..
I will not be blogging for a while.
My father, who will be 82 this June, did not respond to attempts to wake him this morning. The paramedics took him to Memorial City Hospital, where he remained unconscious with a 105-degree fever. They have treated him with a battery of antibiotics, and he has come to some level of semi-consciousness, though not full cognizance.
My family has come together to wait for developments, and so after this announcement I shall be unavailable for a time. I apologize for the absence.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Dominance Games
[ wuf ]
I woke this morning to the sound of a dogfight. My two 20-week old hound puppies, Kyle and Shalo, were mock-fighting with each other, in a dominance game that more than once has crossed over into actual fighting. My vet warned me this could happen, that two puppies would sort out a question of supremacy between themselves; it’s an instinct with them and difficult to train out. I have made it clear to both dogs that I do not approve of any sort of aggression, especially biting, and so when I came out into the yard both dogs immediately stopped, sat up and pretended nothing had happened. In this case Kyle was the main aggressor, so I sat him on top of the trash can for a ‘time out’ and scolded him. He whimpered in the appropriate places that either means he understands he did wrong, or else he has figured out how to say what he thinks I want to hear. Since each dog has crossed 20 pounds in weight, it’s getting to be a big deal to me that they learn to curb their behavior to within the limits taught.
It occurs to me that people are not all that different from dogs. People are social animals that become accustomed to certain routines of behavior and expectations. And like dogs, from time to time certain individuals and groups will exhibit behaviors which must test the patience and forbearance of more mature persons. This is true even up to the level of national policy.
The United States is an odd country, a nation comprised of immigrants and self-created ideals. From what I have read, when we declared our independence from England, most of Europe never figured we would win, and France just backed us in order to weaken England. We very nearly went to war with France just a little while after winning at Yorktown, because of the shabby way in which American freighters were treated. In short order we put together a navy and sent it off to punish pirates off the Barbary Coast. When England invaded us we fought back and established our nation to such a point that no nation has since taken away our land on any coast or battlefield.
We established our nation by a Constitution so effective that dozens of other countries copied it in their own legislatures. We established a military so dominant that we are the acknowledged force of order when so employed. Our money is so ubiquitous that even Communist countries hold reserves of Treasury notes and U.S. currency as a hedge against the weakness of their own money. Our culture pervades everywhere, whether music or literature or mass media. It’s obvious to everyone willing to look, that God has blessed this nation very well and for a very long time.
And for good reason. The United States has symbolized not only the free exercise of faith and personal responsibility, but also the assimilation of all immigrants into an emerging new identity, one which advances Mankind in his best merits. It is no coincidence that America takes the lead in global change. While other nations may begin or support a movement, it always depends on the United States to find its momentum. Without the United States, the League of Nations never had a chance. Once it betrayed the United States, the United Nations lost its right to claim any sort of moral leadership.
As we continue into the Twenty-First century, the world once again looks upon America and is amazed. Afghganistan was supposed to tear us up, but instead it is growing into something better than it has ever been before. Iraq was supposed to be another 'Vietnam', but it has had two free elections and increasingly is able to take careof its own affairs. Al Qaeda has lost more than the Old press will admit, and the U.S. Military looks as strong as ever. Our moral compass is sure, our ideals clean, and we still seem to enjoy God's favor.
Small wonder the enemies of America hate this. To them, we are still the "top dog", and they neither understand nor care that we are not trying to be their superiors, but merely keeping the trust given to us. What we get from France, from Venezuela, from Iran, is no more than a dog's petty dominance game, one which by the Grace of God we shall not lose to them. Not because we deserve the victory, but because we have been trustworthy with that stewardship.
I woke this morning to the sound of a dogfight. My two 20-week old hound puppies, Kyle and Shalo, were mock-fighting with each other, in a dominance game that more than once has crossed over into actual fighting. My vet warned me this could happen, that two puppies would sort out a question of supremacy between themselves; it’s an instinct with them and difficult to train out. I have made it clear to both dogs that I do not approve of any sort of aggression, especially biting, and so when I came out into the yard both dogs immediately stopped, sat up and pretended nothing had happened. In this case Kyle was the main aggressor, so I sat him on top of the trash can for a ‘time out’ and scolded him. He whimpered in the appropriate places that either means he understands he did wrong, or else he has figured out how to say what he thinks I want to hear. Since each dog has crossed 20 pounds in weight, it’s getting to be a big deal to me that they learn to curb their behavior to within the limits taught.
It occurs to me that people are not all that different from dogs. People are social animals that become accustomed to certain routines of behavior and expectations. And like dogs, from time to time certain individuals and groups will exhibit behaviors which must test the patience and forbearance of more mature persons. This is true even up to the level of national policy.
The United States is an odd country, a nation comprised of immigrants and self-created ideals. From what I have read, when we declared our independence from England, most of Europe never figured we would win, and France just backed us in order to weaken England. We very nearly went to war with France just a little while after winning at Yorktown, because of the shabby way in which American freighters were treated. In short order we put together a navy and sent it off to punish pirates off the Barbary Coast. When England invaded us we fought back and established our nation to such a point that no nation has since taken away our land on any coast or battlefield.
We established our nation by a Constitution so effective that dozens of other countries copied it in their own legislatures. We established a military so dominant that we are the acknowledged force of order when so employed. Our money is so ubiquitous that even Communist countries hold reserves of Treasury notes and U.S. currency as a hedge against the weakness of their own money. Our culture pervades everywhere, whether music or literature or mass media. It’s obvious to everyone willing to look, that God has blessed this nation very well and for a very long time.
And for good reason. The United States has symbolized not only the free exercise of faith and personal responsibility, but also the assimilation of all immigrants into an emerging new identity, one which advances Mankind in his best merits. It is no coincidence that America takes the lead in global change. While other nations may begin or support a movement, it always depends on the United States to find its momentum. Without the United States, the League of Nations never had a chance. Once it betrayed the United States, the United Nations lost its right to claim any sort of moral leadership.
As we continue into the Twenty-First century, the world once again looks upon America and is amazed. Afghganistan was supposed to tear us up, but instead it is growing into something better than it has ever been before. Iraq was supposed to be another 'Vietnam', but it has had two free elections and increasingly is able to take careof its own affairs. Al Qaeda has lost more than the Old press will admit, and the U.S. Military looks as strong as ever. Our moral compass is sure, our ideals clean, and we still seem to enjoy God's favor.
Small wonder the enemies of America hate this. To them, we are still the "top dog", and they neither understand nor care that we are not trying to be their superiors, but merely keeping the trust given to us. What we get from France, from Venezuela, from Iran, is no more than a dog's petty dominance game, one which by the Grace of God we shall not lose to them. Not because we deserve the victory, but because we have been trustworthy with that stewardship.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Listen To The Lady
-*-
The Anchoress is always smart and relevant. So I ought to have read this articlebefore today. She says what I have been saying, but with better moral force and eloquence. Especially this section:
Read the whole thing. Then read it again. There is a secure solution, that protects the nation’s security while keeping alive the ideal of America. Let’s work for both goals.
The Anchoress is always smart and relevant. So I ought to have read this articlebefore today. She says what I have been saying, but with better moral force and eloquence. Especially this section:
“We have to think long and hard about what it means - and what it will FEEL like - to gather people together at gunpoint and put them on trains to send them to a place they do not want to go. Our intentions could be the purest and most noble in the world…that scenario still still smacks of history we don’t want associated with us. It sets a precedent we dare not embrace. I don’t want to see such pictures in our history books. That is not America. That cannot be America, if she is to survive.”
Read the whole thing. Then read it again. There is a secure solution, that protects the nation’s security while keeping alive the ideal of America. Let’s work for both goals.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Restating The Obvious
Sadly, this needs to be said again, and again, and again.
Are there evil men in Islam? Of course, but only a bigot pretends that Islam is ipso facto evil because of it. I can say this, and I have, because the numbers simply do not bear out the charge. 1.4 Billion practicing Muslims, and only about 13,000 acts of terrorism since 9/11. Yes, that’s only one dimension, but it’s a fact that almost no one is willing to admit to, and it’s salient.
I could tell you real-life stories of Hindus just as evil, including a family which killed their daughter for marrying the man she loved instead of the arranged groom. I could tell you about a group of Buddhist businessmen I knew about, who murdered a colleague in order to obtain his fortune. Evil is individual in most cases, and in Islam it is the Jihadists, not the Muslims as a whole, who are the enemy.
Now some continue to demand that all the Muslims around the world act as they demand. But in fact, the places which get the attention about what the Muslims do are in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. I am not going to write a dissertation in detail here, but just as a comparison, have you noticed all the jack-asses protesting against Immigration Reform? Look how much press they get, and the image being sent around the world is that the American people don’t want this reform, when the fact is the exact opposite. Now, I am not going to argue endlessly about this with people, but I continue to contend this is something where blaming the whole for the sins of the few does nothing to solve the problem, to win over the doubters, or to prove a moral foundation on our part.
I know good Muslims, I know bad Muslims. I know some Muslims here in Houston, and a few in the Middle East. From my experience, they’re no better or worse as a whole than Americans or Christians or anyone else. They’re people - imagine that.
Are there evil men in Islam? Of course, but only a bigot pretends that Islam is ipso facto evil because of it. I can say this, and I have, because the numbers simply do not bear out the charge. 1.4 Billion practicing Muslims, and only about 13,000 acts of terrorism since 9/11. Yes, that’s only one dimension, but it’s a fact that almost no one is willing to admit to, and it’s salient.
I could tell you real-life stories of Hindus just as evil, including a family which killed their daughter for marrying the man she loved instead of the arranged groom. I could tell you about a group of Buddhist businessmen I knew about, who murdered a colleague in order to obtain his fortune. Evil is individual in most cases, and in Islam it is the Jihadists, not the Muslims as a whole, who are the enemy.
Now some continue to demand that all the Muslims around the world act as they demand. But in fact, the places which get the attention about what the Muslims do are in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. I am not going to write a dissertation in detail here, but just as a comparison, have you noticed all the jack-asses protesting against Immigration Reform? Look how much press they get, and the image being sent around the world is that the American people don’t want this reform, when the fact is the exact opposite. Now, I am not going to argue endlessly about this with people, but I continue to contend this is something where blaming the whole for the sins of the few does nothing to solve the problem, to win over the doubters, or to prove a moral foundation on our part.
I know good Muslims, I know bad Muslims. I know some Muslims here in Houston, and a few in the Middle East. From my experience, they’re no better or worse as a whole than Americans or Christians or anyone else. They’re people - imagine that.
Border Security
[0]
When the idiots shouting all those slogans and insults, on both the Left and on the Right, finally shut up long enough to let the sober and the mature address the issues of moment, the basic issues become clear, although the inevitable renewal of braying from the whiners obscures their discovery too often. In the case of sorting out Immigration Reform and also addressing National Security, a common priority shows up: Border Security. What to do about the millions of illegals already here is one concern, but there needs to be a means for reducing, ideally stopping, the flow of more illegal immigrants to the United States.
The United States has more problems with its borders than people realize. In addition to the much-publicized southern land border with Mexico, there is the all-too-often-ignored border with Canada, but there is also the Virtual Border; that network of sea and air ports which allow foreigners entry to the United States from thousands of locations along the coasts and in countless towns and cities. If we are to be serious about the National Security aspects of Border Control, we have to acknowledge that the known terrorist cells have flown or driven into the United States. While the use of ‘coyotes’ is a disturbing possibility that needs attention, we must not forget the use of ubiquitous travel services already known to serve the needs of Al Qaeda and other terror groups.
Now, there have been a lot of people saying one thing or another to accuse President George W. Bush of neglecting Border Security. The Customs and Border Patrol offices of the DHS report that for Fiscal Year 2005, CBP had a budget of $6.457 Billion and 40,636 Full-Time Employees. For Fiscal 2006 that was increased to $7.144 Billion and 41,986 Full-Time Employees. And for Fiscal 2007 that was increased again to $7.846 Billion and 43,758 Full-Time Employees. Each of these budgets was the all-time biggest when they were announced, and the 2007 Budget is three times what was allotted in the Fiscal 1995 Budget, not only for the office but for Border Patrol in specific, and five times the Budget for 1993. That’s a geometric increase in scale from the Clinton Administration.
While many people falsely accuse President Bush of supporting an “amnesty” or ignoring the need for secure borders, the President has actually been paying close attention to the people most familiar with the problem and the programs which work. The Secure Border Initiative, created by the DHS in special coordination with ICE, has recommended the Guest Worker program the President has discussed, in conjunction with Workplace Enforcement, the Criminal Alien Program (which targets and removes known criminals from other countries as a priority effort), and Fugitive Operations, which tracks down absconders inside the United States. As a result, where almost all interdiction in the past took place at the border, the United States today operates at multiple levels, pre-empting attempts before they reach the United States, capturing smuggling operations en route, and also chasing down illegals which get into the United States. For internal security reasons, the public does not hear much about such operations, but they are happening and are starting to have real effect.
Obviously, more needs to be done. To my mind, three significant campaigns need to be started. We need the Fence along the borders, north and south. We need a significant PR campaign to make clear that legal immigration is welcome, but illegal immigration is plain wrong, and we need Congress to take the leash off the IRS and FBI to catch and punish businesses which knowingly hire illegals or which refuse to employ identity security in hiring. Unfortunately, because of the demonstrated cowardice on Capitol Hill, this cannot effectively begin until 2007.
[ next – Waging the PR War ]
When the idiots shouting all those slogans and insults, on both the Left and on the Right, finally shut up long enough to let the sober and the mature address the issues of moment, the basic issues become clear, although the inevitable renewal of braying from the whiners obscures their discovery too often. In the case of sorting out Immigration Reform and also addressing National Security, a common priority shows up: Border Security. What to do about the millions of illegals already here is one concern, but there needs to be a means for reducing, ideally stopping, the flow of more illegal immigrants to the United States.
The United States has more problems with its borders than people realize. In addition to the much-publicized southern land border with Mexico, there is the all-too-often-ignored border with Canada, but there is also the Virtual Border; that network of sea and air ports which allow foreigners entry to the United States from thousands of locations along the coasts and in countless towns and cities. If we are to be serious about the National Security aspects of Border Control, we have to acknowledge that the known terrorist cells have flown or driven into the United States. While the use of ‘coyotes’ is a disturbing possibility that needs attention, we must not forget the use of ubiquitous travel services already known to serve the needs of Al Qaeda and other terror groups.
Now, there have been a lot of people saying one thing or another to accuse President George W. Bush of neglecting Border Security. The Customs and Border Patrol offices of the DHS report that for Fiscal Year 2005, CBP had a budget of $6.457 Billion and 40,636 Full-Time Employees. For Fiscal 2006 that was increased to $7.144 Billion and 41,986 Full-Time Employees. And for Fiscal 2007 that was increased again to $7.846 Billion and 43,758 Full-Time Employees. Each of these budgets was the all-time biggest when they were announced, and the 2007 Budget is three times what was allotted in the Fiscal 1995 Budget, not only for the office but for Border Patrol in specific, and five times the Budget for 1993. That’s a geometric increase in scale from the Clinton Administration.
While many people falsely accuse President Bush of supporting an “amnesty” or ignoring the need for secure borders, the President has actually been paying close attention to the people most familiar with the problem and the programs which work. The Secure Border Initiative, created by the DHS in special coordination with ICE, has recommended the Guest Worker program the President has discussed, in conjunction with Workplace Enforcement, the Criminal Alien Program (which targets and removes known criminals from other countries as a priority effort), and Fugitive Operations, which tracks down absconders inside the United States. As a result, where almost all interdiction in the past took place at the border, the United States today operates at multiple levels, pre-empting attempts before they reach the United States, capturing smuggling operations en route, and also chasing down illegals which get into the United States. For internal security reasons, the public does not hear much about such operations, but they are happening and are starting to have real effect.
Obviously, more needs to be done. To my mind, three significant campaigns need to be started. We need the Fence along the borders, north and south. We need a significant PR campaign to make clear that legal immigration is welcome, but illegal immigration is plain wrong, and we need Congress to take the leash off the IRS and FBI to catch and punish businesses which knowingly hire illegals or which refuse to employ identity security in hiring. Unfortunately, because of the demonstrated cowardice on Capitol Hill, this cannot effectively begin until 2007.
[ next – Waging the PR War ]
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Why Republicans Continue To Win and Win and Win
.
A fellow writing under the name of ‘NanceGregg’ at DU posted what he considered a scathing list of issues which, in his opinion, should discredit the Republican Party in the mind of their base. The topics he finds worthy include the following:
· Assumptions that Bush is guilty of something, on the further assumption that he is trying to “thwart any investigation”.
· Assumptions that the Republican Party chose and “insists on using” Diebold voting machines, even in states and precincts controlled by Democrats, and where the machines were selected and purchased during the Clinton Administration.
·
* Envy that VP Cheney is getting his Halliburton pension, and that while he has earmarked the money for charity once he can legally touch it again, anger that he has not broke the law in order to give away his own money ahead of time. Apparently, the laws governing the control of money held in trust is a mystery to the Left.
· Complaints, despite increased spending in their favorite areas, that the Government has not spent enough on Liberal preferences.
· The standard Liberal presumption of guilt for Frist, simply because the Democrats have managed to get him investigated. Not convicted, not even indicted, just investigated.
· Standard Liberal ADD claims that the reason we are fighting Iraq “keeps changing from week to week”. The clear evidence and statements continue to elude them.
· Standard Liberal Lies that Republicans are all about 'Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Business' (never mind Kerry/Kennedy etc’s money, I guess).
· Pretending Abramoff only talked to Republicans.
· Throwing up innuendo about Bush’s alleged lack of military service, while their own candidates refuse to release documents Bush signed over many years ago.
· Still deny the link between Saddam Hussein and Terrorism, even in the face of new compelling evidence that he was very much in contact and support with Al Qaeda.
Keep it up, fellas. The farther you take yourself from sanity, the more Americans see the Light and vote for the Right.
A fellow writing under the name of ‘NanceGregg’ at DU posted what he considered a scathing list of issues which, in his opinion, should discredit the Republican Party in the mind of their base. The topics he finds worthy include the following:
· Assumptions that Bush is guilty of something, on the further assumption that he is trying to “thwart any investigation”.
· Assumptions that the Republican Party chose and “insists on using” Diebold voting machines, even in states and precincts controlled by Democrats, and where the machines were selected and purchased during the Clinton Administration.
·
* Envy that VP Cheney is getting his Halliburton pension, and that while he has earmarked the money for charity once he can legally touch it again, anger that he has not broke the law in order to give away his own money ahead of time. Apparently, the laws governing the control of money held in trust is a mystery to the Left.
· Complaints, despite increased spending in their favorite areas, that the Government has not spent enough on Liberal preferences.
· The standard Liberal presumption of guilt for Frist, simply because the Democrats have managed to get him investigated. Not convicted, not even indicted, just investigated.
· Standard Liberal ADD claims that the reason we are fighting Iraq “keeps changing from week to week”. The clear evidence and statements continue to elude them.
· Standard Liberal Lies that Republicans are all about 'Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Business' (never mind Kerry/Kennedy etc’s money, I guess).
· Pretending Abramoff only talked to Republicans.
· Throwing up innuendo about Bush’s alleged lack of military service, while their own candidates refuse to release documents Bush signed over many years ago.
· Still deny the link between Saddam Hussein and Terrorism, even in the face of new compelling evidence that he was very much in contact and support with Al Qaeda.
Keep it up, fellas. The farther you take yourself from sanity, the more Americans see the Light and vote for the Right.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Immigration – What Is Needed
---***---
Well, it’s a slow season in an election year, which always seems to bring out the Whiners. Sure enough, the Immigration issue has come up again, which is reasonable, but has brought along with it a raucous caucus of panic peddlers and People Insanely Selfish & Stubborn. Nowhere is this more obvious than when the issue is soberly discussed.
In the main, people in the United States are agreed that as a nation of immigrants, we have a responsibility to accept the people who wish to come here, following reasonable conditions. Obviously, the laws and written and the actions practiced by the U.S. Government are inappropriate to the present need, for which a reform and repair is badly needed. To my mind, the mindless attacks from both Left and Right against president George W. Bush only prove once again how thin his support can be, even when he proves his credentials over and over again. Such frivolous desertion of the President by so many so-called ‘republicans’ is why I fear the Democrats could one day retake Congress and the White House.
George W. Bush, for the record, is not only eminently sane in his perspective, but as a former Governor of Texas, he certainly knows about the border problems and is acutely interested in finding a serious and permanent solution. For that matter, Ronald W. Reagan was a former Governor of California, and like Bush well aware of the border situation and intent on resolving it. The brayers against Bush might do well to notice that Reagan’s record on Immigration Reform, even in terms of programs submitted to Congress, was not especially better than Bush’s; in fact, I would go so far as to say Bush has tried harder on that front.
It needs to be understood that there are multiple forces at work. On one end is the White House, which must balance the noise from the Justice, Labor, DHS, State and other Departments, and on the other end are the Federal courts, which have a history of wreaking havoc on attempts to reform laws.
The other two major groups are the House and Senate, which is bad enough, but even then they are split into many sub-groups, including new members versus veterans, those coming up for re-election, border states versus high-demand labor states, and you get the idea. It’s easier to wrestle a pit full of pythons than get a comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress, to say nothing of what the final product would look like.
Frankly, Bush is doing as well as any sane person can expect, with strong increases in budget and numbers for the Border Patrol, Customs, and border-defense. The problem of compliance with the existing law is on another order entirely, and while some have wrongly claimed that Bush is ignoring these aspects of the problem, it will have to be addressed separately. Those morons who think we can simply round up the illegals already in the country have obviously not considered their response to any number of past initiatives, to say nothing of the complications in trying to find and remove more than ten million of any type of person who does not wish to be found. God grant we put saner heads in charge of future discussions than what gets printed in the papers now.
[ next - border security ]
Well, it’s a slow season in an election year, which always seems to bring out the Whiners. Sure enough, the Immigration issue has come up again, which is reasonable, but has brought along with it a raucous caucus of panic peddlers and People Insanely Selfish & Stubborn. Nowhere is this more obvious than when the issue is soberly discussed.
In the main, people in the United States are agreed that as a nation of immigrants, we have a responsibility to accept the people who wish to come here, following reasonable conditions. Obviously, the laws and written and the actions practiced by the U.S. Government are inappropriate to the present need, for which a reform and repair is badly needed. To my mind, the mindless attacks from both Left and Right against president George W. Bush only prove once again how thin his support can be, even when he proves his credentials over and over again. Such frivolous desertion of the President by so many so-called ‘republicans’ is why I fear the Democrats could one day retake Congress and the White House.
George W. Bush, for the record, is not only eminently sane in his perspective, but as a former Governor of Texas, he certainly knows about the border problems and is acutely interested in finding a serious and permanent solution. For that matter, Ronald W. Reagan was a former Governor of California, and like Bush well aware of the border situation and intent on resolving it. The brayers against Bush might do well to notice that Reagan’s record on Immigration Reform, even in terms of programs submitted to Congress, was not especially better than Bush’s; in fact, I would go so far as to say Bush has tried harder on that front.
It needs to be understood that there are multiple forces at work. On one end is the White House, which must balance the noise from the Justice, Labor, DHS, State and other Departments, and on the other end are the Federal courts, which have a history of wreaking havoc on attempts to reform laws.
The other two major groups are the House and Senate, which is bad enough, but even then they are split into many sub-groups, including new members versus veterans, those coming up for re-election, border states versus high-demand labor states, and you get the idea. It’s easier to wrestle a pit full of pythons than get a comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress, to say nothing of what the final product would look like.
Frankly, Bush is doing as well as any sane person can expect, with strong increases in budget and numbers for the Border Patrol, Customs, and border-defense. The problem of compliance with the existing law is on another order entirely, and while some have wrongly claimed that Bush is ignoring these aspects of the problem, it will have to be addressed separately. Those morons who think we can simply round up the illegals already in the country have obviously not considered their response to any number of past initiatives, to say nothing of the complications in trying to find and remove more than ten million of any type of person who does not wish to be found. God grant we put saner heads in charge of future discussions than what gets printed in the papers now.
[ next - border security ]
Prayers For The Saints
-.-
Abdul Rahman, arrested in Afghanistan on charges of converting from Islam to Christianity, is apparently going to be released. While officials are hedging in their explanation of the decision, at one time suggesting there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, but also claiming he is mentally “unfit”.
This situation remains problematic for all concerned. Rahman is still in great danger of being killed by angry mobs, especially since Muslim clerics have been demanding his death. An obvious short-term answer would be for Rahman to leave Afghanistan, but he understandably does not wish to do so, and also, fleeing the country would allow Jihadists to claim a sort of victory, and would fail to help the cause of other Christians in Afghanistan, especially those who also used to be Muslims. This creates a significant dilemma for the new government in Afghanistan, which is trying to balance traditional Sharia as the law in Afghanistan with convincing Western nations that Islamic Democracy means tolerance and cultural advancement.
For the world of Islam, it means sorting out a modern answer to moral dilemmas which avoids betraying either the tradition of Sharia, or collapsing beneath the thuggery of the Jihadists. For the United States, it represents the conflict between acknowledging the sovereignty of Afghanistan and influencing the development of a social morality infrastructure.
And in case it has slipped your mind, the Chinese government, which has nothing to do with Sharia, continues to hold documentary film-maker and blogger Hao Wu without charges or legal representation, denying visits of any kind from anyone. One hopes that Secretary of State Rice might make a phone call or visit on his behalf. And for those inclined to pray for the saints under siege in this world, a few extra words for Abdul Rahman and Hao Wu might be in order.
Abdul Rahman, arrested in Afghanistan on charges of converting from Islam to Christianity, is apparently going to be released. While officials are hedging in their explanation of the decision, at one time suggesting there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, but also claiming he is mentally “unfit”.
This situation remains problematic for all concerned. Rahman is still in great danger of being killed by angry mobs, especially since Muslim clerics have been demanding his death. An obvious short-term answer would be for Rahman to leave Afghanistan, but he understandably does not wish to do so, and also, fleeing the country would allow Jihadists to claim a sort of victory, and would fail to help the cause of other Christians in Afghanistan, especially those who also used to be Muslims. This creates a significant dilemma for the new government in Afghanistan, which is trying to balance traditional Sharia as the law in Afghanistan with convincing Western nations that Islamic Democracy means tolerance and cultural advancement.
For the world of Islam, it means sorting out a modern answer to moral dilemmas which avoids betraying either the tradition of Sharia, or collapsing beneath the thuggery of the Jihadists. For the United States, it represents the conflict between acknowledging the sovereignty of Afghanistan and influencing the development of a social morality infrastructure.
And in case it has slipped your mind, the Chinese government, which has nothing to do with Sharia, continues to hold documentary film-maker and blogger Hao Wu without charges or legal representation, denying visits of any kind from anyone. One hopes that Secretary of State Rice might make a phone call or visit on his behalf. And for those inclined to pray for the saints under siege in this world, a few extra words for Abdul Rahman and Hao Wu might be in order.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Thinking
..
I am, as I have mentioned before, going back to school to get my MBA, for the purpose of opening career levels presently denied to me. OK, and to make more money. It’s a fine line, meeting my responsibility as a father and husband to provide security and comfort for my family, without crossing the line and loving money. I trust God to help me out there, as the history of more than a few smacks upside the head bear witness. It also seems to me from time to time, that I am not quite where I am meant to be. Again I am aware that humans often feel they deserve better than they have, often without merit, but I also feel I should be responsive to becoming all I can be. I admit I’m a bit tired, which always messes up focus, but I sense this is one of those ubiquitous feelings we all get.
The company I work for is pretty good, but I have noticed four distinct social classes in the workforce, and it occurs to me to wonder about what is necessary to advance from one to another, presuming this is possible. The floor is one class, the lower and middle management another, the self-defined professionals another, and the company directors at the top the last. The first three are usually defined by experience and education, but the last is something different. Certainly no executive seems to join a company the same way us working stiffs do, going through the obstacle course in HR and the minefield of sending in a reume and begging for an interview. Certainly the executives have a far better position to negotiate their salaries and perks than ordinary employees ever do, and it certainly seems the executives do not face the normal sorts of periodic performance review. From an objective of satisfying pay and prestige, job security and personal recognition, being an executive is an obvious career target. Ahhhh, but how to get there?
I have to stop here and explain that I am not anti-Executive, nor do I think that being an Executive is of itself a proper goal. The work is its own reward at times, and I do like the idea of being the right man in the right place to make a difference. More than once I have wondered if I could do the job well enough to avoid some of the bad decisions made at the top, or to put some of the ideas promised so often into actual operation. One major reason I would like to be a company officer at my place, is because I believe I could make a difference, for the team and for our customers.
Of course, my road is going to be a little tough anyway. I want to focus on Sox compliance in particular, and Accounting in general, and it’s hard to get excited about an accountant, I know. Then again, if you take apart the numbers you see what’s really going on with a company. It’s CSI with money, you know?
I am, as I have mentioned before, going back to school to get my MBA, for the purpose of opening career levels presently denied to me. OK, and to make more money. It’s a fine line, meeting my responsibility as a father and husband to provide security and comfort for my family, without crossing the line and loving money. I trust God to help me out there, as the history of more than a few smacks upside the head bear witness. It also seems to me from time to time, that I am not quite where I am meant to be. Again I am aware that humans often feel they deserve better than they have, often without merit, but I also feel I should be responsive to becoming all I can be. I admit I’m a bit tired, which always messes up focus, but I sense this is one of those ubiquitous feelings we all get.
The company I work for is pretty good, but I have noticed four distinct social classes in the workforce, and it occurs to me to wonder about what is necessary to advance from one to another, presuming this is possible. The floor is one class, the lower and middle management another, the self-defined professionals another, and the company directors at the top the last. The first three are usually defined by experience and education, but the last is something different. Certainly no executive seems to join a company the same way us working stiffs do, going through the obstacle course in HR and the minefield of sending in a reume and begging for an interview. Certainly the executives have a far better position to negotiate their salaries and perks than ordinary employees ever do, and it certainly seems the executives do not face the normal sorts of periodic performance review. From an objective of satisfying pay and prestige, job security and personal recognition, being an executive is an obvious career target. Ahhhh, but how to get there?
I have to stop here and explain that I am not anti-Executive, nor do I think that being an Executive is of itself a proper goal. The work is its own reward at times, and I do like the idea of being the right man in the right place to make a difference. More than once I have wondered if I could do the job well enough to avoid some of the bad decisions made at the top, or to put some of the ideas promised so often into actual operation. One major reason I would like to be a company officer at my place, is because I believe I could make a difference, for the team and for our customers.
Of course, my road is going to be a little tough anyway. I want to focus on Sox compliance in particular, and Accounting in general, and it’s hard to get excited about an accountant, I know. Then again, if you take apart the numbers you see what’s really going on with a company. It’s CSI with money, you know?
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Thoughts on “Progressive”s
-.-
One comment I hear over and over, is that everyone in America supported the cause in World War 2, for a variety of reasons, and this claim is used to support the claim that the present mania exhibited by the likes of Michael Moore and Al Gore is a new phenomenon. Sadly, that is not at all the case. The notion that America was once united in the cause of Liberty and the fight for Freedom is a quaint but false myth. Throughout American history, the cry of the loonbat has disturbed the idyllic notions of the Founding Fathers, then the Union Army, and so today’s bad-smelling, non-thinking devolutionary troglodytes are trying to harass the far better men and women who are setting America's course and saving millions of people from destruction in the process.
Without dragging the reader through the whole of history, I will simply begin in 1910, and show the procession of protests, crowd-mollifying policies and milktoast doctrines which have made the job of the true patriot even harder. By 1910, it was true that many people saw the approach of World War I, and many rightly feared the fight. In the United States, it was often difficult to explain why the United States should care what Europe got itself into, and so politicians, notably President Wilson in 1912 and again in 1916, made a point of promising to keep America out of the war. Of course, when it did hit we were unready and the war still cost us dearly, especially when one considers the loans made by the United States in 1924 and 1928 to prevent economic collapse in Germany, which would have led to more fighting between nations ill-equipped for more violence. One might note that a competent force in Germany during the 1920s might have kept the nation from falling into the near-civil war which gave the Nazis their opening, but pre-emption of terrorism is hard enough now, even with all the history we have as warnings. Anyway, the United States was pretty happy to be an ocean away from all that, and things were great. Until the Stock Market crashed, along with a lot of banks, and many businesses began wholesale layoffs and so Unemployment shot sky-high at the worst possible time. Not only did this cost President Hoover his job, but both the House and Senate switched over to Democrat control.
Franklin Roosevelt knew where his power came from. Having swept into office on a Republican scandal and loss of confidence, he understood that he had to listen to the tune of the day. So in 1936 and again in 1940, just like Wilson before him, FDR promised America would stay out of ‘Europe’s War’. Then came Pearl Harbor. In spite of all the movies and common beliefs, there were a lot of Americans who didn’t think we should be in World War 2. Pearl Harbor shut them up, but not forever. Most people don’t know that Charles Lindbergh, the pilot who flew solo across the Atlantic in “The Spirit of St. Louis”, was an admirer of the Nazi Party for many years, as just one example of a famous and well-respected American who opposed the government position. By 1944, the war was not at all the universally popular enterprise we are told these days. If the Normandy Invasion in June had gone a bit differently, or if General Patton had not made such obvious progress by October, it’s entirely possible that FDR could have lost his bid for a fourth term. As is common in such matters, wars are generally popular only when we appear to be clearly winning. When the war is in doubt, so is the President.
After World War 2, America faced one of its toughest gut checks; the Soviet Union. The Communists’ plan was simple; when everyone else sent their armies home to their families, they would not, and so would be ready to take whatever land they felt they could hold. Harry Truman had no intention of allowing that, but it took every marker he could call in to keep the U.S. ready for a fight, and to step in when the pot boiled over in Korea. One reason the crisis over MacArthur’s actions was important, was because public support for the Korean War was not at all complete.
You see the trend. The abomination that was the anti-war movement against Vietnam cost the lives of thousands of U.S. servicemen, and countless more asian civilians, simply because the public deserted the troops and the ideals on which America was founded. It was not new, just more successful in depressing confidence and wearing away at our leaders’ resolve than previous attempts. And just as FDR had always watched the mob to see their mood, Democrats began to shift from positions defending Liberty, to positions dependent on the whim of the moment. Increasingly, Democrats began to listen to whomever seemed the loudest and the most unhappy. Where Harry Truman had been willing to stand up to the anger of outraged voters, Jimmy Carter put on a fake smile and said what he though they wanted to hear. Where John Kennedy had been willing to submit a tax cut, knowing it would invigorate the economy, Ted Kennedy now blames every occasion where taxes are not raised. And as their ideals died, so also died the control of the Democratic Party, and those who used to be called ‘Liberals’ for their broad minds and bright hopes, found themselves voting more and more for Republicans, and those who claimed the Leadership of the Democratic Party made sure to destroy the maps and rudder, and to get rid of their anchor forthwith, and so they celebrate the meandering of their odyssey to lunacy, as some new form of ‘diversity’, even as they demand compliance with their mindset and rhetoric.
There was a time when some people were angry because America had declared her independence from England. There was a time when some people were angry because Slavery was banned in the United States. There was a time when people were outraged by women voting in America. There was a time when equal rights for all races by law and actual practice angered some who thought Jim Crow was a good way to live. Such people have always existed, have always been wrong, have always been a pain and a test for true leaders to endure, and though they may now control the MSM and hold most of the faculty seats at universities, they areno more right now than ever before. God has always saved the United States from them, be they Tories, Klansman, or Progressives, and I depend on His grace again now.
One comment I hear over and over, is that everyone in America supported the cause in World War 2, for a variety of reasons, and this claim is used to support the claim that the present mania exhibited by the likes of Michael Moore and Al Gore is a new phenomenon. Sadly, that is not at all the case. The notion that America was once united in the cause of Liberty and the fight for Freedom is a quaint but false myth. Throughout American history, the cry of the loonbat has disturbed the idyllic notions of the Founding Fathers, then the Union Army, and so today’s bad-smelling, non-thinking devolutionary troglodytes are trying to harass the far better men and women who are setting America's course and saving millions of people from destruction in the process.
Without dragging the reader through the whole of history, I will simply begin in 1910, and show the procession of protests, crowd-mollifying policies and milktoast doctrines which have made the job of the true patriot even harder. By 1910, it was true that many people saw the approach of World War I, and many rightly feared the fight. In the United States, it was often difficult to explain why the United States should care what Europe got itself into, and so politicians, notably President Wilson in 1912 and again in 1916, made a point of promising to keep America out of the war. Of course, when it did hit we were unready and the war still cost us dearly, especially when one considers the loans made by the United States in 1924 and 1928 to prevent economic collapse in Germany, which would have led to more fighting between nations ill-equipped for more violence. One might note that a competent force in Germany during the 1920s might have kept the nation from falling into the near-civil war which gave the Nazis their opening, but pre-emption of terrorism is hard enough now, even with all the history we have as warnings. Anyway, the United States was pretty happy to be an ocean away from all that, and things were great. Until the Stock Market crashed, along with a lot of banks, and many businesses began wholesale layoffs and so Unemployment shot sky-high at the worst possible time. Not only did this cost President Hoover his job, but both the House and Senate switched over to Democrat control.
Franklin Roosevelt knew where his power came from. Having swept into office on a Republican scandal and loss of confidence, he understood that he had to listen to the tune of the day. So in 1936 and again in 1940, just like Wilson before him, FDR promised America would stay out of ‘Europe’s War’. Then came Pearl Harbor. In spite of all the movies and common beliefs, there were a lot of Americans who didn’t think we should be in World War 2. Pearl Harbor shut them up, but not forever. Most people don’t know that Charles Lindbergh, the pilot who flew solo across the Atlantic in “The Spirit of St. Louis”, was an admirer of the Nazi Party for many years, as just one example of a famous and well-respected American who opposed the government position. By 1944, the war was not at all the universally popular enterprise we are told these days. If the Normandy Invasion in June had gone a bit differently, or if General Patton had not made such obvious progress by October, it’s entirely possible that FDR could have lost his bid for a fourth term. As is common in such matters, wars are generally popular only when we appear to be clearly winning. When the war is in doubt, so is the President.
After World War 2, America faced one of its toughest gut checks; the Soviet Union. The Communists’ plan was simple; when everyone else sent their armies home to their families, they would not, and so would be ready to take whatever land they felt they could hold. Harry Truman had no intention of allowing that, but it took every marker he could call in to keep the U.S. ready for a fight, and to step in when the pot boiled over in Korea. One reason the crisis over MacArthur’s actions was important, was because public support for the Korean War was not at all complete.
You see the trend. The abomination that was the anti-war movement against Vietnam cost the lives of thousands of U.S. servicemen, and countless more asian civilians, simply because the public deserted the troops and the ideals on which America was founded. It was not new, just more successful in depressing confidence and wearing away at our leaders’ resolve than previous attempts. And just as FDR had always watched the mob to see their mood, Democrats began to shift from positions defending Liberty, to positions dependent on the whim of the moment. Increasingly, Democrats began to listen to whomever seemed the loudest and the most unhappy. Where Harry Truman had been willing to stand up to the anger of outraged voters, Jimmy Carter put on a fake smile and said what he though they wanted to hear. Where John Kennedy had been willing to submit a tax cut, knowing it would invigorate the economy, Ted Kennedy now blames every occasion where taxes are not raised. And as their ideals died, so also died the control of the Democratic Party, and those who used to be called ‘Liberals’ for their broad minds and bright hopes, found themselves voting more and more for Republicans, and those who claimed the Leadership of the Democratic Party made sure to destroy the maps and rudder, and to get rid of their anchor forthwith, and so they celebrate the meandering of their odyssey to lunacy, as some new form of ‘diversity’, even as they demand compliance with their mindset and rhetoric.
There was a time when some people were angry because America had declared her independence from England. There was a time when some people were angry because Slavery was banned in the United States. There was a time when people were outraged by women voting in America. There was a time when equal rights for all races by law and actual practice angered some who thought Jim Crow was a good way to live. Such people have always existed, have always been wrong, have always been a pain and a test for true leaders to endure, and though they may now control the MSM and hold most of the faculty seats at universities, they areno more right now than ever before. God has always saved the United States from them, be they Tories, Klansman, or Progressives, and I depend on His grace again now.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Grading By Reagan – My Report Card
.
Gay Patriot opened a forum to discuss how President George W. Bush should be compared to Ronald W. Reagan, arguably the greatest Republican President in the past century, if not one of the greatest of all American Presidents. I was honored to be asked to comment as a member of a panel of “Reagan Scholars”, to “adjust” the grades handed out by Gay Patriot and to respond to the comments from the readers. This column is my considered opinion, which will be added to those from Bridget Johnson and Sondra K on Monday for the final grade.
I have thought about this matter for a few days, and the first thing I would say, is that we have to establish a standard by which to rate Bush. I do not think it would be appropriate to use Reagan as the absolute, because for all my admiration and respect for President Reagan, he was human and therefore made his share of errors and had his own limitations. So, I have chosen to compare five Presidents here to what I call the “Reagan Ideal”; that is, how well each of the past five Presidents has done (or appears to have done, since Bush’s work is still in progress) in performance of the ideals exemplified by Ronald Reagan. It is fairly accepted as consensus that Reagan’s Presidency was the most successful in memory of any President in our generation, and so his ideals would appear to be the most salient in comparing performance. As a rule of thumb, the default for a President is “C”, that being the average grade in common use. If a President has done some damage to the country or his office in that category, then a lower grade would be used, although an “F” would not necessarily mean the President was completely incompetent or mendacious. If a President has done some service beyond the norm in a category, then a higher grade would be used, though even an “A+” would not necessarily mean perfection. While a bit more complex, matching up grades on the Reagan Ideal for not only Dubya, but his father, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Reagan himself helps demonstrate not only a proper comparison between the modern Presidents, but also demonstrate how some Presidents have had to recover from the damage done by a predecessor. With that in mind, I turn my attention to the nine selected categories:
Vision/Optimism (A- from Gay Patriot)
Communicating That Vision (D+/C- from Gay Patriot)
National Security (A- from Gay Patriot)
Foreign Policy (A- from Gay Patriot)
Free Trade (B/B+ from Gay Patriot)
Domestic Spending/Size of Government (D+ from Gay Patriot)
Federalism (D from Gay Patriot)
Judicial Appointments (A- from Gay Patriot)
Leadership/Tenacity (A- from Gay Patriot)
Overall Grade (B/B+ from Gay Patriot)
First, Vision/Optimism. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A+
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: C-
GW Bush: A-
Here's how I got there. Carter got the lowest grade, for basically giving up on America’s mission in the world. He tried to make Diplomacy a bigger part of the process, I will give him that, but he downgraded the military, and refused to support his commitments when pressed. Clinton tried to sell America’s place in the world like a Marketing campaign, but he too had no stomach for the tough road. The elder Bush did what was necessary, and his vision of a post-Cold War world was important in crafting some signal treaties and agreements with Russia, China, and other important countries, but he did not see far enough. Dubya and Reagan are true visionaries, men who not only faced their challenges squarely, but who also established programs and doctrines to set a wise course for the future.
Communicating That Vision. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A+
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: A
GW Bush: A-
Again, Carter is at the bottom. Partly, it’s because trying to persuade a nation to adopt a despondent policy, as Carter did in his “Malaise” speech, is poor strategy to begin with but also, Carter consistently failed to demonstrate any sort of plan for restoring America to greatness. On the other end is Reagan, whose delivery in speeches was perfect, legendary. Next comes Clinton, whose true gift was the common touch, the ability to speak in terms the average man and woman would recognize and accept. Some people may be surprised I grade Dubya so high, but for all the apparent clumsiness of his elocution, it should be observed that when the stakes matter, he gets results. The last three elections, the Congressional vote on invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and on tax relief, the President is effective in his communications, as evidenced where it counts most – the results. Too many people are influenced by poor poll numbers, which are not only invalid in many cases due to the way they are constructed, but also miss the fact that the polls have never demonstrated the actual success of failure of a doctrine or initiative.
National Security. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D-
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: A-
Clinton: F
GW Bush: A+
Clinton personally approved deals which allowed his personal friends to sell cutting-edge U.S.missile and satellite technology to Communist China, and he did nothing to slow down the proliferation of a new WMD-components market, which helped a number of nations ramp up their nuclear and biological weapons research, including North Korea and Iran. So, while Clinton was also responsible for the creation of an Infrastructure Protection Agency and a Cyberwarfare Counter-Operations office, his grade must be regarded as a complete failure in this section. As for Carter, his policies and despondent doctrine of retreat led to an across-the-board degrading of military readiness, the abandonment of numerous commitments in strategic locations, and denied vital R&D and HUMINT programs. The only saving grace for Carter is that the Soviets made less of the opportunity than they might have done, and Reagan was able to restore the condition of the military.
It next needs to be said that Reagan, for all his greatness, was not really a ‘wartime’ President as the term is understood. Yes, he fought the Cold War, which was a real war, and he won it. But the conditions of a “hot” wartime are different than others, and every American President who has had to face a “hot” war has found it unpredictable, expensive on several levels, and difficult to bear for any sustained length of time. Reagan’s management of the Cold War was masterful, but far less so his attention to the Middle East and Central America theaters. It’s not to say Reagan did badly at all, but rather that his accomplishments were less effective than George W. Bush’s, and yes I know that claim will be argued. GHW Bush, whether by insight or luck, chose the right crisis to apply his team-building to, and his efforts paid dividends in building the foundation for a strong U.S. credibility in the Middle East. The knocks on the elder Bush are simple; he did not plan far enough ahead to see what to do about Iraq, and he allowed the United Nations far too much of a role in the matter. As for George W, his problems with resolving Immigration Reform would ordinarily count against him, were there not so many signal accomplishments to name, including passage and renewal of the PATRIOT Act (which essentially took the handcuffs on the Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies’ ability to share information and act to pre-empt threats), the destruction of the Taliban and effective elimination of the old structure of Al Qaida, the removal of Saddam Hussein, the establishment of the Bush Doctrine in response to terrorist threats, the consolidation of National Security operations under the Department of Homeland Security, and the creation of a National Director of Intelligence (Bush is essentially the first US President to reform the Intelligence Community without attempting to castrate it, to support the field agents and weed out the politics players).
Free Trade. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: C
Reagan: A
GHW Bush: A
Clinton: A
GW Bush: B
Reagan, the elder Bush, and Clinton all worked to improve international commerce and improve confidence in the economy. Dubya did much of the same, but security concerns hampered his efforts. It should be noted that the Enron and similar scandals, in my opinion, were largely unrelated to any Administration, and so did not cost any President points. It should also be understood that the Bush Administration’s role in the creation of Sarbanes-Oxley is unclear, and so that is neither applied to his advantage or cost.
Domestic Spending/Size of Government. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: D
GW Bush: B+
Dubya gets a bad shake when the subject of federal spending comes up. Oh how the critics squeal about higher spending. But wait a minute – USA Today has finally done a but of real journalism, and it turns out a lot of that increased spending has nothing at all to do with a program crated by President Bush, but rather comes from a jump in enrollment in the existing program; USA Today revealed that of 25 major federal programs, enrollment between 2000 and 2005 jumped 17% while the population only increased by 5%. This highlights a problem in criticizing the President. Too many people see him as a man who must be able to foresee and address every crisis perfectly, and no man can do that, especially a President who operates within the Constitutional limits of his office (granted, not every President obeyed such limits, but such Presidents do not fare well in my scoring). For me, there are two components to the score in this area: The intent of the President, and the conditions he faces. The grades received by each President should be self-evident in this context. I would also suggest that the reader compare deficits and spending levels in terms of portion of GDP, which is the best simple barometer.
Federalism. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: D
GW Bush: A
This is the area where I probably disagree most sharply from Gay Patriot. Every President since Washington has had to wrestle with the opposing forces of ideal and practical need. It is well known, for example, that Washington opposed the creation of a standing Army and Navy, yet when they were later created Washington applauded the move, knowing it was necessary. As with Domestic programs, one must examine the intent as well as what is done. What I mean is, the Department of Homeland Security was a necessary coalescence of the federal powers to address border security and national threats. On other levels, however, such as Education and Financial Aid and judicial authority, Bush has done an admirable job of scaling back and directing attention to the restoration of State powers. In this light, even Reagan does less well than Bush.
Judicial Appointments. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: C
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: C-
Clinton: D
GW Bush: A+
In another statement bound to get me some dispute, Bush actually did better in his appointments than Reagan has. This is because Bush paid attention to the need for solid appointments to the Federal bench, and applied no political consideration to them, something which Reagan allowed a few times. And as for the Supreme Court nominees, you simply cannot do better than Roberts and Alito. While some wish to complain about the Miers nomination, I would remind them that A - we still do not know for sure how well Miers would have done as a justice, B – the Miers nomination is not really relevant since it did not even go so far as hearings, and C – too many people forget that the nomination was to replace the unfortunate Justice O’Connor, who did serve as a SCOTUS justice, and who was a Reagan appointee, the same as Justice Kennedy. This dilutes the Reagan score in this area. Obviously, the Souter choice hurts Bush 41. Carter did not appoint anyone to SCOTUS, but he did make Breyer a Federal Appeals Court judge, which made it possible for Clinton to pick Breyer, along with Ginsburg, for the high court. The low scores for Clinton and Carter do not reflect the liberal preference of those men, but rather the tendency to favor judges who would ‘create’ law from the bench.
Leadership/Tenacity. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: F
Reagan: A
GHW Bush: C+
Clinton: C+
GW Bush: A
First, the easy part – tenacity. All you need to know about how tough a given President is, is to look at how hard the Press is trying to tear into him without justice. Clinton even gets some props for toughness there, because around 1999 the press decided to make him a chew-toy. Yeah, he did what was alleged so that takes away from him, but I have to admit Bubba stood and took it. But if I give that much to Clinton, I have to praise all the louder for Reagan and Dubya, who took fire from the day they announced they were running, and which never let up. That said, the hail of lies and vicious slander from the press against President George W. Bush is literally unprecedented in my lifetime, and the fact that he has held up this well this long speaks for steel in his backbone that no man in a few generations could boast. As to Leadership, that’s less clear on the surface. The idea there I think, is to mix the tenacity with the Vision we talked about earlier, and then look at the results in fact. Basically, everyone knows Jimmy Carter for his humanitarian work and his political second-guessing, but no one brings up the Carter Administration as an example of how to get the job done. Clinton had tenacity, but does anyone, even six years after he left office have any idea what the “Clinton Doctrine” would be?
Overall Grade . Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: GPA 1.06, earns a D
Reagan: GPA 4.03, earns an A
GHW Bush: GPA 3.00, earns a B
Clinton: GPA 1.91, earns a D+
GW Bush: GPA 3.88, earns an A-
Now the fun part: your thoughts!
Gay Patriot opened a forum to discuss how President George W. Bush should be compared to Ronald W. Reagan, arguably the greatest Republican President in the past century, if not one of the greatest of all American Presidents. I was honored to be asked to comment as a member of a panel of “Reagan Scholars”, to “adjust” the grades handed out by Gay Patriot and to respond to the comments from the readers. This column is my considered opinion, which will be added to those from Bridget Johnson and Sondra K on Monday for the final grade.
I have thought about this matter for a few days, and the first thing I would say, is that we have to establish a standard by which to rate Bush. I do not think it would be appropriate to use Reagan as the absolute, because for all my admiration and respect for President Reagan, he was human and therefore made his share of errors and had his own limitations. So, I have chosen to compare five Presidents here to what I call the “Reagan Ideal”; that is, how well each of the past five Presidents has done (or appears to have done, since Bush’s work is still in progress) in performance of the ideals exemplified by Ronald Reagan. It is fairly accepted as consensus that Reagan’s Presidency was the most successful in memory of any President in our generation, and so his ideals would appear to be the most salient in comparing performance. As a rule of thumb, the default for a President is “C”, that being the average grade in common use. If a President has done some damage to the country or his office in that category, then a lower grade would be used, although an “F” would not necessarily mean the President was completely incompetent or mendacious. If a President has done some service beyond the norm in a category, then a higher grade would be used, though even an “A+” would not necessarily mean perfection. While a bit more complex, matching up grades on the Reagan Ideal for not only Dubya, but his father, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Reagan himself helps demonstrate not only a proper comparison between the modern Presidents, but also demonstrate how some Presidents have had to recover from the damage done by a predecessor. With that in mind, I turn my attention to the nine selected categories:
Vision/Optimism (A- from Gay Patriot)
Communicating That Vision (D+/C- from Gay Patriot)
National Security (A- from Gay Patriot)
Foreign Policy (A- from Gay Patriot)
Free Trade (B/B+ from Gay Patriot)
Domestic Spending/Size of Government (D+ from Gay Patriot)
Federalism (D from Gay Patriot)
Judicial Appointments (A- from Gay Patriot)
Leadership/Tenacity (A- from Gay Patriot)
Overall Grade (B/B+ from Gay Patriot)
First, Vision/Optimism. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A+
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: C-
GW Bush: A-
Here's how I got there. Carter got the lowest grade, for basically giving up on America’s mission in the world. He tried to make Diplomacy a bigger part of the process, I will give him that, but he downgraded the military, and refused to support his commitments when pressed. Clinton tried to sell America’s place in the world like a Marketing campaign, but he too had no stomach for the tough road. The elder Bush did what was necessary, and his vision of a post-Cold War world was important in crafting some signal treaties and agreements with Russia, China, and other important countries, but he did not see far enough. Dubya and Reagan are true visionaries, men who not only faced their challenges squarely, but who also established programs and doctrines to set a wise course for the future.
Communicating That Vision. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A+
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: A
GW Bush: A-
Again, Carter is at the bottom. Partly, it’s because trying to persuade a nation to adopt a despondent policy, as Carter did in his “Malaise” speech, is poor strategy to begin with but also, Carter consistently failed to demonstrate any sort of plan for restoring America to greatness. On the other end is Reagan, whose delivery in speeches was perfect, legendary. Next comes Clinton, whose true gift was the common touch, the ability to speak in terms the average man and woman would recognize and accept. Some people may be surprised I grade Dubya so high, but for all the apparent clumsiness of his elocution, it should be observed that when the stakes matter, he gets results. The last three elections, the Congressional vote on invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and on tax relief, the President is effective in his communications, as evidenced where it counts most – the results. Too many people are influenced by poor poll numbers, which are not only invalid in many cases due to the way they are constructed, but also miss the fact that the polls have never demonstrated the actual success of failure of a doctrine or initiative.
National Security. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D-
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: A-
Clinton: F
GW Bush: A+
Clinton personally approved deals which allowed his personal friends to sell cutting-edge U.S.missile and satellite technology to Communist China, and he did nothing to slow down the proliferation of a new WMD-components market, which helped a number of nations ramp up their nuclear and biological weapons research, including North Korea and Iran. So, while Clinton was also responsible for the creation of an Infrastructure Protection Agency and a Cyberwarfare Counter-Operations office, his grade must be regarded as a complete failure in this section. As for Carter, his policies and despondent doctrine of retreat led to an across-the-board degrading of military readiness, the abandonment of numerous commitments in strategic locations, and denied vital R&D and HUMINT programs. The only saving grace for Carter is that the Soviets made less of the opportunity than they might have done, and Reagan was able to restore the condition of the military.
It next needs to be said that Reagan, for all his greatness, was not really a ‘wartime’ President as the term is understood. Yes, he fought the Cold War, which was a real war, and he won it. But the conditions of a “hot” wartime are different than others, and every American President who has had to face a “hot” war has found it unpredictable, expensive on several levels, and difficult to bear for any sustained length of time. Reagan’s management of the Cold War was masterful, but far less so his attention to the Middle East and Central America theaters. It’s not to say Reagan did badly at all, but rather that his accomplishments were less effective than George W. Bush’s, and yes I know that claim will be argued. GHW Bush, whether by insight or luck, chose the right crisis to apply his team-building to, and his efforts paid dividends in building the foundation for a strong U.S. credibility in the Middle East. The knocks on the elder Bush are simple; he did not plan far enough ahead to see what to do about Iraq, and he allowed the United Nations far too much of a role in the matter. As for George W, his problems with resolving Immigration Reform would ordinarily count against him, were there not so many signal accomplishments to name, including passage and renewal of the PATRIOT Act (which essentially took the handcuffs on the Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies’ ability to share information and act to pre-empt threats), the destruction of the Taliban and effective elimination of the old structure of Al Qaida, the removal of Saddam Hussein, the establishment of the Bush Doctrine in response to terrorist threats, the consolidation of National Security operations under the Department of Homeland Security, and the creation of a National Director of Intelligence (Bush is essentially the first US President to reform the Intelligence Community without attempting to castrate it, to support the field agents and weed out the politics players).
Free Trade. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: C
Reagan: A
GHW Bush: A
Clinton: A
GW Bush: B
Reagan, the elder Bush, and Clinton all worked to improve international commerce and improve confidence in the economy. Dubya did much of the same, but security concerns hampered his efforts. It should be noted that the Enron and similar scandals, in my opinion, were largely unrelated to any Administration, and so did not cost any President points. It should also be understood that the Bush Administration’s role in the creation of Sarbanes-Oxley is unclear, and so that is neither applied to his advantage or cost.
Domestic Spending/Size of Government. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: D
GW Bush: B+
Dubya gets a bad shake when the subject of federal spending comes up. Oh how the critics squeal about higher spending. But wait a minute – USA Today has finally done a but of real journalism, and it turns out a lot of that increased spending has nothing at all to do with a program crated by President Bush, but rather comes from a jump in enrollment in the existing program; USA Today revealed that of 25 major federal programs, enrollment between 2000 and 2005 jumped 17% while the population only increased by 5%. This highlights a problem in criticizing the President. Too many people see him as a man who must be able to foresee and address every crisis perfectly, and no man can do that, especially a President who operates within the Constitutional limits of his office (granted, not every President obeyed such limits, but such Presidents do not fare well in my scoring). For me, there are two components to the score in this area: The intent of the President, and the conditions he faces. The grades received by each President should be self-evident in this context. I would also suggest that the reader compare deficits and spending levels in terms of portion of GDP, which is the best simple barometer.
Federalism. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: D
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: D
GW Bush: A
This is the area where I probably disagree most sharply from Gay Patriot. Every President since Washington has had to wrestle with the opposing forces of ideal and practical need. It is well known, for example, that Washington opposed the creation of a standing Army and Navy, yet when they were later created Washington applauded the move, knowing it was necessary. As with Domestic programs, one must examine the intent as well as what is done. What I mean is, the Department of Homeland Security was a necessary coalescence of the federal powers to address border security and national threats. On other levels, however, such as Education and Financial Aid and judicial authority, Bush has done an admirable job of scaling back and directing attention to the restoration of State powers. In this light, even Reagan does less well than Bush.
Judicial Appointments. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: C
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: C-
Clinton: D
GW Bush: A+
In another statement bound to get me some dispute, Bush actually did better in his appointments than Reagan has. This is because Bush paid attention to the need for solid appointments to the Federal bench, and applied no political consideration to them, something which Reagan allowed a few times. And as for the Supreme Court nominees, you simply cannot do better than Roberts and Alito. While some wish to complain about the Miers nomination, I would remind them that A - we still do not know for sure how well Miers would have done as a justice, B – the Miers nomination is not really relevant since it did not even go so far as hearings, and C – too many people forget that the nomination was to replace the unfortunate Justice O’Connor, who did serve as a SCOTUS justice, and who was a Reagan appointee, the same as Justice Kennedy. This dilutes the Reagan score in this area. Obviously, the Souter choice hurts Bush 41. Carter did not appoint anyone to SCOTUS, but he did make Breyer a Federal Appeals Court judge, which made it possible for Clinton to pick Breyer, along with Ginsburg, for the high court. The low scores for Clinton and Carter do not reflect the liberal preference of those men, but rather the tendency to favor judges who would ‘create’ law from the bench.
Leadership/Tenacity. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: F
Reagan: A
GHW Bush: C+
Clinton: C+
GW Bush: A
First, the easy part – tenacity. All you need to know about how tough a given President is, is to look at how hard the Press is trying to tear into him without justice. Clinton even gets some props for toughness there, because around 1999 the press decided to make him a chew-toy. Yeah, he did what was alleged so that takes away from him, but I have to admit Bubba stood and took it. But if I give that much to Clinton, I have to praise all the louder for Reagan and Dubya, who took fire from the day they announced they were running, and which never let up. That said, the hail of lies and vicious slander from the press against President George W. Bush is literally unprecedented in my lifetime, and the fact that he has held up this well this long speaks for steel in his backbone that no man in a few generations could boast. As to Leadership, that’s less clear on the surface. The idea there I think, is to mix the tenacity with the Vision we talked about earlier, and then look at the results in fact. Basically, everyone knows Jimmy Carter for his humanitarian work and his political second-guessing, but no one brings up the Carter Administration as an example of how to get the job done. Clinton had tenacity, but does anyone, even six years after he left office have any idea what the “Clinton Doctrine” would be?
Overall Grade . Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:
Carter: GPA 1.06, earns a D
Reagan: GPA 4.03, earns an A
GHW Bush: GPA 3.00, earns a B
Clinton: GPA 1.91, earns a D+
GW Bush: GPA 3.88, earns an A-
Now the fun part: your thoughts!
Thursday, March 23, 2006
A Tale of Two Heroes: Abdul Rahman and Hao Wu
[]+[]
I hate to say it, but if you are not a blogger or a reader of blogs, you probably have not heard a word from the media about either of these two men. That’s for a number of reasons, ranging from a malicious prejudice against true conscientious protest to simple apathy. It should also be understood that in both cases there needs to be follow-up, if only to show that valor is seen and acknowledged. In the headline, I called Abdul Rahman and Hao Wu “heroes”; I think that once you know their situations, you will agree that these men have earned that title. Abdul Rahman is on trial in Afghanistan, facing the death penalty. In the West a man could only face such a sentence for murder, and in many countries the death sentence is not an option at all. In Abdul Rahman’s case, he is facing execution for having converted from Islam to Christianity.
For many people, that is the story in a nutshell, but in Rahman’s case the story is much deeper than a simple political-religious crisis. You see, Rahman’s family is still very much Muslim, and so he has no real access to support; the government has denied any visitors, and his own family has condemned his conversion. Even were he freed from prison, Mr. Rahman might be forced to flee the country to survive death threats already made against him.
It is not likely, however, that Rahman will be sentenced to death. First, while the prosecutor has claimed that Sharia requires Muslims who convert to another faith to be killed, the Quran is silent on that question, and no specific hadith considered to be credible is clear, either. Further, the Constitution of Afghanistan says that capital punishment must be approved by the President (Article 129[2)], and President Karzai is certainly sensitive to the American opinion of Afghanistan; killing a man for being Christian is not at all something Mr. Karzai is likely to endorse.
And even the prosecutor has backed off a bit suggesting that Rahman may be found ‘mentally unfit’, in which case “Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven”. The question at hand is serious on several levels, as any decision is likely to serve as a key precedent.
It should be noted that Abdul Rahman did not become a Christian anytime recently, after the U.S.-led invasion, but fifteen years ago, when Afghanistan as anything but a friendly place for Christians. Imagine living under the rule of the Taliban, and then & there choosing to follow the way of Christ. That folks, is courage!
The other case is Hao Wu, whose fate is at least as uncertain as Abdul Rahman’s. Hao Wu, who is a documentary filmmaker (the real kind, not like Michael Moore) and political blogger, was arrested February 22 in Beijing, and he has since been held without charges, visitors, or any sort of information release by the government.
Wu writes under the blogger name “Beijing Loafer” and also the pseudonym Tian Yi. Wu’s main blog, “Beijing or Bust” (hmm - notice it’s a Blogger blog?) is a lot like any regular person’s blog. Note that a February 20 entry mentions a family fight with his mom, including this comment:
Ironically, in that same post Wu also mentions that his Chinese readers
A single-stop web site has been set up by Ethan Zuckerman to provide the known information about Wu’s arrest, which is not much, and to organize support to demand his release.
It’s difficult to say which situation takes more courage; to stand for your faith in an Afghanistan which may or may not have grown morally in the past few years, or to speak truth in a country where people can simply disappear for being inconvenient. In my book, both of these men are true exemplars of valor and courage. Both deserve their lives and their freedom – and your voice in their defense.
I hate to say it, but if you are not a blogger or a reader of blogs, you probably have not heard a word from the media about either of these two men. That’s for a number of reasons, ranging from a malicious prejudice against true conscientious protest to simple apathy. It should also be understood that in both cases there needs to be follow-up, if only to show that valor is seen and acknowledged. In the headline, I called Abdul Rahman and Hao Wu “heroes”; I think that once you know their situations, you will agree that these men have earned that title. Abdul Rahman is on trial in Afghanistan, facing the death penalty. In the West a man could only face such a sentence for murder, and in many countries the death sentence is not an option at all. In Abdul Rahman’s case, he is facing execution for having converted from Islam to Christianity.
For many people, that is the story in a nutshell, but in Rahman’s case the story is much deeper than a simple political-religious crisis. You see, Rahman’s family is still very much Muslim, and so he has no real access to support; the government has denied any visitors, and his own family has condemned his conversion. Even were he freed from prison, Mr. Rahman might be forced to flee the country to survive death threats already made against him.
It is not likely, however, that Rahman will be sentenced to death. First, while the prosecutor has claimed that Sharia requires Muslims who convert to another faith to be killed, the Quran is silent on that question, and no specific hadith considered to be credible is clear, either. Further, the Constitution of Afghanistan says that capital punishment must be approved by the President (Article 129[2)], and President Karzai is certainly sensitive to the American opinion of Afghanistan; killing a man for being Christian is not at all something Mr. Karzai is likely to endorse.
And even the prosecutor has backed off a bit suggesting that Rahman may be found ‘mentally unfit’, in which case “Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven”. The question at hand is serious on several levels, as any decision is likely to serve as a key precedent.
It should be noted that Abdul Rahman did not become a Christian anytime recently, after the U.S.-led invasion, but fifteen years ago, when Afghanistan as anything but a friendly place for Christians. Imagine living under the rule of the Taliban, and then & there choosing to follow the way of Christ. That folks, is courage!
The other case is Hao Wu, whose fate is at least as uncertain as Abdul Rahman’s. Hao Wu, who is a documentary filmmaker (the real kind, not like Michael Moore) and political blogger, was arrested February 22 in Beijing, and he has since been held without charges, visitors, or any sort of information release by the government.
Wu writes under the blogger name “Beijing Loafer” and also the pseudonym Tian Yi. Wu’s main blog, “Beijing or Bust” (hmm - notice it’s a Blogger blog?) is a lot like any regular person’s blog. Note that a February 20 entry mentions a family fight with his mom, including this comment:
“I kept on calling her back, apologizing for my behavior and comforting her.
What could I have done? She’s my mother.”
Ironically, in that same post Wu also mentions that his Chinese readers
“expressed annoyance and incomprehension at the West’s criticism of China. So did most of the Chinese bloggers I’ve read thus far…please understand that Chinese are very defensive about these criticisms because in our modern history we’d been repeatedly humiliated by Western colonial powers; in addition, we Chinese believe in ‘A son doesn’t complain about his mother’s plain looks, and a mother doesn’t pick on a son’s destitution’”
A single-stop web site has been set up by Ethan Zuckerman to provide the known information about Wu’s arrest, which is not much, and to organize support to demand his release.
It’s difficult to say which situation takes more courage; to stand for your faith in an Afghanistan which may or may not have grown morally in the past few years, or to speak truth in a country where people can simply disappear for being inconvenient. In my book, both of these men are true exemplars of valor and courage. Both deserve their lives and their freedom – and your voice in their defense.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Blogger Writes Back
***
As many in the Blogosphere know, an undetermined number of blogs managed by Blogger, a free service offered by Google simply disappeared last week. For a number of days, bloggers were unable to even see their blogs, much less edit or post columns. Attempts to contact Blogger about the problem produced no response, except for a single automated e-mail response which neither addressed the problem nor promised a solution.
I published an open letter to Google/Blogger, wherein I thanked them for the convenience and affordability of Blogger, but also reminded them of the implicit responsibility they held in creating such a service. I also warned them that continued silence on the cause and remedy for the blog removals would create an impression they might wish to avoid. By this weekend, service had been restored to every Blog*Spot site which I knew to have been affected, but there had still been no explanation.
On Tuesday, March 21, I received an email response from Jason Goldman, the product manager at Blogger. I can’t be sure whether or not the email was a form letter, which in itself was something of a good sign and a bad one, simultaneously. Here is the text from that email:
First off, I think it is important to thank Mr. Goldman for his letter and accountability. When something like this happens, no one wants to be the person who has to step out and take responsibility. Whatever you think of Google, give Jason credit for answering the call to put out a rather large fire. Next, having seen some disasters myself, I am quite willing to believe the removal of these sites was accidental. To be blunt, if Google had wanted to delete a certain type of blog or site, they could have found a way to do so which wouldn’t have reflected on them the way this incident did. I can’t prove it, but I get the feeling that when the sites started disappearing, Blogger was not aware of it at first, having no process in place to track such a possibility, and also they had no idea what to do if that scenario happened. I find it easy to believe that the first couple days at Blogger were filled with confusion and panic – after all, if Google decided this whole ‘free blog’ thing was just making them look bad, they could just dump the project and fire everyone at Blogger. After all, other companies have done this sort of thing before, especially to avoid looking bad on the surface. Google, whatever else they have been up to, worked to get the blogs back up, and allowed Mr. Goldman to do his job. Sure, it would have been nice if the blogs had never disappeared, but then I would have liked to not have had to replace the oil pan on my car; stuff happens.
In the end, I only have one important piece of advice for Blogger and Mr. Goldman. We live in a rapid-fire age of information, and word spreads quickly, and what’s more, some of the most modest blogs are well-respected and get immediate attention in influential places. So, even though Blogger did not mean for this to happen, the silence which greeted blogger inquiries for so long created an impression, and not a good one. It would be a very good idea for Blogger to think about the possible worst-case events, and prepare statements to address them. In this case, it would have made a great difference if the Blogger Help page had immediately announced they knew there was a problem, and were working on it. By leaving up a page which seemed to claim nothing was wrong, and that a former problem had been completely fixed, Blogger made worried people into angry people. Last year, my company saw what happened during Hurricane Katrina, and so made preparations for responding to customers if we needed to close the company, which actually happened during the voluntary evacuation from the path of Hurricane Rita. The same kind of foresight and planning could really help Blogger avoid falling on its face again.
But all in all, I appreciate Blogger’s efforts to fix the problem and apologize for the accident. Thank you, Jason.
Sincerely,
DJ Drummond
As many in the Blogosphere know, an undetermined number of blogs managed by Blogger, a free service offered by Google simply disappeared last week. For a number of days, bloggers were unable to even see their blogs, much less edit or post columns. Attempts to contact Blogger about the problem produced no response, except for a single automated e-mail response which neither addressed the problem nor promised a solution.
I published an open letter to Google/Blogger, wherein I thanked them for the convenience and affordability of Blogger, but also reminded them of the implicit responsibility they held in creating such a service. I also warned them that continued silence on the cause and remedy for the blog removals would create an impression they might wish to avoid. By this weekend, service had been restored to every Blog*Spot site which I knew to have been affected, but there had still been no explanation.
On Tuesday, March 21, I received an email response from Jason Goldman, the product manager at Blogger. I can’t be sure whether or not the email was a form letter, which in itself was something of a good sign and a bad one, simultaneously. Here is the text from that email:
“Those of us who work at Blogger do so because we want to give a voice to as many people as possible. That’s why it upset me to see that your blog was mistakenly removed from Blog*Spot last week.
I’d like to personally apologize for this mistake and assure you that your blog’s accidental removal was in no way reflective of a policy decision on the part of Google. As a result of this error, we have implemented additional controls on the tools used by our team. Also, it shouldn’t have taken this long to resolve the issue, and we apologize for the delay in restoring your site.
Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do.
Sincerely,
Jason Goldman
Project Manager, Blogger”
First off, I think it is important to thank Mr. Goldman for his letter and accountability. When something like this happens, no one wants to be the person who has to step out and take responsibility. Whatever you think of Google, give Jason credit for answering the call to put out a rather large fire. Next, having seen some disasters myself, I am quite willing to believe the removal of these sites was accidental. To be blunt, if Google had wanted to delete a certain type of blog or site, they could have found a way to do so which wouldn’t have reflected on them the way this incident did. I can’t prove it, but I get the feeling that when the sites started disappearing, Blogger was not aware of it at first, having no process in place to track such a possibility, and also they had no idea what to do if that scenario happened. I find it easy to believe that the first couple days at Blogger were filled with confusion and panic – after all, if Google decided this whole ‘free blog’ thing was just making them look bad, they could just dump the project and fire everyone at Blogger. After all, other companies have done this sort of thing before, especially to avoid looking bad on the surface. Google, whatever else they have been up to, worked to get the blogs back up, and allowed Mr. Goldman to do his job. Sure, it would have been nice if the blogs had never disappeared, but then I would have liked to not have had to replace the oil pan on my car; stuff happens.
In the end, I only have one important piece of advice for Blogger and Mr. Goldman. We live in a rapid-fire age of information, and word spreads quickly, and what’s more, some of the most modest blogs are well-respected and get immediate attention in influential places. So, even though Blogger did not mean for this to happen, the silence which greeted blogger inquiries for so long created an impression, and not a good one. It would be a very good idea for Blogger to think about the possible worst-case events, and prepare statements to address them. In this case, it would have made a great difference if the Blogger Help page had immediately announced they knew there was a problem, and were working on it. By leaving up a page which seemed to claim nothing was wrong, and that a former problem had been completely fixed, Blogger made worried people into angry people. Last year, my company saw what happened during Hurricane Katrina, and so made preparations for responding to customers if we needed to close the company, which actually happened during the voluntary evacuation from the path of Hurricane Rita. The same kind of foresight and planning could really help Blogger avoid falling on its face again.
But all in all, I appreciate Blogger’s efforts to fix the problem and apologize for the accident. Thank you, Jason.
Sincerely,
DJ Drummond
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The MSM War - Cleveland
[**]
The President gave a great speech in Cleveland yesterday. Funny, you’d never know it, from the response by the MainStream Media. Nothing on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox. Sadly predictable though. You see, the President came out strong and was compelling in his reasoning and delivery. Which is not the desired image the MSM wishes to portray. This of course is nothing new, which is the point of this column.
Many people have claimed that President George W. Bush is a bit of a fumble-tongue, unable to always articulate why he supports one proposal or opposes another. But how much of that comes from the filter placed on the President by the media? Just after 9/11, while visiting Ground Zero, President Bush made one of his best-known quotes, and it was off-the-cuff. Today, again we saw him at his best in the Press Conference. I have lived long enough to remember days when Reagan looked old, Clinton stupid, and Carter simply out of it, because anyone who has a camera in front of him at all times will sooner of later flub his lines. How much to Dubya’s speech, do you think, is not so much a matter of poor elocution and selective editing?
America is at war. Against terrorists, against Jihadist fascism, and against the MSM. We need to remember that.
The President gave a great speech in Cleveland yesterday. Funny, you’d never know it, from the response by the MainStream Media. Nothing on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox. Sadly predictable though. You see, the President came out strong and was compelling in his reasoning and delivery. Which is not the desired image the MSM wishes to portray. This of course is nothing new, which is the point of this column.
Many people have claimed that President George W. Bush is a bit of a fumble-tongue, unable to always articulate why he supports one proposal or opposes another. But how much of that comes from the filter placed on the President by the media? Just after 9/11, while visiting Ground Zero, President Bush made one of his best-known quotes, and it was off-the-cuff. Today, again we saw him at his best in the Press Conference. I have lived long enough to remember days when Reagan looked old, Clinton stupid, and Carter simply out of it, because anyone who has a camera in front of him at all times will sooner of later flub his lines. How much to Dubya’s speech, do you think, is not so much a matter of poor elocution and selective editing?
America is at war. Against terrorists, against Jihadist fascism, and against the MSM. We need to remember that.
Murder Most Foul
---
There used to be certain accepted moral boundaries, things which were always done or not done in a unanimous sense of moral law. You didn’t deliberately cause needless suffering, or deny justice to those most in need of it. And the best of men, the doctors, took an oath of conduct which says in part “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”. It was understood for many centuries, regardless of culture or faith, that life was precious and not to be discarded, especially at the desire of another person.
So it should have been a simple and easy decision, when the husband of a woman suffering from brain damage, on no evidence or documentation of any sort that she so desired, demanded that she be killed, in apparent desire that he be done with her as an obligation (the man not only had taken a mistress while married, but had children by her while claiming he still loved and was “devoted” to Terri). Absent compelling evidence that she wanted to die, Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live.
But Michael Schiavo had smart lawyers, if few scruples, and pressed his case until Terri was dead. And not just killed, but starved to death in an excruciating ordeal which took thirteen days to finish.
Think about that. A convicted murderer in California remains alive because doctors worried that his much-deserved execution might cause him pain for a little while, perhaps a minute or so, but no court found it unreasonable to starve an innocent woman to death over a two-week period, even in the total absence of evidence that she had any desire to die. Her parents were barred from her hospice room until after she was dead, and were not even allowed to go to her funeral.
If this nation holds any true ideals, Terri Schiavo must be remembered, and this cruel injustice called plainly what it was; court-abetted murder. Do not forget.
There used to be certain accepted moral boundaries, things which were always done or not done in a unanimous sense of moral law. You didn’t deliberately cause needless suffering, or deny justice to those most in need of it. And the best of men, the doctors, took an oath of conduct which says in part “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”. It was understood for many centuries, regardless of culture or faith, that life was precious and not to be discarded, especially at the desire of another person.
So it should have been a simple and easy decision, when the husband of a woman suffering from brain damage, on no evidence or documentation of any sort that she so desired, demanded that she be killed, in apparent desire that he be done with her as an obligation (the man not only had taken a mistress while married, but had children by her while claiming he still loved and was “devoted” to Terri). Absent compelling evidence that she wanted to die, Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live.
But Michael Schiavo had smart lawyers, if few scruples, and pressed his case until Terri was dead. And not just killed, but starved to death in an excruciating ordeal which took thirteen days to finish.
Think about that. A convicted murderer in California remains alive because doctors worried that his much-deserved execution might cause him pain for a little while, perhaps a minute or so, but no court found it unreasonable to starve an innocent woman to death over a two-week period, even in the total absence of evidence that she had any desire to die. Her parents were barred from her hospice room until after she was dead, and were not even allowed to go to her funeral.
If this nation holds any true ideals, Terri Schiavo must be remembered, and this cruel injustice called plainly what it was; court-abetted murder. Do not forget.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Blood and Bigotry – The Coming Civil War In Islam Part 3 – The Jihadists’ Strategy
.-.
Readers have responded in a variety of ways to my warning that Islam is headed for a Civil War. The most common responses, whether in agreement or (more common) disagreement with my statements, miss the signal facts of my presumptions. I have examined the historical evidence of Islam, and when I say that the vast majority of Muslims prefer peace, that in no way means they shall have it. Always, the majority of Islam has desired peace, and few acts of violence are supported by the mainstream of Islam. Iraq’s Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jafari, understands this. Addressing the matter of political opposition from Moqtada al-Sadr as an example of advancing democracy in Iraq, al-Jafari writes:
Islam, as I have said before, is a religion of a number of sects, some of which are militant and some distinctly apocalyptic in nature. The ‘Mahdi’ virus shows up from time to time, generally inciting violence not so much out of a vision for the future, but out of individual lust for power and misappropriating Islam as a vehicle towards that power, and corrupting the hopes and dreams of young men to recruit them to that end. Al-Jafari makes a critical observation when he points out that despite the image cast by the MSM, “the Iraqi people have demonstrated their bravery, determination and resolve”. There are good Arabs and good Muslims in this fight on our side, and the West needs to support them and show solidarity with them, on all levels.
Yet it is a grim fact that the few which seek violence have been able to act with relative impunity within the Muslim world, and so the terrorism embraced in the 20th Century and now has a historical character and bloody tradition in those murderous sects which favor terrorism. There can be no question that the Jihadists will continue to carry out terrorist acts until such time that they feel they are strong enough to conduct outright wars of conquest. This is the pattern from History, and there is every reason to believe that the template is still in use. Understanding that template is vital to seeing the risks and opportunities ahead for the West.
The Jihadists operate on the strength of three key assets:
1. Mideast Education Limits
2. Arab Culture
3. Media Manipulation
Most Americans, even the ones who believe the lies from Michael Moore, are aware of the signal accomplishments and historical milestones of human history, and are willing to grant credit to the Arabs, the Chinese, the Greeks, Romans, French, British and so on, as well as to key American contributions. This balance allows for Americans to view the world realistically, and to make improvements where needed. While it was amusing to see Spike Jones and cartoonists lampoon the Nazis and Japanese Empire, the American citizen was under few illusions about the peril posed by Hitler and Tojo. This candor added credibility to wartime correspondence, and when the Allies began to win the claims were believable because the U.S. had been straight from the start. The forces for Democracy have always found straight talk an asset, as evidenced by the Soviet fear of Radio Free Europe. The Jihadists, on the other hand, have taken the shorter road through controlling history and culture in schools. The extensive use of Madressas has allowed Jihadists to bring up a generation unaware of Western values or objective history. As a result, many Arabs are actually unaware of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party thugs in Iraq, or the bloody history of Hamas and similar groups.
Also, Arab culture is causing problems for the West. Simply put, Shiites especially are possessed of an inferiority complex, largely brought about by their leaders’ decisions. In both World War I and World War II, the Arabs too often backed the wrong horse in Germany, and the Shiites were especially poor predictors of who would win. The German resolve and martial discipline seemed fine attributes to the Shiites, never seeing the deeper character of the British and Americans. To the Arabs, the Americans always seemed a bit too casual, too free in their ways, and this has often been mistaken for weakness. Look at the 9/11 attacks; only a madman or a man badly mistaken about the character of the United States, would believe that a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center would lead to a collapse of resolve and determination. Only a very great fool would fail to consider the character of America in such a decision.
And of course, the media played its role. Not only Al-Jazeera, which is still learning the basics of journalism, but CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have played a game of money and influence for so long, it’s no wonder so many Arabs see us as mercenaries and hedonists; they judge us by the network narcissists. It’s actually a good thing we sent troops in, for Arabs to see our best young men in person. Unfortunately, the average Arab sees an America very different from the real one, and the Jihadists will certainly make the most of that opportunity.
Bottom line, the coming Civil War for Islam will be a nasty one. Almost no one sees it, but it will change the faith for good or ill, and cost millions their lives over the next half-century. The West must be concerned because, unlike an ordinary civil war in a single country, Islam's Civil War will be global, with all the weapons of terrorism, fascist evangelism, and cultural conquest employed. With the exception of Antartica, every continent will be affected, and will suffer cost.
Spain, Italy, and parts of France, along with the present Macedonian coastline and the Baltic regions are likely to fall to Jihadist control.
Shi'a and Sunni will battle for reasons both historical and personal, cultural and religious, and with great emotion and destruction. Shortly after the first European country falls under JIhadist control, an Arab nation will lead an alliance against the Jihadists, most likely to include Egypt, Jordan, and the small Sheikhdoms, with the Jihadists forming along the axis of Iran, Syria, and Yemen. The fate of Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia remain uncertain now, though Bush's efforts in Iraq have given the West a chance to save that nation.
At its worst, a Muslim version of the Inquisition will be created, with atrocities committed beyond present imagination. Our only hope to mitigate the carnage and destruction is to install stable representative democracies wherever we can.
(to be continued)
Readers have responded in a variety of ways to my warning that Islam is headed for a Civil War. The most common responses, whether in agreement or (more common) disagreement with my statements, miss the signal facts of my presumptions. I have examined the historical evidence of Islam, and when I say that the vast majority of Muslims prefer peace, that in no way means they shall have it. Always, the majority of Islam has desired peace, and few acts of violence are supported by the mainstream of Islam. Iraq’s Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jafari, understands this. Addressing the matter of political opposition from Moqtada al-Sadr as an example of advancing democracy in Iraq, al-Jafari writes:
“During my term as elected prime minister, Sadr's group has not attacked any coalition troops. Furthermore, Sadr and several Sunni leaders are now catalysts for maintaining the peace in Iraq, calling on their followers not to retaliate against terrorist provocations, which aim to ignite civil war.”
Islam, as I have said before, is a religion of a number of sects, some of which are militant and some distinctly apocalyptic in nature. The ‘Mahdi’ virus shows up from time to time, generally inciting violence not so much out of a vision for the future, but out of individual lust for power and misappropriating Islam as a vehicle towards that power, and corrupting the hopes and dreams of young men to recruit them to that end. Al-Jafari makes a critical observation when he points out that despite the image cast by the MSM, “the Iraqi people have demonstrated their bravery, determination and resolve”. There are good Arabs and good Muslims in this fight on our side, and the West needs to support them and show solidarity with them, on all levels.
Yet it is a grim fact that the few which seek violence have been able to act with relative impunity within the Muslim world, and so the terrorism embraced in the 20th Century and now has a historical character and bloody tradition in those murderous sects which favor terrorism. There can be no question that the Jihadists will continue to carry out terrorist acts until such time that they feel they are strong enough to conduct outright wars of conquest. This is the pattern from History, and there is every reason to believe that the template is still in use. Understanding that template is vital to seeing the risks and opportunities ahead for the West.
The Jihadists operate on the strength of three key assets:
1. Mideast Education Limits
2. Arab Culture
3. Media Manipulation
Most Americans, even the ones who believe the lies from Michael Moore, are aware of the signal accomplishments and historical milestones of human history, and are willing to grant credit to the Arabs, the Chinese, the Greeks, Romans, French, British and so on, as well as to key American contributions. This balance allows for Americans to view the world realistically, and to make improvements where needed. While it was amusing to see Spike Jones and cartoonists lampoon the Nazis and Japanese Empire, the American citizen was under few illusions about the peril posed by Hitler and Tojo. This candor added credibility to wartime correspondence, and when the Allies began to win the claims were believable because the U.S. had been straight from the start. The forces for Democracy have always found straight talk an asset, as evidenced by the Soviet fear of Radio Free Europe. The Jihadists, on the other hand, have taken the shorter road through controlling history and culture in schools. The extensive use of Madressas has allowed Jihadists to bring up a generation unaware of Western values or objective history. As a result, many Arabs are actually unaware of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party thugs in Iraq, or the bloody history of Hamas and similar groups.
Also, Arab culture is causing problems for the West. Simply put, Shiites especially are possessed of an inferiority complex, largely brought about by their leaders’ decisions. In both World War I and World War II, the Arabs too often backed the wrong horse in Germany, and the Shiites were especially poor predictors of who would win. The German resolve and martial discipline seemed fine attributes to the Shiites, never seeing the deeper character of the British and Americans. To the Arabs, the Americans always seemed a bit too casual, too free in their ways, and this has often been mistaken for weakness. Look at the 9/11 attacks; only a madman or a man badly mistaken about the character of the United States, would believe that a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center would lead to a collapse of resolve and determination. Only a very great fool would fail to consider the character of America in such a decision.
And of course, the media played its role. Not only Al-Jazeera, which is still learning the basics of journalism, but CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have played a game of money and influence for so long, it’s no wonder so many Arabs see us as mercenaries and hedonists; they judge us by the network narcissists. It’s actually a good thing we sent troops in, for Arabs to see our best young men in person. Unfortunately, the average Arab sees an America very different from the real one, and the Jihadists will certainly make the most of that opportunity.
Bottom line, the coming Civil War for Islam will be a nasty one. Almost no one sees it, but it will change the faith for good or ill, and cost millions their lives over the next half-century. The West must be concerned because, unlike an ordinary civil war in a single country, Islam's Civil War will be global, with all the weapons of terrorism, fascist evangelism, and cultural conquest employed. With the exception of Antartica, every continent will be affected, and will suffer cost.
Spain, Italy, and parts of France, along with the present Macedonian coastline and the Baltic regions are likely to fall to Jihadist control.
Shi'a and Sunni will battle for reasons both historical and personal, cultural and religious, and with great emotion and destruction. Shortly after the first European country falls under JIhadist control, an Arab nation will lead an alliance against the Jihadists, most likely to include Egypt, Jordan, and the small Sheikhdoms, with the Jihadists forming along the axis of Iran, Syria, and Yemen. The fate of Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia remain uncertain now, though Bush's efforts in Iraq have given the West a chance to save that nation.
At its worst, a Muslim version of the Inquisition will be created, with atrocities committed beyond present imagination. Our only hope to mitigate the carnage and destruction is to install stable representative democracies wherever we can.
(to be continued)
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The Induced Evolution Of Bloggers
***
My friends Betsy Newmark and Eric Lindholm have finally been able to start blogging again, although damage was done to their sites, possibly permanent. I was much luckier, getting my blog back Thursday night and pretty much intact. At this writing Blogger/Google has yet to release any explanation for what happened, much less any sort of apology or proper confirmation of expectations. As a number of readers have observed, you get what you pay for, but as I observed in an open letter to Google, such tactics satisfy the lawyers, but never the customer. The clear message sent by Google, intended or not, was that they would like serious bloggers to leave Blogger for more reliable and trustworthy hosts, and leave Blogspot domains to fools and knaves. The message is compelling, in that measure.
I have to say that one reason I began to blog was the ease of it. I could choose when to blog, at no out-of-pocket cost except time and effort. For almost three years I have clattered away at my keyboard, with few disappointments againt many successes. I was able to meet my work and family commitments while still opining in print. Life was good. But the Bible warns us there comes a time to “put away childish things”, and every so often I got a wake-up call. Like the first time I received e-mails from active-duty soldiers in Iraq. Like the first time a news agency asked me for an interview about polls and the likely candidates for the next Presidential election. Like the first time an executive at a major polling agency called me at work to discuss, off-the-record, how they developed their methodology and question wording. Serious stuff, which reminded me to take my responsibilities seriously. Well, now Blogger has sent another shot across the bow. I am by no means a major-league blogger, but I have a history and I have a name, of sorts, and all it takes is a petulant server or programmer at Google and -poof- bye-bye blog.
This is going to take some thought. As always, I will report what I decide, especially if it is worth the noise.
My friends Betsy Newmark and Eric Lindholm have finally been able to start blogging again, although damage was done to their sites, possibly permanent. I was much luckier, getting my blog back Thursday night and pretty much intact. At this writing Blogger/Google has yet to release any explanation for what happened, much less any sort of apology or proper confirmation of expectations. As a number of readers have observed, you get what you pay for, but as I observed in an open letter to Google, such tactics satisfy the lawyers, but never the customer. The clear message sent by Google, intended or not, was that they would like serious bloggers to leave Blogger for more reliable and trustworthy hosts, and leave Blogspot domains to fools and knaves. The message is compelling, in that measure.
I have to say that one reason I began to blog was the ease of it. I could choose when to blog, at no out-of-pocket cost except time and effort. For almost three years I have clattered away at my keyboard, with few disappointments againt many successes. I was able to meet my work and family commitments while still opining in print. Life was good. But the Bible warns us there comes a time to “put away childish things”, and every so often I got a wake-up call. Like the first time I received e-mails from active-duty soldiers in Iraq. Like the first time a news agency asked me for an interview about polls and the likely candidates for the next Presidential election. Like the first time an executive at a major polling agency called me at work to discuss, off-the-record, how they developed their methodology and question wording. Serious stuff, which reminded me to take my responsibilities seriously. Well, now Blogger has sent another shot across the bow. I am by no means a major-league blogger, but I have a history and I have a name, of sorts, and all it takes is a petulant server or programmer at Google and -poof- bye-bye blog.
This is going to take some thought. As always, I will report what I decide, especially if it is worth the noise.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Oil For Hysteria: The New Meme
xxx
Well, blaming him for Katrina didn’t take.
Neither did predicting a civil war in Iraq.
Turns out President Bush is pretty responsive and competent on most of the issues, so what’s an MSM hit man to do?
Make up a crisis, of course, which brings us to the ‘Oil Shortage Scare’ poll from CNN/USA Today/Gallup, complete with blame game and worst case scare tactics.
The CNN story was big on noise, but thin on facts, so I paid a visit to the Gallup site to see what the hubbub was all about. No mention of the oil poll on the front page, which twitched the old antennae. You see, I generally have a lot of respect for Gallup and its methods, but not so for the Hairpiece Media at USA Today and the Contemptible News Network. I began to suspect Gallup was not all that proud of this latest offering. I did find a poll with the title “Energy”, but it’s locked up as “Premium Content”, which is also a way to keep cheapskate nosey bloggers like me from peeking at the poll. Being a sneaky sort, I used their search function under “Oil” and found the following questions:
“Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? Now, thinking about the cost of gasoline, do you think the current rise in gas prices represents – [ROTATED: a temporary fluctuation in prices, or a more permanent change in prices]?” Question from the March 17 2006 poll
“Do you think Congress should hold an investigation into the profits that oil companies have made in the past few months, or do you think an investigation is not necessary?” Question #15 from an October 2005 poll
“How much do you blame - Oil companies in the U.S. - for the recent increase in gasoline prices - A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question #24 from an August 2005 poll
“On another subject, for each of the following business sectors in the United States, please say whether your overall view of it is Very positive, Somewhat positive, Neutral, Somewhat negative, or Very negative. How about - Oil and gas industry?” Question #38 from an August 2005 poll
“How much do you blame each of the following for the recent increase in gasoline prices -- Oil companies in the U.S. -- A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question 38 from an April 2005 poll
“How much do you blame each of the following for the recent increase in gasoline prices -- Foreign countries that produce oil -- A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question 38 from a May 2005 poll
There were literally dozens of simlar questions in the Search results, and a lot of them focused on blame and displeasure. I did not see a single question which asked respondents whether they understood the oil & gas markets, knew how much oil was available or how it was processed and delivered. I did not see a single question which presented the present situation in historical context, which examined the possibility that last year’s hurricanes or this year’s geopolitical situation might be factors in the supply or price of oil.
I can’t speak conclusively, since I don’t have all the data. But what I saw leads me to the preliminary conclusion, that someone allowed a troll to choose the questions and wording, and if the ingredients are trash, the results are predictable.
(ht Joseph Somsel)
Well, blaming him for Katrina didn’t take.
Neither did predicting a civil war in Iraq.
Turns out President Bush is pretty responsive and competent on most of the issues, so what’s an MSM hit man to do?
Make up a crisis, of course, which brings us to the ‘Oil Shortage Scare’ poll from CNN/USA Today/Gallup, complete with blame game and worst case scare tactics.
The CNN story was big on noise, but thin on facts, so I paid a visit to the Gallup site to see what the hubbub was all about. No mention of the oil poll on the front page, which twitched the old antennae. You see, I generally have a lot of respect for Gallup and its methods, but not so for the Hairpiece Media at USA Today and the Contemptible News Network. I began to suspect Gallup was not all that proud of this latest offering. I did find a poll with the title “Energy”, but it’s locked up as “Premium Content”, which is also a way to keep cheapskate nosey bloggers like me from peeking at the poll. Being a sneaky sort, I used their search function under “Oil” and found the following questions:
“Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? Now, thinking about the cost of gasoline, do you think the current rise in gas prices represents – [ROTATED: a temporary fluctuation in prices, or a more permanent change in prices]?” Question from the March 17 2006 poll
“Do you think Congress should hold an investigation into the profits that oil companies have made in the past few months, or do you think an investigation is not necessary?” Question #15 from an October 2005 poll
“How much do you blame - Oil companies in the U.S. - for the recent increase in gasoline prices - A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question #24 from an August 2005 poll
“On another subject, for each of the following business sectors in the United States, please say whether your overall view of it is Very positive, Somewhat positive, Neutral, Somewhat negative, or Very negative. How about - Oil and gas industry?” Question #38 from an August 2005 poll
“How much do you blame each of the following for the recent increase in gasoline prices -- Oil companies in the U.S. -- A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question 38 from an April 2005 poll
“How much do you blame each of the following for the recent increase in gasoline prices -- Foreign countries that produce oil -- A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question 38 from a May 2005 poll
There were literally dozens of simlar questions in the Search results, and a lot of them focused on blame and displeasure. I did not see a single question which asked respondents whether they understood the oil & gas markets, knew how much oil was available or how it was processed and delivered. I did not see a single question which presented the present situation in historical context, which examined the possibility that last year’s hurricanes or this year’s geopolitical situation might be factors in the supply or price of oil.
I can’t speak conclusively, since I don’t have all the data. But what I saw leads me to the preliminary conclusion, that someone allowed a troll to choose the questions and wording, and if the ingredients are trash, the results are predictable.
(ht Joseph Somsel)
Friday, March 17, 2006
Blood and Bigotry – The Coming Civil War In Islam Part 2
*************
“The path of fear – isolationism and protectionism, retreat and retrenchment – appeals to those who find our challenges too great and fail to see our opportunities. Yet history teaches that every time American leaders have taken this path, the challenges have only increased and the missed opportunities have left future generations less secure.”
- President George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States, March 16 2006
In Part 1 I observed that Islam is divided against itself, a contention which was not met with broad agreement. Comments from the readers included strong doubt that Islam is peaceful or that the majority of Muslims are peaceable. There was also a strong opinion that the West is going to be attacked by an Islamic war of conquest, a point with which I actually agree. But the misconceptions about Islam and about the Jihadists must be corrected, or we will be doing the villains’ work for them.
According to the Terrorism Knowledge Base, since the September 11th attacks 45.6% of all terrorist attacks have happened in the Middle East and 57.7% of all fatalities from such attacks. North America has only received 0.5% of the attacks and 0.04% of the fatalities. Even Western Europe has only suffered 10.6% of the attacks, and only 1.4% of the fatalities. Only 2.17% of terrorist attacks have been against military targets in that time, while 2.53% of the attacks have been terrorists attacking other terrorist groups. 17.69% of the attacks have been attempts to destabilize governments, with 12.27% against private businesses, 7.34% against police and 6.02% against transportation, like buses and trains.
What this means in plain English, is that the terrorists are attacking Arabs more often than Americans, and civilians much more often than police. The terrorists are trying to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt, far more than they are doing anything in France or England or Spain, no matter what we see on TV. The terrorists are worried about the Iraqi Army and Police, and about regular people. One must consider the import of that fact.
There are many different kinds of Muslims. This should have been obvious simply from the fact that there are roughly 1.4 Billion practicing Muslims in the world; it is ridiculous to believe that so many people would agree to the same interpretation of a faith, especially since it should be patently obvious that with about thirteen thousand acts of terrorism since September 11, 2001, the pace per person would appear to be rather pale if the average Muslim was the blood-thirsty lout so often believed. In fact, it can be said with great confidence that Muslims in Afghanistan, most of Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates are essentially non-violent. Yes, even Saudi Arabia with some of the worst groups recruiting there – the reader might consider that such groups always end up leaving Saudi Arabia, because the government and the people have no love for the likes of Al-Jihad and Hezbollah.
Looking at it another way, it should be understood that one reason the Jihadists are so violent, is that they lack a legitimate means by which to claim power. I had compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler before, for good reason; like the fascists of Hitler’s day, the Jihadists understand that they are a minority, so they gain what they gain through the system and then attack and kill anyone who presents a challenge to them. If you stop and think about it, there is no reason for the Jihadists to march and riot as they do, except that they do not enjoy majority support in those nations where they do these things. It is necessary for them to intimidate and attack their opponents, precisely because they are opposed.
Besides the Jihadists, there are Muslims which focus on business. The DP World ports deal was actually a good thing for the United States if Congress had bothered to look through the matter before pitching a hissy fit, because that company represented a significant commitment to improved commerce between the U.A.E. and the United States, which would have given the United States more influence in the U.A.E. while lowering not even one security measure. Other Arab companies have shown interest in cooperation with the United States, not least because a contract with a company like Haliburton is a win-win for them; profits in their pockets and a stronger development for their countries’ Infrastructure. There are some Muslims who focus on their family and country. Ever wonder why Arab families send their kids to college in the United States? It’s not just the quality education (Yale and Harvard are sorry exceptions) or an abundance of good Madressas here, but the open culture and virtues of Democracy. There are Muslims who love their country and are willing to defend it against the likes of the Jihadists. For instance, consider the police forces in Iraq. The job is high-risk and low-stability, yet the numbers are growing and a number of Iraq cities have been able to lower the necessary troop levels because the police are on the job. Just whom do you think the Jihadists in Baghdad and Kirkuk have been targeting, and why? The answer is that the Jihadists are a distinct minority, but their ruthless violence is a force multiplier.
(to be continued)
“The path of fear – isolationism and protectionism, retreat and retrenchment – appeals to those who find our challenges too great and fail to see our opportunities. Yet history teaches that every time American leaders have taken this path, the challenges have only increased and the missed opportunities have left future generations less secure.”
- President George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States, March 16 2006
In Part 1 I observed that Islam is divided against itself, a contention which was not met with broad agreement. Comments from the readers included strong doubt that Islam is peaceful or that the majority of Muslims are peaceable. There was also a strong opinion that the West is going to be attacked by an Islamic war of conquest, a point with which I actually agree. But the misconceptions about Islam and about the Jihadists must be corrected, or we will be doing the villains’ work for them.
According to the Terrorism Knowledge Base, since the September 11th attacks 45.6% of all terrorist attacks have happened in the Middle East and 57.7% of all fatalities from such attacks. North America has only received 0.5% of the attacks and 0.04% of the fatalities. Even Western Europe has only suffered 10.6% of the attacks, and only 1.4% of the fatalities. Only 2.17% of terrorist attacks have been against military targets in that time, while 2.53% of the attacks have been terrorists attacking other terrorist groups. 17.69% of the attacks have been attempts to destabilize governments, with 12.27% against private businesses, 7.34% against police and 6.02% against transportation, like buses and trains.
What this means in plain English, is that the terrorists are attacking Arabs more often than Americans, and civilians much more often than police. The terrorists are trying to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt, far more than they are doing anything in France or England or Spain, no matter what we see on TV. The terrorists are worried about the Iraqi Army and Police, and about regular people. One must consider the import of that fact.
There are many different kinds of Muslims. This should have been obvious simply from the fact that there are roughly 1.4 Billion practicing Muslims in the world; it is ridiculous to believe that so many people would agree to the same interpretation of a faith, especially since it should be patently obvious that with about thirteen thousand acts of terrorism since September 11, 2001, the pace per person would appear to be rather pale if the average Muslim was the blood-thirsty lout so often believed. In fact, it can be said with great confidence that Muslims in Afghanistan, most of Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates are essentially non-violent. Yes, even Saudi Arabia with some of the worst groups recruiting there – the reader might consider that such groups always end up leaving Saudi Arabia, because the government and the people have no love for the likes of Al-Jihad and Hezbollah.
Looking at it another way, it should be understood that one reason the Jihadists are so violent, is that they lack a legitimate means by which to claim power. I had compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler before, for good reason; like the fascists of Hitler’s day, the Jihadists understand that they are a minority, so they gain what they gain through the system and then attack and kill anyone who presents a challenge to them. If you stop and think about it, there is no reason for the Jihadists to march and riot as they do, except that they do not enjoy majority support in those nations where they do these things. It is necessary for them to intimidate and attack their opponents, precisely because they are opposed.
Besides the Jihadists, there are Muslims which focus on business. The DP World ports deal was actually a good thing for the United States if Congress had bothered to look through the matter before pitching a hissy fit, because that company represented a significant commitment to improved commerce between the U.A.E. and the United States, which would have given the United States more influence in the U.A.E. while lowering not even one security measure. Other Arab companies have shown interest in cooperation with the United States, not least because a contract with a company like Haliburton is a win-win for them; profits in their pockets and a stronger development for their countries’ Infrastructure. There are some Muslims who focus on their family and country. Ever wonder why Arab families send their kids to college in the United States? It’s not just the quality education (Yale and Harvard are sorry exceptions) or an abundance of good Madressas here, but the open culture and virtues of Democracy. There are Muslims who love their country and are willing to defend it against the likes of the Jihadists. For instance, consider the police forces in Iraq. The job is high-risk and low-stability, yet the numbers are growing and a number of Iraq cities have been able to lower the necessary troop levels because the police are on the job. Just whom do you think the Jihadists in Baghdad and Kirkuk have been targeting, and why? The answer is that the Jihadists are a distinct minority, but their ruthless violence is a force multiplier.
(to be continued)
Thursday, March 16, 2006
I AM BACK!!!!!!
My neighbor came by this afternoon, with my underfed blog in tow. The poor guy was weak and scruffy, and smelled like he had spent time in Hyannisport, but he's back.
By the way, for those interested, I took my GMAT Tuesday, and while the results won't be official for another 18 days or so, I got a 730, which hits the 97th percentile. Yeah baby, back to Bischool!
By the way, for those interested, I took my GMAT Tuesday, and while the results won't be official for another 18 days or so, I got a 730, which hits the 97th percentile. Yeah baby, back to Bischool!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
