, especially the political side of it. I think this is in part, because of the active and energetic dialogue between the host and listeners. And bloggers are very similar to Talk Radio in their method and demographics, except that Air America seems less successful with the sort of outrageous lewd behavior that Howard Stern thrives on. Women, it appears, are more interested in presenting a finished product, free from static or distractions, than men, who are more happy with the rough-and-tumble atmosphere of disjointed debate. You get your insights in more depth from the women bloggers, in shorter shots from the men.

I also notice that there are not only a small number of female political bloggers relative to men, but also the women bloggers are less inclined to allow comments. Michelle Malkin, in particular, has chosen not to allow comments, for the valid and disappointing reason that she receives an inordinate number of profane and insulting attacks from trolls, enough that she has decided to do without comments on her work. Malkin would rather readers focused on what she is saying, and weighing her arguments without the distraction of having to step past pools of vitriol.

Malkin, as I noted, has presented an article explaining her need to exclude comments. In the piece, she printed some of the comments attacking her personally. As uncomfortable as this must be for Ms. Malkin, it also highlights an unfortunate disparity in the mater of blogger respect. To illustrate, I would like to compare Malkin’s blog to another favorite of mine, Vodkapundit. Both Stephen Green and Michelle Malkin, to judge from their photos, are extremely attractive people, model-quality (I leave my own photo off, in order to avoid Quasimodo comparisons). Both are exceptionally intelligent and articulate. Yet Green (whose Site Meter shows more than eight thousand visits on an average day) doesn’t seem to receive the sort of personal attacks and insults that Malkin (forty thousand plus a day) receives. Is it the price of fame (Malkin was an established columnist and well-respected author in her own right, when she first began to blog), or something more due to Racism and Sexism? It’s an old saying that many men fear a woman with a sharp mind and a bold identity; could it be that simple and antiquated?

Whatever the cause, two remedies suggest themselves to this pedestrian-traffic blogger. The first will take care of itself; bloggers cannot help but promote good ideas and arguments, and all bloggers can hope for eventual success if their work is good enough, although the time frame depends on who notices you and when (such is Life; my obvious brilliance is known only to a few, and outnumbered by those who find me delusional). As for the second, I will be upping my blogroll by three sites this morning. It’s an unfortunate oversight that I have not done so before, but considering how often I visit their sites, I need to add Lashawn Barber, Michelle Malkin, and Baldilocks to my roll, and I would commend the reader to consider your own list of recommended sites for an update. The Blogosphere is a community, after all, and we can correct a lot of things on our own.

UPDATE: Reading through this thread, I should also like to note a few other blogs by women that you might consider worth your attention:

The Anchoress ;
Terrorism Unveiled (proof positive I am losing my mind, to have left out this mistress of world events!); and
Insane Troll Logic.

I apologize for being remiss in these acknowledgements of leading and throughly professional bloggers.