Sixty-three years ago today, the world changed radically and permanently. The Empire of Japan, fearing that the United States intended to thwart her ambitions in the South Pacific, especially regarding oil and rubber supplies. decides to launch a pre-emptive strike at the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. Strategists believed that such an attack would prevent effective defense against Japanese offensives, and would allow the Empire to negotiate a treaty with the United States from a position of strength. The United States was engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the Empire of Japan at the time, rather naively believing several myths. Among those myths, that the U.S. could impose a blockade on oil and materials shipments to Japan without consequence, and that moving the Pacific Fleet from San Francisco to Hawaii would remind the Japanese of their relative weakness to American battleships. The U.S. Congress also believed that the 'small' Japanese were not willing to risk a conflict with a 'great' power like America. Thirty minutes into the first raid, those myths were violently dispelled.
Many people like to look at the present War against Terrorism in the context of Vietnam, especially our invasion of Iraq. I see it much more like a World War, with the fate of many nations in the balance. Terrorism is at least as great a threat as Fascism was, and it's not hard to look at Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, and see a counterpart to Marshal Tojo or Adolf Hitler. And frankly, the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese never managed to bomb New York, which the terrorists already did.
There are two ways, essentially, to view the WoT in the light of Pearl Harbor. One is to consider how tactically brilliant yet strategically wrong the Japanese were in the attack. The attack worked flawlessly, but instead of convincing America to accommodate Japan, the attack enraged the nation and convinced them to try to eradicate Japan. Some on the Left might want to argue that the decision to pre-emptively invade Iraq has united the militants against the U.S., and inflamed a hatred of America in the Muslim world. They may point to the continuing violence in Iraq as a sign that we are not considered liberators, to the missing bin Laden as a failure to accomplish a signal objective, to the lack of WMD stockpiles in Iraq as an indictment against the validity of the war. They may point to the resentment in many nations against perceived U.S. aggression, to the stubborn refusal by President Bush to admit significant mistakes as a sign of arrogance and myopia, and they may demand we return to the methods of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. But they would be wrong.
The second way is to consider History. People were being killed in many places by terrorists, long before President Bush was elected in 2000. The Khobar Tower bombings, the Kenya Embassy bombing, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and many other attacks during the Clinton years, show that appeasement and indecision cost innocent lives, and only encourage the monsters. We know for a fact that the 9/11 attacks were planned long before President Bush even chose to run for President, and would have happened no matter who was in office. In fact, one of Ronald Reagan's few mistakes in office, would have to include leaving Lebanon after the Beirut bombings which killed so many Marines. Terrorists are only stopped by force and determination.
The claim that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 is insultingly deceitful in its callous arrogance. That is, he was known to have sheltered, paid, supplied, and sponsored almost a dozen terrorist groups, right up to the invasion. Several of the worst terrorist leaders of the 20th Century were captured or killed by the Coalition in Iraq. Also, remember those warehouses of suicide vests found by Marines, or the torture houses cleared out just last week in Fallujah? Only the most cynical hypocrite could pretend that Hussein is not exactly the sort of terrorist supporter we need to remove. And as others have mentioned, when a rat bites your child, you don't want to just get that one rat, you want to wipe out ALL the rats. We are facing in Iraq the kind of thugs known to cut the heads off unarmed innocents, women as well as men. They are precisely the sort we need to hunt down and exterminate; they cannot be allowed to exist. If it is right to chase down Nazis for their atrocities, it is right to hunt down Islamo-fascists. And many people don't seem to understand where these thugs were bred. They blame the Americans, as if the humiliation of a few prisoners at a prison, however unlawful, would drive a person to become an inhuman monster. The fact is, anyone who has seen the mass graves, the laboratories where Bio-weapons were tested on prisoners, or prisons built specifically to torture children, should be able to understand that these thugs were bred by the policies of the Baathist regime of Hussein, and instructed in their cruel tortures by the sons of the beast, Uday and Qusay. To blame anyone else is obscenely dishonest.
Some have tried to claim that President Bush always wanted to invade Iraq, because there were plans made for the invasion before 9/11. Such claims amount to an admission of stupidity. At the time of Bush's inauguration, Iraq was known to have the largest standing army in the Middle East, Hussein was known to be in violation of his cease-fire provisions, including the disposition of known stockpiles of WMD, including Chemical and Bio-weapon stockpiles, and was known to be actively seeking fissionable materials. Hussein had already committed numerous clear acts of war, including firing on Coalition aircraft in the 'no-fly' zones, and at least one known attempt on the life of a U.S. President. Bush would have been justified in attacking Iraq on February 1, 2001, especially since the official U.S. policy on Iraq had been Regime Change since 1998. After the 9/11 attacks, Hussein's known contacts with terrorist groups, along with worries about the status of his WMD programs and materials, made tolerance of the regime unacceptable. Also, the U.S. was well aware that following the removal of the Taliban, Al Qaeda would seek to re-establish itself in another Middle Eastern country. The fact that AQ entered Iraq after the invasion, only confirms the knowledge that AQ intended to go there in any case. As for the WMD, if anyone wants to pretend that known stockpiles of BW and CW just went away, they are living in a dreamworld and in complete denial of the facts. Surveillance of smuggling operations across the border to Iran and Syria just before the invasion began show the likely new home of the weapons. Fortunately, the successful war is already making an impact, as Libya, Iran, and Syria have all modified their compliance with inspector to deal with the reality that the U.S. is able to enforce any necessary decision. And for those who want to suggest that the best response to our casualties is to give up and go home, I suggest that a few words with any Marine unit which has served in Iraq is in order. While a few individuals may be found who believe the war unworthy of their efforts, the heavy majority of U.S. troops are proud of their work, and serious about their mission. And not particularly interested in the sad-sack pessimism of the Left.
What next? In war, nothing goes completely according to plan, but plans can be made. The simple fact is, most Muslims are not fascists, and no more stomach for 'Jihad' than any other people, especially against innocents. There is reason to believe that Iran can be coaxed to a more moderate stance, especially with the help of China. While the Left likes to imply that President Bush is stubborn, unilateral, inflexible, and stupid, the reality is that he has a good grasp of the conditions in the countries involved, and his plans for the future will stabilize the region and all participants. Just as the Left falsely accused Bush of wanting to bring back the draft, they falsely believe he intends to invade more countries. It is not, to be blunt, likely that Bush will do that, but the Democratic Republic of Iraq will change the region and the world, and her neighbors will find themselves forced to adapt to that new reality, or be left behind.
The Empire of Japan is no more. There is still an Emporer in Japan, but the nation is ruled by a Constitution, one drawn up and implemented by the Americans when they liberated the country from the fascist regime. Japan does not see eye to eye with the U.S. in everything, but does remain one of our strongest allies, especially in that part of the world. Iraq may well follow the same course.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Monday, December 06, 2004
Fads, Trends, and Revolution
There’s all kinds of talk out there, and it’s easy to get swept up in the emotion. I am old enough to recall some of the completely foolish ideas to take root in my lifetime, from Pet Rocks to Polyester Suits to Ancient Astronauts to Bill Clinton’s “Black” Presidency. I also have been fortunate enough to witness some truly amazing changes, from the first Lunar Landing to the fall of the Berlin Wall to the Internet. I have also noted trends through time, as people changed their economic, social, religious, and behavioral standards, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. I agree with those who say we stand at a crossroads, but I don’t always agree with where the roads ahead really lead.
I write about whatever strikes my mood, but it is fascinating to me also, to see how many facets of life are presently coming together. For example, President Bush is the first truly Evangelical President, which may explain why so many secularists are anxious about him. This is not to say that Dubya pushes his beliefs on others; compared to Clinton or his father, George W. is not prone to make any more religious statements, and his public pronouncements are the epitome of tolerance and broad-minded acceptance of others. But the simple fact that when this President goes to church, he does so to praise God, rather than look good on the cameras, irks the anti-church crowd. The knowledge that President Bush prays before making important decisions strikes anger into the hearts of those who would rather he decided by committee. The reality that President Bush does what he honestly believes is right, rather than acting on the directives from Congress, creates panic in those who want a weaker President, someone less decisive, less likely to be direct and plain-speaking. Personally, I applaud the man. No, I don’t agree with him on everything, but in the main he has the right idea. Will future Presidents follow Bush’s lead? I don’t know, but considering that devotion to an absolute Justice, and a sense of total accountability for all his actions, have been the mark of great Presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to yes, George W. Bush, it’s not a bad lead.
I wonder what we can expect from Congress. In the past, Congressmen and Senators had an easy out. Business was everyday stuff, except for those rare occasions when the public demanded action, and many politicos knew how to posture for the home crowd, while actually doing almost nothing to change the status quo, since they could always blame it on the other party’s obstruction. Now, however, there are clear lines. Democrats truly hate Republicans, and Republicans enjoy control of the White House and both Houses of Congress. They have an incredible opportunity to move the nation forward – if they are honest and bold enough to take the chance. I am truly encouraged by blogs in that respect; we need to keep their feet to the fire, not letting up just because they say they’re on our team.
Then there’s the Economy. We came out of the recession pretty well, but there’s a serious need to address the trade deficit, as well as the National Debt. It must not be a contradiction in terms any longer, to demand a lean Federal Budget.
As for the War on Terror, we must never forget that 9/11 was more than one evil planner, more than one group of murderers who hate America and all we stand for, that we are in a war for our very existence, and what happens in Fallujah is critical to what will be later in Houston, Washington, or New York. Every war has its point of decision, where will is tested, where determination runs against the cost, and the pessimists, cowards, and hidden enemies try to dissolve the effort. Now we run and throw away the hope of the world to come, or else we stand fast and remember the cost in the perspective of the deep reality of History, and hold precious the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers by not quitting the field, now or ever, until the war is completely won and the enemy utterly undone, by whatever means is needed. We must count this war as revolution against fascist ideologies, against a new and immoral enemy, against an evil subtle but feral, to establish not only a representative government for the people in the Middle East, but a model to instill hope and positive direction.
We can play at this, make it a fad, or we can start a trend, and change the world. Every issue, every vote, every decision now is critical to that work.
I write about whatever strikes my mood, but it is fascinating to me also, to see how many facets of life are presently coming together. For example, President Bush is the first truly Evangelical President, which may explain why so many secularists are anxious about him. This is not to say that Dubya pushes his beliefs on others; compared to Clinton or his father, George W. is not prone to make any more religious statements, and his public pronouncements are the epitome of tolerance and broad-minded acceptance of others. But the simple fact that when this President goes to church, he does so to praise God, rather than look good on the cameras, irks the anti-church crowd. The knowledge that President Bush prays before making important decisions strikes anger into the hearts of those who would rather he decided by committee. The reality that President Bush does what he honestly believes is right, rather than acting on the directives from Congress, creates panic in those who want a weaker President, someone less decisive, less likely to be direct and plain-speaking. Personally, I applaud the man. No, I don’t agree with him on everything, but in the main he has the right idea. Will future Presidents follow Bush’s lead? I don’t know, but considering that devotion to an absolute Justice, and a sense of total accountability for all his actions, have been the mark of great Presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to yes, George W. Bush, it’s not a bad lead.
I wonder what we can expect from Congress. In the past, Congressmen and Senators had an easy out. Business was everyday stuff, except for those rare occasions when the public demanded action, and many politicos knew how to posture for the home crowd, while actually doing almost nothing to change the status quo, since they could always blame it on the other party’s obstruction. Now, however, there are clear lines. Democrats truly hate Republicans, and Republicans enjoy control of the White House and both Houses of Congress. They have an incredible opportunity to move the nation forward – if they are honest and bold enough to take the chance. I am truly encouraged by blogs in that respect; we need to keep their feet to the fire, not letting up just because they say they’re on our team.
Then there’s the Economy. We came out of the recession pretty well, but there’s a serious need to address the trade deficit, as well as the National Debt. It must not be a contradiction in terms any longer, to demand a lean Federal Budget.
As for the War on Terror, we must never forget that 9/11 was more than one evil planner, more than one group of murderers who hate America and all we stand for, that we are in a war for our very existence, and what happens in Fallujah is critical to what will be later in Houston, Washington, or New York. Every war has its point of decision, where will is tested, where determination runs against the cost, and the pessimists, cowards, and hidden enemies try to dissolve the effort. Now we run and throw away the hope of the world to come, or else we stand fast and remember the cost in the perspective of the deep reality of History, and hold precious the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers by not quitting the field, now or ever, until the war is completely won and the enemy utterly undone, by whatever means is needed. We must count this war as revolution against fascist ideologies, against a new and immoral enemy, against an evil subtle but feral, to establish not only a representative government for the people in the Middle East, but a model to instill hope and positive direction.
We can play at this, make it a fad, or we can start a trend, and change the world. Every issue, every vote, every decision now is critical to that work.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Election Prediction Winners!
Now that most of the states have been certified, we can now see who won the Predictions Contest.
The scoring is simple. I looked for an exact hit on the Popular Vote percentages claimed by President Bush and Senator Kerry, and counted the Electoral Vote results for a tie-breaker, if needed.
In the end, President George W. Bush claimed 50.9% of the Popular Vote and 286 Electoral Votes, while Senator John Kerry claimed 48.0% of the Popular Vote and 252 Electoral Votes.
Nobody got the exact 50.9-48.0 pick, so my next step was to measure aggregate accuracy, then the EV pick, then the date and time of submission, and here I’m listing the winners, in order of their accuracy, for the voters who were within 0.5% of the actual results. It’s amazing how many people were in that x-ring!
SPECIAL MENTION: Tim McDonald was not able to get within 0.5% of the aggregate accuracy, but he was the only voter to accurately predict President Bush would claim 50.9% of the PV (Tim called it 50.9-46.5 Bush, with a 317-221 EV split). That earns an Honorable Mention.
0.5 range, places 22 and 23
23rd [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 48.6 [B291-247] David M. McClory, 10.30.04, 11:29 PM
22nd [] Bush 50.7, Kerry 48.3 [B276-249] William Winfield, 10.29.04, 1:51 PM
0.4 range, places 18 through 21
21st [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B304-238] T Brewer, 10.14.04, 3:53 PM
20th [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B302-236] Michael Fabiano, 10.14.04, 10:55 PM
19th [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B300-238] Pete Gardiner, 10.31.04, 10:30 PM
18th [] Bush 50.7, Kerry 48.2 [B300-238] George Tobin, 10.27.04, 3:34 PM
0.3 range, places 1 through 17
17th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [EV unk] Jerryx, 10.31.04, 2:33 PM
16th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B312-226] Rich F, 10.15.04, 1:13 PM
15th [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 47.8 [B307-231] Ben Maller, 10.31.04, 12:18 AM
14th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B306-232] Excelsior, 10.27.04, 11:19 PM
13th [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 48.2 [B301-237] Doc Steve, 10.23.04, 9:39 PM
12th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B301-237] mike the analyst, 10.21.04, 11:27 AM
11th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B301-237] Dominick S., 10.12.04, 2:10 PM
AND THE TOP TEN:
10th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B298-240] Rachel DiCarlo, 10.29.04, 11:30 AM
9th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B297-241] Michael Call, 10.15.04, 6:20 PM
8th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] VACons, 10.26.04, 8:02 AM
7th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] Paul, 10.24.04, 10:19 AM
6th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] SGG, 10.12.04, 3:00 PM
AND THE FIVE BEST:
5th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B295-243] Van Pham, 10.12.04, 2:08 PM
4th [] Bush 51.2, Kerry 48 [B279-259] Charles Fulner, 10.12.04 3:31 PM
3rd [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B292-246] Larry, 10.15.04, 3:31 PM
2nd [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B291-247] JB, 10.12.04, 3:05 PM
and our 1st Place CHAMPION is…
[] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B290-248] RoBear, 10.12.04, 3:18 PM
CONGRATULATIONS!
I will start looking up to see the homepages of the top 5 winners and will link to them here at Stolen Thunder, and will (if possible), write up profiles of the top 5 and their homepages for here and on Polipundit.
Also worth noting, are the people who got the EV pick exactly right:
Anthony Roberts posted at 8:46 PM on October 30, picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 51-48.5 PV prediction was only 0.6 aggregate points off!
soccer4ever posted at 12:38 PM on October 25, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 51-47 PV prediction was 1.7 aggregate points off.
Duncan Currie posted at 11:30 AM on October 29, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 52-47 PV prediction was 1.9 aggregate points off.
Finally, Carl Richardson posted at 1:50 AM on October 31, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 50.1-49.3 PV prediction was 2.3 aggregate points off.
Congratulations to our prediction sharpshooters!
The scoring is simple. I looked for an exact hit on the Popular Vote percentages claimed by President Bush and Senator Kerry, and counted the Electoral Vote results for a tie-breaker, if needed.
In the end, President George W. Bush claimed 50.9% of the Popular Vote and 286 Electoral Votes, while Senator John Kerry claimed 48.0% of the Popular Vote and 252 Electoral Votes.
Nobody got the exact 50.9-48.0 pick, so my next step was to measure aggregate accuracy, then the EV pick, then the date and time of submission, and here I’m listing the winners, in order of their accuracy, for the voters who were within 0.5% of the actual results. It’s amazing how many people were in that x-ring!
SPECIAL MENTION: Tim McDonald was not able to get within 0.5% of the aggregate accuracy, but he was the only voter to accurately predict President Bush would claim 50.9% of the PV (Tim called it 50.9-46.5 Bush, with a 317-221 EV split). That earns an Honorable Mention.
0.5 range, places 22 and 23
23rd [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 48.6 [B291-247] David M. McClory, 10.30.04, 11:29 PM
22nd [] Bush 50.7, Kerry 48.3 [B276-249] William Winfield, 10.29.04, 1:51 PM
0.4 range, places 18 through 21
21st [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B304-238] T Brewer, 10.14.04, 3:53 PM
20th [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B302-236] Michael Fabiano, 10.14.04, 10:55 PM
19th [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B300-238] Pete Gardiner, 10.31.04, 10:30 PM
18th [] Bush 50.7, Kerry 48.2 [B300-238] George Tobin, 10.27.04, 3:34 PM
0.3 range, places 1 through 17
17th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [EV unk] Jerryx, 10.31.04, 2:33 PM
16th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B312-226] Rich F, 10.15.04, 1:13 PM
15th [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 47.8 [B307-231] Ben Maller, 10.31.04, 12:18 AM
14th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B306-232] Excelsior, 10.27.04, 11:19 PM
13th [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 48.2 [B301-237] Doc Steve, 10.23.04, 9:39 PM
12th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B301-237] mike the analyst, 10.21.04, 11:27 AM
11th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B301-237] Dominick S., 10.12.04, 2:10 PM
AND THE TOP TEN:
10th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B298-240] Rachel DiCarlo, 10.29.04, 11:30 AM
9th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B297-241] Michael Call, 10.15.04, 6:20 PM
8th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] VACons, 10.26.04, 8:02 AM
7th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] Paul, 10.24.04, 10:19 AM
6th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] SGG, 10.12.04, 3:00 PM
AND THE FIVE BEST:
5th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B295-243] Van Pham, 10.12.04, 2:08 PM
4th [] Bush 51.2, Kerry 48 [B279-259] Charles Fulner, 10.12.04 3:31 PM
3rd [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B292-246] Larry, 10.15.04, 3:31 PM
2nd [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B291-247] JB, 10.12.04, 3:05 PM
and our 1st Place CHAMPION is…
[] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B290-248] RoBear, 10.12.04, 3:18 PM
CONGRATULATIONS!
I will start looking up to see the homepages of the top 5 winners and will link to them here at Stolen Thunder, and will (if possible), write up profiles of the top 5 and their homepages for here and on Polipundit.
Also worth noting, are the people who got the EV pick exactly right:
Anthony Roberts posted at 8:46 PM on October 30, picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 51-48.5 PV prediction was only 0.6 aggregate points off!
soccer4ever posted at 12:38 PM on October 25, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 51-47 PV prediction was 1.7 aggregate points off.
Duncan Currie posted at 11:30 AM on October 29, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 52-47 PV prediction was 1.9 aggregate points off.
Finally, Carl Richardson posted at 1:50 AM on October 31, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 50.1-49.3 PV prediction was 2.3 aggregate points off.
Congratulations to our prediction sharpshooters!
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Asymmetrical Warfare
In classical history, whenever a power found itself stronger than its neighbors, wars of conquest usually resulted. Besides the obvious advantage of setting your frontiers as far from the capital as possible, the tributes and levies from victories made life better for all the citizens of the empire. Generally, an empire would stop its expansion only upon one of three situations;
1. The decision by the empire that it had expanded as far as it could with the available forces at hand, to be extended or retracted as later conditions would determine. Examples of this would be the Roman and British empires;
2. The empire collapses from within, through corruption, insurrection, or the like. This may be seen in the fall of the Roman empire, or more recently in the collapse of Soviet Union;
3. An adversary successfully repels the invader, or else an opposing power makes aggression an undesirable risk. This may be illustrated by the uneasy border between France and Germany, and the Great Wall of China.
The rise of democratic republics in the last centuries of the second millennium changed all that. From men like Washington and Wellington, came the notion of armies which existed not for conquest principally, but to defeat foreign threats. Also at that time, alliances became firmer and more enduring, like the U.S.-U.K. alliance to eradicate international piracy in the 19th Century. This continued through the 20th Century, as two "World" wars were fought between opposing coalitions for a variety of reasons, including the survival of the regime. And it was in that environment that the United States rose to dominance in every major measure. By the end of the 20th Century, the USA was understood to be unmatched in military power, economic weight, and social influence. Not surprisingly, a number of nations began to fear American power, in terms of their own future.
Although the Soviet Union was no more, the Communist Party remained a force in the modern world. Also, Fascists left over from the German, Italian, and Japanese regimes of a half century ago had left their mark on a new generation. In addition to these, a new surge of religious violence by Islamic terrorists began to undermine stability in a number of Middle Eastern and Asian countries. As the 21st Century began, President-elect George W. Bush knew he had to plan to meet these threats.
The attacks on 9/11 irrevocably changed the world. Simply put, it is impossible to proceed under the old conditions. A loose confederacy of communists, fascists, and anti-American activists tried to stop the preparation for war, but in the end the Congress granted the needed authority and a U.S.-led coalition of nations invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq, putting pressure along the way on nearby regimes known to support or promote terrorist groups. Now, a year and a half after the fall of Baghdad, the United States is moving to its next stage in the operation.
Liberals often demand that the U.S. scale back operations, pointing to more than thirteen hundred U.S. military casualties, and many thousands of civilian losses. However, they do not understand the scope of the conflict, nor recognize that the civilian losses would have happened in other nations, had the U.S. not invaded Iraq. The distinction is that if the invasion had not happened, Saddam's terrorist-supporting regime would still exist, and with it, a dozen or so terrorist groups would still be based there, in all likelihood including Al Qaeda. As it is, while the loss of life is horrible, many terrorist leaders have been captured or killed, and the remaining organizations are disorganized and weakened. They can and will continue their 'Jihad' against the West, especially America, but the simple fact is, we are winning.
So, what next, assuming Iraq is stabilized in the next year or so? It's vital here, to understand the nature of the conflict.
It's no coincidence, that Anti-American sentiment is rising in many places. In the first place, Leftist groups are trying to work public mood against the American forces, just as the Communists did so well during the Vietnam War. This will be ongoing, but will not enjoy nearly the level of support and supply that happened when the Kremlin was around to sponsor them. Also, mainland European nations have agonized over the fact that where the United States was once a junior partner in their estimation, America now is self-sustaining in virtually every arena. While cooperation is necessary for everyone to profit as much as possible, the fact is that there are many proud nations forced to deal with the fact that they need the US' help, while America is truly and fully independent. This why so many French and German diplomats insist to anyone who will listen, that the U.S. is morally obligated to work with them; it is no longer conceivable to argue that the United States has a functional need of any nation's alliance.
This sounds arrogant, which is certainly the way that Europe and Africa and Asia have played it, but it's also important to understand the advantages to the American way of things. It is to everyone's benefit to eradicate international state-sponsored terrorism, and only the United States is ready and willing to take up that challenge. It is to everyone's benefit for new technologies to be developed to meet the future's energy needs, and only the United States has major corporations ready and willing to take up that challenge. It is to everyone's benefit for democratic republics to be the way of government in every major nation, and the United States is able and intent on pressing that advancement. Every nation in the world has people trying to match the U.S. success in commerce and technology; we allow more immigrants, by far, than any nation on the face of the earth. We send more charity food and materials to other nations, by far, than any other country. We allow every race and creed and culture to come here and become full citizens, something no other nation fully does. We are the only major nation on the face of the earth, which affirms that the government has no authority, except that the people grant it (the Communist governments claim to be the 'People's' republics, but do not allow grass-root political campaigns, or political debate, and brutally suppress dissent). We are the good guys, and the only nation both able and willing to do on a global scale, what we have been asked over and over to do on a national scale.
But for all the nobility of our ideals, we still face the limits I noted in the classical case. At some point the United States will either discover the limits to our powers and have to stop there, in which case some Middle East or Asian version of NATO will become vital to advancing our common goals (an enhanced SEATO, perhaps). Otherwise, we may fail because of indecision or weak willed command, or face some as-yet unforeseen enemy's rise to power.
This means that the next four years are critical. Fortunately, we seem to have a leader who understands that matter.
1. The decision by the empire that it had expanded as far as it could with the available forces at hand, to be extended or retracted as later conditions would determine. Examples of this would be the Roman and British empires;
2. The empire collapses from within, through corruption, insurrection, or the like. This may be seen in the fall of the Roman empire, or more recently in the collapse of Soviet Union;
3. An adversary successfully repels the invader, or else an opposing power makes aggression an undesirable risk. This may be illustrated by the uneasy border between France and Germany, and the Great Wall of China.
The rise of democratic republics in the last centuries of the second millennium changed all that. From men like Washington and Wellington, came the notion of armies which existed not for conquest principally, but to defeat foreign threats. Also at that time, alliances became firmer and more enduring, like the U.S.-U.K. alliance to eradicate international piracy in the 19th Century. This continued through the 20th Century, as two "World" wars were fought between opposing coalitions for a variety of reasons, including the survival of the regime. And it was in that environment that the United States rose to dominance in every major measure. By the end of the 20th Century, the USA was understood to be unmatched in military power, economic weight, and social influence. Not surprisingly, a number of nations began to fear American power, in terms of their own future.
Although the Soviet Union was no more, the Communist Party remained a force in the modern world. Also, Fascists left over from the German, Italian, and Japanese regimes of a half century ago had left their mark on a new generation. In addition to these, a new surge of religious violence by Islamic terrorists began to undermine stability in a number of Middle Eastern and Asian countries. As the 21st Century began, President-elect George W. Bush knew he had to plan to meet these threats.
The attacks on 9/11 irrevocably changed the world. Simply put, it is impossible to proceed under the old conditions. A loose confederacy of communists, fascists, and anti-American activists tried to stop the preparation for war, but in the end the Congress granted the needed authority and a U.S.-led coalition of nations invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq, putting pressure along the way on nearby regimes known to support or promote terrorist groups. Now, a year and a half after the fall of Baghdad, the United States is moving to its next stage in the operation.
Liberals often demand that the U.S. scale back operations, pointing to more than thirteen hundred U.S. military casualties, and many thousands of civilian losses. However, they do not understand the scope of the conflict, nor recognize that the civilian losses would have happened in other nations, had the U.S. not invaded Iraq. The distinction is that if the invasion had not happened, Saddam's terrorist-supporting regime would still exist, and with it, a dozen or so terrorist groups would still be based there, in all likelihood including Al Qaeda. As it is, while the loss of life is horrible, many terrorist leaders have been captured or killed, and the remaining organizations are disorganized and weakened. They can and will continue their 'Jihad' against the West, especially America, but the simple fact is, we are winning.
So, what next, assuming Iraq is stabilized in the next year or so? It's vital here, to understand the nature of the conflict.
It's no coincidence, that Anti-American sentiment is rising in many places. In the first place, Leftist groups are trying to work public mood against the American forces, just as the Communists did so well during the Vietnam War. This will be ongoing, but will not enjoy nearly the level of support and supply that happened when the Kremlin was around to sponsor them. Also, mainland European nations have agonized over the fact that where the United States was once a junior partner in their estimation, America now is self-sustaining in virtually every arena. While cooperation is necessary for everyone to profit as much as possible, the fact is that there are many proud nations forced to deal with the fact that they need the US' help, while America is truly and fully independent. This why so many French and German diplomats insist to anyone who will listen, that the U.S. is morally obligated to work with them; it is no longer conceivable to argue that the United States has a functional need of any nation's alliance.
This sounds arrogant, which is certainly the way that Europe and Africa and Asia have played it, but it's also important to understand the advantages to the American way of things. It is to everyone's benefit to eradicate international state-sponsored terrorism, and only the United States is ready and willing to take up that challenge. It is to everyone's benefit for new technologies to be developed to meet the future's energy needs, and only the United States has major corporations ready and willing to take up that challenge. It is to everyone's benefit for democratic republics to be the way of government in every major nation, and the United States is able and intent on pressing that advancement. Every nation in the world has people trying to match the U.S. success in commerce and technology; we allow more immigrants, by far, than any nation on the face of the earth. We send more charity food and materials to other nations, by far, than any other country. We allow every race and creed and culture to come here and become full citizens, something no other nation fully does. We are the only major nation on the face of the earth, which affirms that the government has no authority, except that the people grant it (the Communist governments claim to be the 'People's' republics, but do not allow grass-root political campaigns, or political debate, and brutally suppress dissent). We are the good guys, and the only nation both able and willing to do on a global scale, what we have been asked over and over to do on a national scale.
But for all the nobility of our ideals, we still face the limits I noted in the classical case. At some point the United States will either discover the limits to our powers and have to stop there, in which case some Middle East or Asian version of NATO will become vital to advancing our common goals (an enhanced SEATO, perhaps). Otherwise, we may fail because of indecision or weak willed command, or face some as-yet unforeseen enemy's rise to power.
This means that the next four years are critical. Fortunately, we seem to have a leader who understands that matter.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
One of the most ridiculous charges levelled against President Bush by the Left, has been the "rush to war' claim. Anyone with even a cursory grasp of events, knows that President Bush resisted the pressure to attack Afghanistan immediately, then when he decided to act, did so in the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq with direct communication to the rogue regimes, with direct communication to the United Nations, and with the specific authority granted by Congress.
It might be worthwhile, for all of that, to consider a little-known document, actually made public back on September 17, 2002. It's called "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". It's well worth reading. Shoot, it ought to be mandatory text for modern Civics!
I have taken the liberty of pulling out selected portions of that document for this article. Just a quick review may explain a lot of what's been going on, and what we can expect for the immediate future.
"Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us"
Right there on page one, President Bush explains why pre-emption is necessary. We don't have the luxury of waiting to see what these enemies will do, because technology makes their weapons available at hand. Once we know a group's existence and intent, it is immediately necessary to hit them at their home, or they will strike us in ours.
"The United States and coutries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases"
That, right there, is a valid and important reason for invading Iraq. Only the most naive or foolish would believe that once we destroyed the Taliban and drove Al Qaeda from their Afghan bases, they would not run to the next best friend they had: Iraq. Yes, the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime are not so strong as Dan Rather would accept, but it is incontrovertable, that when President Bush wrote these words in 2002, Saddam's regime was home, supplier, trainer, or supporter to a dozen terrorist organizations. Let's not forget that after we brought down his regime, American forces caught terrorist leaders Carlos the Jackal, Abu Abbas, and Abu Nidal, each in their day the most evil man known to the world. And we found them all living and hiding in Iraq.
From page 4:
"The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. the enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism - premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."
The Taliban clearly fit that description. So did Al Qaeda. So did Saddam's regime. So do the men working under Al-Zarqawi and Sadr. These are NOT 'Minutemen', or 'Freedom Fighters', or people driven to that resort. They are thuggish animals, who chose their work and fate.
"While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country"
We did strive, it was necessary, we are succeeding.
There's more, but the simple fact is, President Bush told the world exactly what he was going to do, why, and what to expect. And it's well worth reading to see the goals ahead.
It might be worthwhile, for all of that, to consider a little-known document, actually made public back on September 17, 2002. It's called "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". It's well worth reading. Shoot, it ought to be mandatory text for modern Civics!
I have taken the liberty of pulling out selected portions of that document for this article. Just a quick review may explain a lot of what's been going on, and what we can expect for the immediate future.
"Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us"
Right there on page one, President Bush explains why pre-emption is necessary. We don't have the luxury of waiting to see what these enemies will do, because technology makes their weapons available at hand. Once we know a group's existence and intent, it is immediately necessary to hit them at their home, or they will strike us in ours.
"The United States and coutries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases"
That, right there, is a valid and important reason for invading Iraq. Only the most naive or foolish would believe that once we destroyed the Taliban and drove Al Qaeda from their Afghan bases, they would not run to the next best friend they had: Iraq. Yes, the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime are not so strong as Dan Rather would accept, but it is incontrovertable, that when President Bush wrote these words in 2002, Saddam's regime was home, supplier, trainer, or supporter to a dozen terrorist organizations. Let's not forget that after we brought down his regime, American forces caught terrorist leaders Carlos the Jackal, Abu Abbas, and Abu Nidal, each in their day the most evil man known to the world. And we found them all living and hiding in Iraq.
From page 4:
"The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. the enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism - premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."
The Taliban clearly fit that description. So did Al Qaeda. So did Saddam's regime. So do the men working under Al-Zarqawi and Sadr. These are NOT 'Minutemen', or 'Freedom Fighters', or people driven to that resort. They are thuggish animals, who chose their work and fate.
"While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country"
We did strive, it was necessary, we are succeeding.
There's more, but the simple fact is, President Bush told the world exactly what he was going to do, why, and what to expect. And it's well worth reading to see the goals ahead.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Nobody's Leaving...
Among the various responses by Democrats, Leftist, and 'Seriously Unbalanced & Biased People Against Reality' (SUBPAR) have included varying degrees of an intense desire to escape the Truth. Some promise to flee the country, while others have claimed they intend for the 'Blue' States to secede. Sorry folks, that's not going to happen, and not just because Liberals have abad habit of not following through on their promises ("Last call for the flight to Paris. Mr. Baldwin? Ms. Streisand?"). The simple fact is, it's not feasible nor legal.
The United States faced a secession crisis, as most people know, in the Civil War from 1861 to 1865. Eleven states announced their secession from the United States of America, on the argument that the states are bound to the nation only by their choice. Another device used for leverage is the United States' treaty annexing Texas, which appeared to grant Texas the right to secede. A right granted to one state must apply to all, was the reasoning.
That reasoning, however, was built on a false premise. Because of the strategic value Texas represented in American expansion to the Pacific Ocean, as well as military value locking off Mexico from the U.S., the treaty came in two parts, which did different things.
There was a U.S. Congressional Resolution making Texas a State, and granting it the right to split into as many as five states, created in 1845. That resolution, however, said nothing about the State having a right to leave the USA. That's because of a treaty from a year before, where Texas essentially dissolved its sovereignty to become part of the United States. In other words, the Republic of Texas became a territory of the United States, then a State. That means that the State of Texas, while it had (and still has) special privileges because of the treaty which made it a State, never had a right to become sovereign on its own again. Any such thought or claim is a mistake at best.
Now, you may wonder why this history lesson is relevant to the rants from Sore Loser Left. I mean, even if it were somehow legal for the 'Blue' States to quit the country and become 'New France West' or the like, surely they understand how the dissolution of the union would impact them, economically as well as politically. I guess most Liberals don't realize that in such a secession, the NYSE would simply close up shop in NYC, and reform as something like the Omaha Stock Exchange, but then perhaps it is necessary to recall how poorly the Left does in Economics; anyone who can read Marx without laughing out loud at his blunders, is quite capable of believing in Utopia. To this day, there are those who would insist Lenin and Castro were right, even if those who believe them and follow their advice always seem to end up insolvent.
It's also worth looking at the question of just how 'blue' those blue states are, anyway. In California, for example, of its 55 counties, Bush won in 36, Kerry in only 19. So, if Cali wants to secede, less than half the counties are going, and a look at the map basically shows the new 'People's Republic of California' would pretty much claim only the coast, which gives them the beaches, the celebrities, and the barrios; the parts of California which are low-crime and prosperous would stay with the rest of the country. The same thing happens in New York, where Bush took 40 of its 62 counties. The rest of Kerry's territory is the same, or worse. And frankly, if these 'blue' states were to take a vote on seceding, it doesn't look like the votes would be there for the move.
It only goes to prove, even the blue states don't agree, all in all, with the claims made by their leadership. So long as they continue to wallow in denial, reasonable voters will find only the Republicans responsive to their issues and priorities.
The United States faced a secession crisis, as most people know, in the Civil War from 1861 to 1865. Eleven states announced their secession from the United States of America, on the argument that the states are bound to the nation only by their choice. Another device used for leverage is the United States' treaty annexing Texas, which appeared to grant Texas the right to secede. A right granted to one state must apply to all, was the reasoning.
That reasoning, however, was built on a false premise. Because of the strategic value Texas represented in American expansion to the Pacific Ocean, as well as military value locking off Mexico from the U.S., the treaty came in two parts, which did different things.
There was a U.S. Congressional Resolution making Texas a State, and granting it the right to split into as many as five states, created in 1845. That resolution, however, said nothing about the State having a right to leave the USA. That's because of a treaty from a year before, where Texas essentially dissolved its sovereignty to become part of the United States. In other words, the Republic of Texas became a territory of the United States, then a State. That means that the State of Texas, while it had (and still has) special privileges because of the treaty which made it a State, never had a right to become sovereign on its own again. Any such thought or claim is a mistake at best.
Now, you may wonder why this history lesson is relevant to the rants from Sore Loser Left. I mean, even if it were somehow legal for the 'Blue' States to quit the country and become 'New France West' or the like, surely they understand how the dissolution of the union would impact them, economically as well as politically. I guess most Liberals don't realize that in such a secession, the NYSE would simply close up shop in NYC, and reform as something like the Omaha Stock Exchange, but then perhaps it is necessary to recall how poorly the Left does in Economics; anyone who can read Marx without laughing out loud at his blunders, is quite capable of believing in Utopia. To this day, there are those who would insist Lenin and Castro were right, even if those who believe them and follow their advice always seem to end up insolvent.
It's also worth looking at the question of just how 'blue' those blue states are, anyway. In California, for example, of its 55 counties, Bush won in 36, Kerry in only 19. So, if Cali wants to secede, less than half the counties are going, and a look at the map basically shows the new 'People's Republic of California' would pretty much claim only the coast, which gives them the beaches, the celebrities, and the barrios; the parts of California which are low-crime and prosperous would stay with the rest of the country. The same thing happens in New York, where Bush took 40 of its 62 counties. The rest of Kerry's territory is the same, or worse. And frankly, if these 'blue' states were to take a vote on seceding, it doesn't look like the votes would be there for the move.
It only goes to prove, even the blue states don't agree, all in all, with the claims made by their leadership. So long as they continue to wallow in denial, reasonable voters will find only the Republicans responsive to their issues and priorities.
Friday, November 26, 2004
The Next Front In The Revolution?
The Old Media is dead. Being ornery, they won't admit it. Now you know where the legend of 'zombies' started; the old town criers didn't like being replaced by the newspapers, and the old witch doctors didn't like finding out they were replaced by men and women who understood the patterns of weather and the cycles in nature. Long after they were useless, they brayed on. The new Media will include reporters and news networks, because the need for reliable sources for news will always be there. But the empires of opinion-makers and trend-setters have been shaken to their foundations by the rise of the new options and alternatives in Information Analysis, best illustrated by the exponential growth of Blogs. I would contend, however, that the Revolution in Information is now ready to show another front.
I first began to suspect this front years ago, long before I had read my first blog. Baylor University, where I earned my degree, was asking me for money. Again. In fact, the heavy majority of Baylor's mail to me has always been asking for money. Money for the Liberal Arts, Money for the Football team, Money for new Scholarships and Endowments. Now, don't misunderstand me; Baylor is a pretty good school, as universities go. But, when I was in a bad way eonomically, Baylor's response was to tell me that my family made too much money to qualify, even though we couldn't afford the three of us in school at that time. Grants which I qualified for, I was not told about, as well as Scholarships. On-campus employment was denied to me, largely because the people deciding the employments had no standards to satisfy; those in particular need or especially qualified were ignored; the epitome of "it's who you know".
I'm not trying to trash Baylor. Like I said, for a university, they're pretty good. But they're badly run and poorly organized. Worse, they won't admit it. And when you get right down to it, unless you decide for yourself what you're going to do with your pricey education, the Guidance Counselors at Baylor won't be much help preparing you for the Real World. Absolutely none of the classmates I knew ever got so much as a single interview from the Counselors, and I would have changed my major and planning at age 18 if I had received proper direction, instead of learning the hard way what does and does not work.
Fast forward to 1988. Having worked hard and received several promotions over 5 years with one Corporation, I opened a facility and hired a staff of sixty employees. While there were very specific skills I looked for and helped my team develop, the simple fact is that in many careers, while a formal degree can help you get a better position and pay, the quality of work you do is not tied to your classwork and grades. It's very important for managers and supervisors to know what skills and talents to look for in employees, but in many companies, the policy is strictly tied to formal education, and it's casually assumed that a degree means a certain level of competency. That myth is finally breaking apart, and the need for a better standard of competency must take its place.
If Bill Gates did nothing else, he helped to revolutionize the Workplace by creating a new class of employee; the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE). In companies using the Microsoft platforms, having an MCSE on staff became critical, and the IT guy would often be better-paid than some Senior VP's. It didn't matter if he hadn't spent a day in college, so long as Microsoft had certified him. Alternatives to the standard degree became obvious, even critical.
Now that Information Management has been recognized as a discipline and talent in its own right, corporations and major employers are re-evaluating the criteria they use in selecting employees. And as for college degrees? With the new technology available, remote classwork is possible, along with variable scheduling, so that a new wave of fully-accredited colleges have arrived for the full-time worker to gain the degree proving academic accomplishment. Universities are on notice: Reputations must be confirmed, not used for laurel beds.
When Dan Rather leaves the anchor desk at CBS News next March (and hopefully, sterner measures will preventing him from continuing to collect paychecks from that company), he may be joined by some of the more arrogant professors from elitist universities. Reality has a way of showing up unexpectedly.
And for the record, no, I will not be sending Baylor University any of my money. They haven't earned it.
I first began to suspect this front years ago, long before I had read my first blog. Baylor University, where I earned my degree, was asking me for money. Again. In fact, the heavy majority of Baylor's mail to me has always been asking for money. Money for the Liberal Arts, Money for the Football team, Money for new Scholarships and Endowments. Now, don't misunderstand me; Baylor is a pretty good school, as universities go. But, when I was in a bad way eonomically, Baylor's response was to tell me that my family made too much money to qualify, even though we couldn't afford the three of us in school at that time. Grants which I qualified for, I was not told about, as well as Scholarships. On-campus employment was denied to me, largely because the people deciding the employments had no standards to satisfy; those in particular need or especially qualified were ignored; the epitome of "it's who you know".
I'm not trying to trash Baylor. Like I said, for a university, they're pretty good. But they're badly run and poorly organized. Worse, they won't admit it. And when you get right down to it, unless you decide for yourself what you're going to do with your pricey education, the Guidance Counselors at Baylor won't be much help preparing you for the Real World. Absolutely none of the classmates I knew ever got so much as a single interview from the Counselors, and I would have changed my major and planning at age 18 if I had received proper direction, instead of learning the hard way what does and does not work.
Fast forward to 1988. Having worked hard and received several promotions over 5 years with one Corporation, I opened a facility and hired a staff of sixty employees. While there were very specific skills I looked for and helped my team develop, the simple fact is that in many careers, while a formal degree can help you get a better position and pay, the quality of work you do is not tied to your classwork and grades. It's very important for managers and supervisors to know what skills and talents to look for in employees, but in many companies, the policy is strictly tied to formal education, and it's casually assumed that a degree means a certain level of competency. That myth is finally breaking apart, and the need for a better standard of competency must take its place.
If Bill Gates did nothing else, he helped to revolutionize the Workplace by creating a new class of employee; the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE). In companies using the Microsoft platforms, having an MCSE on staff became critical, and the IT guy would often be better-paid than some Senior VP's. It didn't matter if he hadn't spent a day in college, so long as Microsoft had certified him. Alternatives to the standard degree became obvious, even critical.
Now that Information Management has been recognized as a discipline and talent in its own right, corporations and major employers are re-evaluating the criteria they use in selecting employees. And as for college degrees? With the new technology available, remote classwork is possible, along with variable scheduling, so that a new wave of fully-accredited colleges have arrived for the full-time worker to gain the degree proving academic accomplishment. Universities are on notice: Reputations must be confirmed, not used for laurel beds.
When Dan Rather leaves the anchor desk at CBS News next March (and hopefully, sterner measures will preventing him from continuing to collect paychecks from that company), he may be joined by some of the more arrogant professors from elitist universities. Reality has a way of showing up unexpectedly.
And for the record, no, I will not be sending Baylor University any of my money. They haven't earned it.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Modern Technology
I used to wonder why people had it so bad in the days without Modern Technology. You know, like the people who founded Houston did it without Air Conditioning, and people couldn't travel more than maybe 20 or 30 miles in a day, because of the limitations of horse and road, etc. But I realize also, that we have some problems today, that are the direct result of Modern Technology.
I walked into the break room a few minutes ago, and saw "Divorce Court" on TV. What in the world would possess a couple going through a painful thing like divorce, to hang out their dirty laundry on national television? For that matter, why is there an audience for that kind of thing. I don't need or want to know about anyone's sex life or personal maturity crises or 4th wife, and that includes "Oprah", "Maury", "PrimeTime", or any of these shows which fixate on the bizarre and the depraved. I do not need to know about Paris Hilton's sex life, or whether Britney Spears thinks Ashley Simpson is a good singer. The fact is, easily 90% of TV's programs are useless, serving no purpose for the common good, and in a number of cases, quite the opposite.
"60 Minutes" tried to trash President Bush with forged papers. Numerous "news" reporters scurried around all year to keep us infomed on the latest Swift Boat or National Guard rumor, but precious few checked into the details of either candidate's plans for Immigration Reform or revisions to the Tax Code. Modern television and the movies are getting to be like letting your kid choose the menu; anything healthy gets rejected early on.
Ironically, the Internet is proving to be a refuge for information. But the Old Media is hard at work there, as well. Did you think it was a coincidence, that so many sites with information and details now expect you to register with them to read the articles? They want to know who's leaving, and why. And the bigger news sites are learning how to play "Pravda" with their mistakes and data they want to go away. For instance, Larry Bord made a few statements defending the unexcusable thuggery of Ron Artest, and sites started to note them. When Mr. Bird expressed his displeasure, these records were wiped clean; you can still find the reference in "Google", but when you click the link, it's been erased. 'All the news, except for the stuff we don't want you to see', seems to be the new motto. Fortunately, many bloggers (though sadly, not me) are savvy enough to snapshot such screens before the incriminating data goes bye-bye.
I also learned that Modern Technology, like Car Salesmen, promises far more than it delivers. Consider Monster.com, for example. The site would have you believe that it has revolutionized job and employee searching, and to a degree, it's good. But neither of the last 2 jobs I found, had anything to do with Monster. In fact, Monster never got me a single interview, and the resume format they use, frankly, is garbage, both from the job-hunter and employer point of view. I've been both, so I know. In the end, networking with people you know at church and from school remains the best way to find the interview and job offer.
Since I've touched on money and politics, the next logical step is sex. What is it with the media? Sure, I like sex, but c'mon! Nicollette Sheridan shows up on Monday Night Football in just a towel. Why? I go to MFN for football, OK, not to have the wife think I'm looking for smut. And speaking of smut, is there one single positive quality to 'Desperate Housewives'? For crying out loud, somebody please insert a plot, some dialogue, maybe just a hint of intelligence? Oh yes, I forgot, this is ABC TV, the guys who thought 'NYPD Blue' wasn't 'blue' enough, so we had to see Dennis Franz' naked butt. Just because someone hypothesized that an infinite number of monkeys would eventually write all the great works, doesn't mean that anything that comes out of a chimpanzee's typewriter should get a show. But I'm being mean; most TV 'celebrities' couldn't survive in the Real World.
Which brings up 'Reality TV'. As if. My idea of 'Reality TV', would be making some of these network execs try to make it as retail managers with direct contact by the public, or some college professors forced to work in a corporation, and learn first-hand that a false story from even a local TV station can and will hurt a company, and cost real people their jobs. I'd like to see Dan Rather have to prove his claims and show his work, at a station where they check the facts before they go on the air. I'd like to see 'models' who have same shape and condition as ordinary people, and never again be leactured on TV by a single actress with no kids, how she thinks I should raise my children. I'd like to see shows where normal people aren't ridiculed, where people who go to church are the good guys, where people who don't use foul language and don't disrepect other groups are the 'cool' crowd, and where community, courtesy, and self-discipline are recognized as not only worthy of praise, but essential.
Use technology then, but don't trust it.
I walked into the break room a few minutes ago, and saw "Divorce Court" on TV. What in the world would possess a couple going through a painful thing like divorce, to hang out their dirty laundry on national television? For that matter, why is there an audience for that kind of thing. I don't need or want to know about anyone's sex life or personal maturity crises or 4th wife, and that includes "Oprah", "Maury", "PrimeTime", or any of these shows which fixate on the bizarre and the depraved. I do not need to know about Paris Hilton's sex life, or whether Britney Spears thinks Ashley Simpson is a good singer. The fact is, easily 90% of TV's programs are useless, serving no purpose for the common good, and in a number of cases, quite the opposite.
"60 Minutes" tried to trash President Bush with forged papers. Numerous "news" reporters scurried around all year to keep us infomed on the latest Swift Boat or National Guard rumor, but precious few checked into the details of either candidate's plans for Immigration Reform or revisions to the Tax Code. Modern television and the movies are getting to be like letting your kid choose the menu; anything healthy gets rejected early on.
Ironically, the Internet is proving to be a refuge for information. But the Old Media is hard at work there, as well. Did you think it was a coincidence, that so many sites with information and details now expect you to register with them to read the articles? They want to know who's leaving, and why. And the bigger news sites are learning how to play "Pravda" with their mistakes and data they want to go away. For instance, Larry Bord made a few statements defending the unexcusable thuggery of Ron Artest, and sites started to note them. When Mr. Bird expressed his displeasure, these records were wiped clean; you can still find the reference in "Google", but when you click the link, it's been erased. 'All the news, except for the stuff we don't want you to see', seems to be the new motto. Fortunately, many bloggers (though sadly, not me) are savvy enough to snapshot such screens before the incriminating data goes bye-bye.
I also learned that Modern Technology, like Car Salesmen, promises far more than it delivers. Consider Monster.com, for example. The site would have you believe that it has revolutionized job and employee searching, and to a degree, it's good. But neither of the last 2 jobs I found, had anything to do with Monster. In fact, Monster never got me a single interview, and the resume format they use, frankly, is garbage, both from the job-hunter and employer point of view. I've been both, so I know. In the end, networking with people you know at church and from school remains the best way to find the interview and job offer.
Since I've touched on money and politics, the next logical step is sex. What is it with the media? Sure, I like sex, but c'mon! Nicollette Sheridan shows up on Monday Night Football in just a towel. Why? I go to MFN for football, OK, not to have the wife think I'm looking for smut. And speaking of smut, is there one single positive quality to 'Desperate Housewives'? For crying out loud, somebody please insert a plot, some dialogue, maybe just a hint of intelligence? Oh yes, I forgot, this is ABC TV, the guys who thought 'NYPD Blue' wasn't 'blue' enough, so we had to see Dennis Franz' naked butt. Just because someone hypothesized that an infinite number of monkeys would eventually write all the great works, doesn't mean that anything that comes out of a chimpanzee's typewriter should get a show. But I'm being mean; most TV 'celebrities' couldn't survive in the Real World.
Which brings up 'Reality TV'. As if. My idea of 'Reality TV', would be making some of these network execs try to make it as retail managers with direct contact by the public, or some college professors forced to work in a corporation, and learn first-hand that a false story from even a local TV station can and will hurt a company, and cost real people their jobs. I'd like to see Dan Rather have to prove his claims and show his work, at a station where they check the facts before they go on the air. I'd like to see 'models' who have same shape and condition as ordinary people, and never again be leactured on TV by a single actress with no kids, how she thinks I should raise my children. I'd like to see shows where normal people aren't ridiculed, where people who go to church are the good guys, where people who don't use foul language and don't disrepect other groups are the 'cool' crowd, and where community, courtesy, and self-discipline are recognized as not only worthy of praise, but essential.
Use technology then, but don't trust it.
Monday, November 22, 2004
A Large Unpaid Debt
Forty-one years ago today, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas. That much is agreed upon by almost everyone. Since the assassination of JFK, however, almost no one has been able to establish a stable consensus on just what happened there on that day.
Before I go too far into this article, let me be clear that I do not generally hold conspiracy theories to be viable. It’s simple when you think about it; a secret on this scale, kept for this long by any number of people, would have revealed something of itself by now. If you think Nixon’s White House tapes or the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was a big deal, killing a sitting President is much more significant, on a level which begs disbelief that all the major participants would keep their secrets all these years. So, the notions of a coup de etat do not sit well with me, nor do I believe that there is a ‘secret government’ controlling things.
But it’s also apparent, from what we know now, that the conventional wisdom is also wrong; all three versions of it. Let’s go through them one by one:
[1] Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy – There are literally dozens of books and films out which completely destroy this notion, yet a large segment of the public still holds on to this myth, including the Mainstream Media, and even more particularly those talking heads who vaulted their reputations and careers ahead of others by toeing the line when the Warren Commission put the heaviest coat of whitewash on the assassination. A detailed debunking can be had with a quick check of any library or comparison between the presented claims and the evidence, but here are some highlights:
* The rifle allegedly used was so poor, that FBI marksmen were unable to repeat the feat using the actual gun; the closest they could manage was to fire the weapon four times without aiming it in the 7.9 seconds allowed; aimed shots never came close to the necessary accuracy or speed. If they could not do it, how are we supposed to believe Oswald did?
* Oswald left no prints on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Although a palm print was produced later, this was produced after Oswald’s death, and witnesses saw agents take Oswald’s prints in his casket.
* The view from the alleged “sniper perch” on the 6th floor of the TSBD had only an obstructed view of the motorcade, blocked by several trees. While the Warren Commission claimed that the trees would have lost their leaves in November, films of the day show this was not true (nor uncommon in sunny Texas)
* Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor between 1 and 2 minutes after the assassination by his supervisor and a Dallas policeman. No one in the stairwells at that time saw Oswald, and the elevator was on the ground floor at this time. Therefore, there is no explanation for how Oswald is supposed to have moved from the 6th floor to the 2nd, without so much as breathing heavy.
* Oswald denied shooting anyone, an action clearly different from the pattern of political assassins, who have always boasted of their deed. No motive was ever established, as to why Oswald would have wanted Kennedy dead.
I could go on, but the blunt fact is, Oswald doesn’t fit. When you get to the ballistics and witness testimony, it only becomes more obvious. In 1978, giving in to the overwhelming witness testimony, film and acoustic evidence, the House sub-Committee on Assassinations ruled that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy. The official policy of the United States Government has been that a Conspiracy killed a sitting President, yet no action has been taken on that policy in 26 years.
[2] A Secret Government is running the nation, and has been ever since 1963. This is actually a favorite in some parts of Europe. Rather than accept that we really let the average American decide who leads the nation, the notion of a hidden Central government is held and embraced. It’s so strong, that when Viktor Belenko flew a MiG-25 to Japan and defected to the West, he was convinced that Washington D.C. was a façade only, that real decisions were made by some American version of the Politburo. This sort of thinking, which keeps LaRouche politically active and supplies an audience for Oliver Stone, misses the significance of the Watergate Scandal, the Middle East Peace Summit under Carter, the Reagan Revolution and the Victory over the Iron Curtain, the Clinton redirection of Welfare and Education policies, and the Bush Doctrine against Terrorism. It reminds me of the X-files episodes where we see secret committees, dark and nefarious, yet somehow unable to do anything but complain about things getting out of control. In a way, that part might be accurate; I can accept the notion of the Council on Foreign Relations muttering that Dubya is not taking their sage advice, the angry complaints of this U.N. committee or that, that the Americans are not being fair and submitting to the wise oversight of foreign nations, or the complaints by the heads of the Old Media Networks, that Americans are foolishly rejecting the commentary from Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings, in preference of making up their own minds. If a secret cabal killed Kennedy, I don’t think they knew what to do afterwards.
[3] The CIA did it. It always strikes me as strange, to believe how an agency too incompetent to kill Castro in 1961, was somehow able to pull off a much more complex operation against Kennedy. Also, the sieve-like nature of the CIA makes it impossible to believe that the details would not have been made public long ago. Also, the constant feuding between the FBI and CIA in the 1960s, makes it impossible to accept the claim that they would tolerate such a plot by the other, let alone work together.
So, what happened? I have my ideas, but the point here is that we owe it to the citizens of this nation, to fully investigate great crimes against the nation. Like the killing of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy, the assassination of John Kennedy is a major offense demanding answers, and the task is worthy of our full effort and candor. So long as something like this is simply ignored or put aside, the people of the United States will have little reason to believe their government is truly accountable to them.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Forcing the Decision
For all the noise, the fact remains that President George W. Bush won re-election, with over 60 million voters placing their votes in trust to him. The fact also remains, than more than 57 milion voters this year preferred John Kerry for the office. The sheer volume of these numbers is staggering, which may explain why no one yet has addressed the peculiar paradox of this election:
America remains sharply divided between the values of the Democratic and Republican parties, yet
President Bush's re-election this year was decisive in all respects.
A look at the demographics helps illustrate this peculiar condition. Younger voters tended to support Kerry, while older voters preferred Bush. Single voters supported Kerry, while married voters preferred Bush. Urban voters preferred Kerry, while Rural voters preferred Bush. And of course, the Coasts (as states) went for Kerry, while the Heartlands went for Bush.
On the other hand, when compared to his 2000 numbers, President Bush in 2004 improved his results in every major demographic sector. Also, Bush did well with Catholics and better in Massachusetts against Kerry than he did against Gore in 2000; additional evidence that Bush was gaining national support, even in his opponent's base.
I don't know, however, that I agree with the assumption that the United States is rejecting the Democrats as a major party. History shows that even an overwhelming win, which 2004 was most definitely not, or a series of wins, may not accurately foretell a dynastic dominance. On the other hand, it would be wise for Democrats to understand and accept that George W. Bush has now exceeded expectations in five consecutive high-profile elections. His two elections as Governor of Texas were upsets in their caliber; the first was a stunning victory of Ann Richards, whom the Democrats not only considered unbeatable in Texas but a rising star with national ambitions. His victory over then Vice President Al Gore in a time of peace and prosperity in 2000 was so unexpected, some Democrats today remain in denial about it. In 2002, Democrats were so sure they would gain in both the House and Senate's elections that they began to leak speculations about changes in Committee leadership, yet when the results were known, it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who had gained in both the House and Senate, and later examination revealed that it was personal campaigning by President Bush in key contests which made the difference. And of course, this year's campaign included the use of forged documents by CBS in a blatant smear attempt, a major motion picture was produced and distributed for the specific purpose of propaganda, a foreign billionaire personally vowed to try to buy the election out of spite, and Democrat '527' groups outspent Republican '527's by a factor of 12, yet when the votes were counted, George W. Bush withstood everything thrown at him, and won.
Again.
Another way to look at the present balance, is to consult America's Paternity source, the Declaration of Independence, specifically those Rights named from the beginning: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
To Democrats, values which some label as "Liberal" are very important, and one key disappointment many leading Democrats feel from Clinton's Presidency, is that they feel Bill Clinton was forced to water-down his programs and goals, and to compromise his politics to appease the Republican-controlled Congress. In many Democrats' minds, there has not been a truly Democratic Presidency in full power since Johnson. I don't agree with that, nor do all Democrats, but this sense of frustration is what is driving the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, especially that the lesson has been made again, that only a Moderate Democrat can win the White House in this climate.
As I just mentioned, there are essentially two wings to the Democratic Party, but they both hold the same values, if to differing degrees. The value of "Life" means that most Democrats oppose the Death Penalty or the unilateral use of Military Force. The meaning of "Liberty", to Democrats, means that Social Values outweight individual preferences, that freedom of the group is the essential, but also that special accomodations must be made for any and all declared minority groups, excepting traditional groups, who are presumed to enjoy privilege. The "Pursuit of Happiness" applies to protection of individual preferences, including minority beliefs and protection from the presumed oppression by the majority. Many aspects of these values have virtue in their own right, but it bears noting, that they are generally focused on the minority of every debate, which suggests a political cost.
Republicans, despite the foul imprecations by the Left, represent the heart of America, and have enjoyed a growing base since Reagan declared his candidacy for the 1980 Presidential campaign. Republicans are actually a 3-wing party, which is not understood by most of the Old Media and the Liberals of the Democratic Party.
Republicans are Conservatives, Moderates, and 'Big Tent' Republicans. Like the Democrats, Republicans tend to hold the same values, but again to different degrees. Republicans believe in "Life" in the most essential terms; so precious that a murderer should lose his life for taking one, and the innocent are so precious that their life is inviolate even before their first breath. "Liberty" means that the Rights enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights must be observed and protected without dilution or compromise. "The Pursuit of Happiness" means that using the powers of government to promote a 'social values' position or opinion is wrong, and does nothing but corrode the trust given by the public to those in office.
Democrats believe in using government to solve social problems; Republicans believe that government must act only where individuals and smaller governments cannot handle the task.
Democrats believe in limiting America's authority outside our borders; Republicans believe in establishing American authority worldwide in the protection of our national interests.
Only extremists hold only to the absolutes in these values, but there is a clear difference between the Left and Right in all of this. One benefit from this last election, is the clarity of position. Everyone is confirming or learning their position, and this will bear results in the coming elections.
The best course for everyone, in my opinion, is to consider your values carefully, and discuss them. You won't win over everyone, but there is a larger audience now, than ever before.
America remains sharply divided between the values of the Democratic and Republican parties, yet
President Bush's re-election this year was decisive in all respects.
A look at the demographics helps illustrate this peculiar condition. Younger voters tended to support Kerry, while older voters preferred Bush. Single voters supported Kerry, while married voters preferred Bush. Urban voters preferred Kerry, while Rural voters preferred Bush. And of course, the Coasts (as states) went for Kerry, while the Heartlands went for Bush.
On the other hand, when compared to his 2000 numbers, President Bush in 2004 improved his results in every major demographic sector. Also, Bush did well with Catholics and better in Massachusetts against Kerry than he did against Gore in 2000; additional evidence that Bush was gaining national support, even in his opponent's base.
I don't know, however, that I agree with the assumption that the United States is rejecting the Democrats as a major party. History shows that even an overwhelming win, which 2004 was most definitely not, or a series of wins, may not accurately foretell a dynastic dominance. On the other hand, it would be wise for Democrats to understand and accept that George W. Bush has now exceeded expectations in five consecutive high-profile elections. His two elections as Governor of Texas were upsets in their caliber; the first was a stunning victory of Ann Richards, whom the Democrats not only considered unbeatable in Texas but a rising star with national ambitions. His victory over then Vice President Al Gore in a time of peace and prosperity in 2000 was so unexpected, some Democrats today remain in denial about it. In 2002, Democrats were so sure they would gain in both the House and Senate's elections that they began to leak speculations about changes in Committee leadership, yet when the results were known, it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who had gained in both the House and Senate, and later examination revealed that it was personal campaigning by President Bush in key contests which made the difference. And of course, this year's campaign included the use of forged documents by CBS in a blatant smear attempt, a major motion picture was produced and distributed for the specific purpose of propaganda, a foreign billionaire personally vowed to try to buy the election out of spite, and Democrat '527' groups outspent Republican '527's by a factor of 12, yet when the votes were counted, George W. Bush withstood everything thrown at him, and won.
Again.
Another way to look at the present balance, is to consult America's Paternity source, the Declaration of Independence, specifically those Rights named from the beginning: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
To Democrats, values which some label as "Liberal" are very important, and one key disappointment many leading Democrats feel from Clinton's Presidency, is that they feel Bill Clinton was forced to water-down his programs and goals, and to compromise his politics to appease the Republican-controlled Congress. In many Democrats' minds, there has not been a truly Democratic Presidency in full power since Johnson. I don't agree with that, nor do all Democrats, but this sense of frustration is what is driving the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, especially that the lesson has been made again, that only a Moderate Democrat can win the White House in this climate.
As I just mentioned, there are essentially two wings to the Democratic Party, but they both hold the same values, if to differing degrees. The value of "Life" means that most Democrats oppose the Death Penalty or the unilateral use of Military Force. The meaning of "Liberty", to Democrats, means that Social Values outweight individual preferences, that freedom of the group is the essential, but also that special accomodations must be made for any and all declared minority groups, excepting traditional groups, who are presumed to enjoy privilege. The "Pursuit of Happiness" applies to protection of individual preferences, including minority beliefs and protection from the presumed oppression by the majority. Many aspects of these values have virtue in their own right, but it bears noting, that they are generally focused on the minority of every debate, which suggests a political cost.
Republicans, despite the foul imprecations by the Left, represent the heart of America, and have enjoyed a growing base since Reagan declared his candidacy for the 1980 Presidential campaign. Republicans are actually a 3-wing party, which is not understood by most of the Old Media and the Liberals of the Democratic Party.
Republicans are Conservatives, Moderates, and 'Big Tent' Republicans. Like the Democrats, Republicans tend to hold the same values, but again to different degrees. Republicans believe in "Life" in the most essential terms; so precious that a murderer should lose his life for taking one, and the innocent are so precious that their life is inviolate even before their first breath. "Liberty" means that the Rights enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights must be observed and protected without dilution or compromise. "The Pursuit of Happiness" means that using the powers of government to promote a 'social values' position or opinion is wrong, and does nothing but corrode the trust given by the public to those in office.
Democrats believe in using government to solve social problems; Republicans believe that government must act only where individuals and smaller governments cannot handle the task.
Democrats believe in limiting America's authority outside our borders; Republicans believe in establishing American authority worldwide in the protection of our national interests.
Only extremists hold only to the absolutes in these values, but there is a clear difference between the Left and Right in all of this. One benefit from this last election, is the clarity of position. Everyone is confirming or learning their position, and this will bear results in the coming elections.
The best course for everyone, in my opinion, is to consider your values carefully, and discuss them. You won't win over everyone, but there is a larger audience now, than ever before.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Filler
Well, God loves Irony.
Last week, my daughter had Pink Eye. Two days ago, I wrote a piece about disease. And yes, today, I have Pink Eye.
Being a 44-year-old with a disease commonly thought of as a childhood ailment really sucks. It also sucks, that I have to keep my distance from my daughter, so I don't re-infect her; this is a bigger problem than you might think, because my little princess considers it her God-given right to receive or dispense hugs and kisses to and from Daddy at her perogative.
My novel is progressing, if only in circles. I remember Tom Lehrer making fun of Beethoven once, pointing out that some of his symphonies seem to have trouble ending, as if Ludwig wasn't quite sure how to stop. I'd laugh more about that, except that, being an idiot, I entered a contest to write my novel, and the thing is due to be finished in one week.
Maybe I'll just kill off the main character with a really bad case of Pink Eye.
On another board, I've been trying to explain the election to some very hard-core Liberals. Once you realize that Liberals operate in a Logic-Optional Reality mode, you see how pointless it is to present evidence or facts. I'd have better luck convincing my daughter to enjoy broccoli.
I really like the CSI shows, but it occurs to me, that one reason we have trouble solving crimes like they do on the show, is that cities and counties only spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a facility, if it involves a professional sports team. The real Las Vegas Crime Lab, I suspect, does not enjoy multi-million-dollar-budget labs, with 50-gig computers and Summa cum Laude graduates on the staff.
Last thought for this article. If you really want to know the diff between Liberal and Conservative, consider that one has big problems with killing criminals, but is fine with killing babies, while the other accepts a jury verdict of death for a convicted murderer, but fights for every child's life. For all the debate, that divide always seems to show up.
Last week, my daughter had Pink Eye. Two days ago, I wrote a piece about disease. And yes, today, I have Pink Eye.
Being a 44-year-old with a disease commonly thought of as a childhood ailment really sucks. It also sucks, that I have to keep my distance from my daughter, so I don't re-infect her; this is a bigger problem than you might think, because my little princess considers it her God-given right to receive or dispense hugs and kisses to and from Daddy at her perogative.
My novel is progressing, if only in circles. I remember Tom Lehrer making fun of Beethoven once, pointing out that some of his symphonies seem to have trouble ending, as if Ludwig wasn't quite sure how to stop. I'd laugh more about that, except that, being an idiot, I entered a contest to write my novel, and the thing is due to be finished in one week.
Maybe I'll just kill off the main character with a really bad case of Pink Eye.
On another board, I've been trying to explain the election to some very hard-core Liberals. Once you realize that Liberals operate in a Logic-Optional Reality mode, you see how pointless it is to present evidence or facts. I'd have better luck convincing my daughter to enjoy broccoli.
I really like the CSI shows, but it occurs to me, that one reason we have trouble solving crimes like they do on the show, is that cities and counties only spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a facility, if it involves a professional sports team. The real Las Vegas Crime Lab, I suspect, does not enjoy multi-million-dollar-budget labs, with 50-gig computers and Summa cum Laude graduates on the staff.
Last thought for this article. If you really want to know the diff between Liberal and Conservative, consider that one has big problems with killing criminals, but is fine with killing babies, while the other accepts a jury verdict of death for a convicted murderer, but fights for every child's life. For all the debate, that divide always seems to show up.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Anthrax and Iraq
In 1942, during the Second World War, Dr. Stanley Lovell toured a number of facilities on behalf of the O.S.S. , to weigh the risk of sabotage and attacks on the public. He identified a number of weak areas, including water reservoirs and oil refineries. In many ways, his report 62 years ago reads like a DHS briefing today. One idea rejected early on, was the possibility of using the mail to deliver an attack. Codes and message were, of course, to be considered, but it seemed outlandish to believe anyone could or would use the mail to attack the United States. Unfortunately, in the weeks following the September 11th attacks, America found out that this assumption was invalid.
On October 2, 2001, a photo editor for American Media Inc. (who publish weekly newspapers like the National Enquirer and the Sun) named Bob Stevens was admitted to the JFK Medical Center in Atlantis, Florida. Three days later he died, from Anthrax inhalation. Stevens was the first documented case of a wave of 23 Anthrax victims, who touched or inhaled spores from Anthrax-laced letters. Five people died from Anthrax inhalation during this wave of attacks, which abruptly ceased in October. Targets for the letters included the weekly newspapers published by AMI, New York media ABC, CBS, NBC and the New York Post, and two letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy. There appear to have been three waves to the attacks:
The letter to AMI (and possibly others not discovered) was received sometime prior to September 25, with no notice about the Anthrax poison. Witnesses reported a “soapy” odor and texture to the powder, indicating the sender intended for the Anthrax to kill without warning.
The letters to the New York television networks and the New York Post, were postmarked September 18 with no return address, and included the following text in block letters:
09-11-01
YOU CANNOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT.
The letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy were postmarked October 9 and included the same fictitious return address in New Jersey, and included the following text, again in block letters:
09-11-01
THIS IS NEXT
TAKE PENACILIN NOW
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO ISRAEL
ALLAH IS GREAT
The FBI says all the letters appear to have been written by the same person, and all the letters were a photocopy. One oddity is that the paper size differed from letter to letter; the letter to the New York Post, for example, was printed on a paper size not normally found in the U.S., with a height-to-width ration of about 1.41 to 1, which Erich Speckin (who runs a private forensic lab) says is common to European business letters. Another possibility is that the letters were trimmed to remove gripper marks from a copier, which would help confirm the machine used to make the copies, or some other identifying marks.
There were differences in the Anthrax sent, as well. While the FBI contends that all of the Anthrax was from the same batch, some of it appeared to be more finely milled than others, indicating that the Anthrax was either processed by the letter sender himself, or that it was more finely milled between the first and second wave, for better sporulation.
After the October 9 letters, they stopped, and never started again.
This makes for an interesting detective story, but it also sheds light on part of the decision to invade Iraq. Why?
Following the loss to Coalition forces in 1991, Saddam Hussein’s military was forced to open their bases to inspectors, and in the course of those inspections, it was discovered that Saddam’s WMD programs had progressed much further than expected. Accordingly, the cease-fire was conditional on, among other things, the supervised destruction of all WMD stockpiles, tools, and research. As we know, that requirement was never met.
Fast forward to 2001. Iraq is on the desk of everyone concerned with National Security, because of their continuing interesting in acquiring/developing WMD, their support for a number of terrorist groups, and the law making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. Invading Iraq is on the back burner, but it’s on the burner.
September 11 hits, and all hell breaks loose. In addition to fighting Al Qaeda and bin Laden, all major threats to U.S. National Security move up the ladder. A dictator who has already attempted to assassinate a U.S. President, who is known to hate America generally and the Bush family in particular, who is also known to support terrorists and who is seeking WMD if he does not already have them, yeah he gets attention.
Early October, letters with Anthrax are showing up in Florida, in the same community where the 9/11 hijackers lived, in New York, and at the Senate. The Anthrax is a strain known to be in Iraqi hands as recently as 1998, and the best intelligence indicates they have kept it and are making more. Hans Blix admits privately that he believes Iraq has about 10,000 liters of weaponized Anthrax, on the basis of the intelligence he sees, and Dr. Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, or ‘Mrs. Anthrax’, has been photographed spending time in Saddam’s council recently. When the Anthrax is discovered to be more refined or ‘sporulated’ than any known samples in U.S. possession, additional speculation and concern is evident.
A private question went out about the consequences of the terrorist use of weaponized Anthrax. The answer received, is that the deliberate use of Anthrax as an attack on the U.S. population would constitute a WMD attack, and any response, up to and including nuclear strikes, would be legitimate.
In that light, President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq seems not only very reasonable, but also remarkably restrained. Also, I find it very interesting that the letters abruptly stopped in October, just after there success as a weapon and as a terror device began to become evident. I have no proof, but suspect that if a U.S. force were to discover and intercept a foreign group dispersing such a disease as Anthrax, that deadly force would readily be authorized.
Just something to think about.
On October 2, 2001, a photo editor for American Media Inc. (who publish weekly newspapers like the National Enquirer and the Sun) named Bob Stevens was admitted to the JFK Medical Center in Atlantis, Florida. Three days later he died, from Anthrax inhalation. Stevens was the first documented case of a wave of 23 Anthrax victims, who touched or inhaled spores from Anthrax-laced letters. Five people died from Anthrax inhalation during this wave of attacks, which abruptly ceased in October. Targets for the letters included the weekly newspapers published by AMI, New York media ABC, CBS, NBC and the New York Post, and two letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy. There appear to have been three waves to the attacks:
The letter to AMI (and possibly others not discovered) was received sometime prior to September 25, with no notice about the Anthrax poison. Witnesses reported a “soapy” odor and texture to the powder, indicating the sender intended for the Anthrax to kill without warning.
The letters to the New York television networks and the New York Post, were postmarked September 18 with no return address, and included the following text in block letters:
09-11-01
YOU CANNOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT.
The letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy were postmarked October 9 and included the same fictitious return address in New Jersey, and included the following text, again in block letters:
09-11-01
THIS IS NEXT
TAKE PENACILIN NOW
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO ISRAEL
ALLAH IS GREAT
The FBI says all the letters appear to have been written by the same person, and all the letters were a photocopy. One oddity is that the paper size differed from letter to letter; the letter to the New York Post, for example, was printed on a paper size not normally found in the U.S., with a height-to-width ration of about 1.41 to 1, which Erich Speckin (who runs a private forensic lab) says is common to European business letters. Another possibility is that the letters were trimmed to remove gripper marks from a copier, which would help confirm the machine used to make the copies, or some other identifying marks.
There were differences in the Anthrax sent, as well. While the FBI contends that all of the Anthrax was from the same batch, some of it appeared to be more finely milled than others, indicating that the Anthrax was either processed by the letter sender himself, or that it was more finely milled between the first and second wave, for better sporulation.
After the October 9 letters, they stopped, and never started again.
This makes for an interesting detective story, but it also sheds light on part of the decision to invade Iraq. Why?
Following the loss to Coalition forces in 1991, Saddam Hussein’s military was forced to open their bases to inspectors, and in the course of those inspections, it was discovered that Saddam’s WMD programs had progressed much further than expected. Accordingly, the cease-fire was conditional on, among other things, the supervised destruction of all WMD stockpiles, tools, and research. As we know, that requirement was never met.
Fast forward to 2001. Iraq is on the desk of everyone concerned with National Security, because of their continuing interesting in acquiring/developing WMD, their support for a number of terrorist groups, and the law making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. Invading Iraq is on the back burner, but it’s on the burner.
September 11 hits, and all hell breaks loose. In addition to fighting Al Qaeda and bin Laden, all major threats to U.S. National Security move up the ladder. A dictator who has already attempted to assassinate a U.S. President, who is known to hate America generally and the Bush family in particular, who is also known to support terrorists and who is seeking WMD if he does not already have them, yeah he gets attention.
Early October, letters with Anthrax are showing up in Florida, in the same community where the 9/11 hijackers lived, in New York, and at the Senate. The Anthrax is a strain known to be in Iraqi hands as recently as 1998, and the best intelligence indicates they have kept it and are making more. Hans Blix admits privately that he believes Iraq has about 10,000 liters of weaponized Anthrax, on the basis of the intelligence he sees, and Dr. Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, or ‘Mrs. Anthrax’, has been photographed spending time in Saddam’s council recently. When the Anthrax is discovered to be more refined or ‘sporulated’ than any known samples in U.S. possession, additional speculation and concern is evident.
A private question went out about the consequences of the terrorist use of weaponized Anthrax. The answer received, is that the deliberate use of Anthrax as an attack on the U.S. population would constitute a WMD attack, and any response, up to and including nuclear strikes, would be legitimate.
In that light, President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq seems not only very reasonable, but also remarkably restrained. Also, I find it very interesting that the letters abruptly stopped in October, just after there success as a weapon and as a terror device began to become evident. I have no proof, but suspect that if a U.S. force were to discover and intercept a foreign group dispersing such a disease as Anthrax, that deadly force would readily be authorized.
Just something to think about.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Wars in Overlap
As the fighting for Fallujah has intensified, the very soul of the War for Iraq coalesced in one place, I am in a mood to think about other kinds of war.
One distinct side effect of the present day methods of education so commonly empoloyed, is that many high-school graduates have little grasp of historically significant events. Many times even college graduates are unable to name the significance of America's very existence, much less the import of the last two generations of History. The need to address that canyon of ignorance is one of my most pressing motives for writing this blog. It also occurs to me, that far too many people are unaware of the wars in which we are all presently engaged.
Wars also overlap, a fact lost on people who think that the end of military action means the end of the conflict. Consider the American War for Independence. Most people think it ended in 1781 at the Battle of Yorktown, if indeed they think of it at all. Perhaps others consider that it did not end until 1783, when the British finally got around to an Armistice. Others might recall that the British Empire did not enact even one of the agreed elements of the Treaty until 1787. But since the British invaded the American mainland after that, sacking a number of cities including Washington, D.C., it is quite fair to say that the American Revolution did not, in fact, truly end until 1814, when the British finally acknowledge once and for all, that they could not end our existence, and began to treat us as something like a real nation. The War for Independence and the War of 1812 were, from our perspective, bookend actions on the same war.
Many people think the Civil War began in 1861 and ended in 1865. But for farmers in the middle states, who saw violence as early as 1841, they might tell you something else. And with the rise of the KKK in the South, essentially domestic terrorism which was not stamped out for nearly a century after Lee surrendered, it's hard to say when the country in total was at "peace".
After the War of 1812, the United States and England joined together to rid the oceans of international piracy. The combination of allied and unilateral actions removed the threat of international sea marauders from the world, until breakdowns in cooperation (thanks to Japanese and Southeast Asia's indifference) allowed piracy to reform in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The effort continued even as the nations were involved in other wars, demonstrating the ability to fight wars in multiple fronts against multiple enemies for multiple goals.
Many conflicts of our own generation actually began long ago. The destruction wrought by drug abuse was long known, and by the end of the 19th Century, proscription of Opium was the law in most nations. After World War 1, drug use by veterans skyrocketed, especially with the introduction of heroin and the retail availability of cocaine. This was in large part due to the horrific nature of WW1; the battlefield use of gas, futile assaults against machine-gun emplacements, and the lack of effective field hospitals led to horrific casualties, both in number and damage. Survivors were often in constant pain for the rest of their life.
Another war long in progress, but not much-considered, is the war against Organized Crime. American historians are familiar with J. Edgar Hoover's response, to deny that OC even existed; unfortunately, that was not an uncommon response. The Mafia, various domestic criminal gangs, the Yakuza, and of course the Triads and Tongs have all affected the course of governments, in wars and peacetime both. The history there is so involved and significant, it deserves notmerely its own article, but a book with detailed notes and cross-references. It is worth noting for here, however, that even nations which consider their own political philosophy incompatible with the United States, nonetheless cooperate with the U.S.A. to defeat international crime syndicates.
The list goes on, but space and attention have limits. For here and now, it's important to consider the conflicts going on at present:
[] The War Against International and State-Sponsored Terrorism;
[] The War to Establish a Functioning Arab Democratic Republic;
[] The War to Convince the Totalitarian Regimes, That They Cannot Win a Military Conflict Against the United States, Regardless of Their Strategy or Tactics;
[] The War to Prove Communism Futile as a Political System;
[] The War to Prove Socialism Futile as a Political System;
[] The War to Pre-Emptively Remove Threats to American Citizens;
[] The War to Secure American Influence for the Century to Come;
[] The War to Separate Religion From National Policy;
[] The War to Advance Africa and the Middle East to a Better Standard of Life and Civil Rights; and
[] The War to Prove the Truth of the United States Constitution.
Many of these conflicts seem related, and some can be accomplished through coordinated moves. Others will require a different sort of conflict than military action, and will take longer to accomplish their objectives. But these are all important objectives, and some of them predate the Bush Administration (even the first Bush), and some will go on for as long as we can see ahead. But it remains important to see that higher dimensions exist, and that our nation's identity will be determined by the resolution of these conflicts.
One distinct side effect of the present day methods of education so commonly empoloyed, is that many high-school graduates have little grasp of historically significant events. Many times even college graduates are unable to name the significance of America's very existence, much less the import of the last two generations of History. The need to address that canyon of ignorance is one of my most pressing motives for writing this blog. It also occurs to me, that far too many people are unaware of the wars in which we are all presently engaged.
Wars also overlap, a fact lost on people who think that the end of military action means the end of the conflict. Consider the American War for Independence. Most people think it ended in 1781 at the Battle of Yorktown, if indeed they think of it at all. Perhaps others consider that it did not end until 1783, when the British finally got around to an Armistice. Others might recall that the British Empire did not enact even one of the agreed elements of the Treaty until 1787. But since the British invaded the American mainland after that, sacking a number of cities including Washington, D.C., it is quite fair to say that the American Revolution did not, in fact, truly end until 1814, when the British finally acknowledge once and for all, that they could not end our existence, and began to treat us as something like a real nation. The War for Independence and the War of 1812 were, from our perspective, bookend actions on the same war.
Many people think the Civil War began in 1861 and ended in 1865. But for farmers in the middle states, who saw violence as early as 1841, they might tell you something else. And with the rise of the KKK in the South, essentially domestic terrorism which was not stamped out for nearly a century after Lee surrendered, it's hard to say when the country in total was at "peace".
After the War of 1812, the United States and England joined together to rid the oceans of international piracy. The combination of allied and unilateral actions removed the threat of international sea marauders from the world, until breakdowns in cooperation (thanks to Japanese and Southeast Asia's indifference) allowed piracy to reform in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The effort continued even as the nations were involved in other wars, demonstrating the ability to fight wars in multiple fronts against multiple enemies for multiple goals.
Many conflicts of our own generation actually began long ago. The destruction wrought by drug abuse was long known, and by the end of the 19th Century, proscription of Opium was the law in most nations. After World War 1, drug use by veterans skyrocketed, especially with the introduction of heroin and the retail availability of cocaine. This was in large part due to the horrific nature of WW1; the battlefield use of gas, futile assaults against machine-gun emplacements, and the lack of effective field hospitals led to horrific casualties, both in number and damage. Survivors were often in constant pain for the rest of their life.
Another war long in progress, but not much-considered, is the war against Organized Crime. American historians are familiar with J. Edgar Hoover's response, to deny that OC even existed; unfortunately, that was not an uncommon response. The Mafia, various domestic criminal gangs, the Yakuza, and of course the Triads and Tongs have all affected the course of governments, in wars and peacetime both. The history there is so involved and significant, it deserves notmerely its own article, but a book with detailed notes and cross-references. It is worth noting for here, however, that even nations which consider their own political philosophy incompatible with the United States, nonetheless cooperate with the U.S.A. to defeat international crime syndicates.
The list goes on, but space and attention have limits. For here and now, it's important to consider the conflicts going on at present:
[] The War Against International and State-Sponsored Terrorism;
[] The War to Establish a Functioning Arab Democratic Republic;
[] The War to Convince the Totalitarian Regimes, That They Cannot Win a Military Conflict Against the United States, Regardless of Their Strategy or Tactics;
[] The War to Prove Communism Futile as a Political System;
[] The War to Prove Socialism Futile as a Political System;
[] The War to Pre-Emptively Remove Threats to American Citizens;
[] The War to Secure American Influence for the Century to Come;
[] The War to Separate Religion From National Policy;
[] The War to Advance Africa and the Middle East to a Better Standard of Life and Civil Rights; and
[] The War to Prove the Truth of the United States Constitution.
Many of these conflicts seem related, and some can be accomplished through coordinated moves. Others will require a different sort of conflict than military action, and will take longer to accomplish their objectives. But these are all important objectives, and some of them predate the Bush Administration (even the first Bush), and some will go on for as long as we can see ahead. But it remains important to see that higher dimensions exist, and that our nation's identity will be determined by the resolution of these conflicts.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Developing Morality in War
I just finished reading William F. Buckley's novel, Nuremberg. The book revolved around the life of a German family who emigrated to America, but with only partial success. But the book had additional considerations and historical events worth their own review. One of those was the claim by Hermann Goering, that the International Court convened to try him and the other leading Nazis, lacked legal jurisdiction and authority. The thing is, had Germany not surrendered unconditionally, he might have been right, as German Law did not present any authority for leading government officials to be tried, ex post facto, for crimes defined after their capture. It made the judgment and summary execution of leading Nazis in Nuremberg appear no more legitimate than the judgment and summary execution of captured Allied officers by, say, Japan during the War. The fact that Germany surrendered unconditionally, however, allows for some doubt, since it can be argued that the unconditional surrender allowed for the total and permanent dissolution of the German and Japanese Governments, even to their right to exist, which is supported by the rebuilding of those nations under new regimes, even with new Constitutions.
I am not saying, by any means, that there was no valid reason to try the Nazis for what they did during the Second World War. But it is important to realize that the world changed in the years between 1939 and 1945, enough that old definitions had to be replaced to deal with new conditions. Carpet bombing, the development and use of Atomic bombs, occupation and redirection of previously sovereign nations had to be addressed as actions taken by the Allied forces. Conspiracy and execution of Genocide, Slavery and Rape on a national scale, and unforseen atrocities like organized Cannibalism and deliberate Decapitation as Official Policy, were Axis offenses which had to be considered and addressed. One reason given by a number of WW2 vets for not talking much about their experiences, is that a number of those experiences were too ghastly for the friends and family they knew before the War.
Critics on the Left have spoken out about the morality of the War in Iraq. Certainly, it is wise to discuss a war in detail, rather than casually accept an event which will affect the lives of so many, and which causes so much death and destruction. However, it is not right to ignore the conditions making the war necessary, or to apply old conditions to a situation not suited to them.
When we discuss the War in Iraq, the first obvious topic is WMD. A lot of people on the Left now say, that because we have not (yet) found WMD stockpiles, that the war was wrong. First off, that claim ignores the smuggling of unknown materials across the border to Iran and Syria before the war, during the time Bush was working with the United Nations and negotiating to get Saddam to step down. You know, that delay of several months that the Democrats ignored while claiming he "rushed to war". Also, considering how unstable the country is, the very real possibility that there are WMD stockpiles, which just haven't been found yet. But even granting the absence of WMD, the other reasons for going to war were right, and with what we have discovered since, the war is not a thing we should feel guilty about.
The arguments for and against the war have been done so many times, that I will not dwell on them, but to consider three critical points:
1. Iraq now has a government with the potential to become a full-fledged Democratic Republic, which would stabilize that country better than anytime before in its history. This is not only valuable to the 25 million Iraqis, but also to every nation which has to deal with it. returning to Germany, consider the many wars between Prussia/Germany and her European allies before World War 2, and the stable relationships since. This is the possible future for Iraq, which is also good for everyone in the region.
2. Iraq was a harbor and home for more than a dozen major terrorist organizations before the U.S. invasion, including Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas. Despite claims that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the fact is clear that only by wiping out these terrorist organizations could the U.S. proceed with the War on Terror. And yes, in case you were wondering, that's why all thsoe terrorists in Iraq are fighting us. When we clear them out of Iraq, it's going to get a lot harder to be a terrorist.
3. When you separate all the noise from the facts, we really did not know that 9/11 was coming, not even the day before. General rumblings were enough to cause concern, but the world really was different. We cannot go back to where we were on September 10. While debate is still very right and necessary, pre-emptive War cannot be rejected for the reasons used in the old wars. We need to find the threats to our nation, and remove them. There is a natural friction against it, and a point where it is not even feasible to be done, but where there is a need and the means exist, we must consider the option of pre-emptive attack on unstable nations.
The War in Iraq has cost over a thousand lives of American Soldiers. That is reason to question its worth. However, the claims that "Bush Lied" (or, as if it was somehow less offensive, "misled") simply don't hold up logically. Since the President knew the U.S. would win in Iraq, it follows that he knew any statements he made would be reviewed in the light of that time, it is simply ludicrous to believe that President Bush would make statements (and defend them) which he knew would not hold up later. I mention this, only to show that many on the Left need to explain the morality of their own claims and arguments.
As we approach the second term of President Bush, the War in Iraq is evolving into a new phase. The one point we should be able to agree on now, is that this war should be resolved as quickly and thoroughly as possible. And that means no more hindering of the plans in place by law. The President clearly won the election, and the Republicans made gains in both the House and Senate. The mandate now, certainly includes letting the war be run as it is planned by the men and women in charge. Anything else, and the Liberals are more immoral than any claim they have made about the President so far.
I am not saying, by any means, that there was no valid reason to try the Nazis for what they did during the Second World War. But it is important to realize that the world changed in the years between 1939 and 1945, enough that old definitions had to be replaced to deal with new conditions. Carpet bombing, the development and use of Atomic bombs, occupation and redirection of previously sovereign nations had to be addressed as actions taken by the Allied forces. Conspiracy and execution of Genocide, Slavery and Rape on a national scale, and unforseen atrocities like organized Cannibalism and deliberate Decapitation as Official Policy, were Axis offenses which had to be considered and addressed. One reason given by a number of WW2 vets for not talking much about their experiences, is that a number of those experiences were too ghastly for the friends and family they knew before the War.
Critics on the Left have spoken out about the morality of the War in Iraq. Certainly, it is wise to discuss a war in detail, rather than casually accept an event which will affect the lives of so many, and which causes so much death and destruction. However, it is not right to ignore the conditions making the war necessary, or to apply old conditions to a situation not suited to them.
When we discuss the War in Iraq, the first obvious topic is WMD. A lot of people on the Left now say, that because we have not (yet) found WMD stockpiles, that the war was wrong. First off, that claim ignores the smuggling of unknown materials across the border to Iran and Syria before the war, during the time Bush was working with the United Nations and negotiating to get Saddam to step down. You know, that delay of several months that the Democrats ignored while claiming he "rushed to war". Also, considering how unstable the country is, the very real possibility that there are WMD stockpiles, which just haven't been found yet. But even granting the absence of WMD, the other reasons for going to war were right, and with what we have discovered since, the war is not a thing we should feel guilty about.
The arguments for and against the war have been done so many times, that I will not dwell on them, but to consider three critical points:
1. Iraq now has a government with the potential to become a full-fledged Democratic Republic, which would stabilize that country better than anytime before in its history. This is not only valuable to the 25 million Iraqis, but also to every nation which has to deal with it. returning to Germany, consider the many wars between Prussia/Germany and her European allies before World War 2, and the stable relationships since. This is the possible future for Iraq, which is also good for everyone in the region.
2. Iraq was a harbor and home for more than a dozen major terrorist organizations before the U.S. invasion, including Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas. Despite claims that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the fact is clear that only by wiping out these terrorist organizations could the U.S. proceed with the War on Terror. And yes, in case you were wondering, that's why all thsoe terrorists in Iraq are fighting us. When we clear them out of Iraq, it's going to get a lot harder to be a terrorist.
3. When you separate all the noise from the facts, we really did not know that 9/11 was coming, not even the day before. General rumblings were enough to cause concern, but the world really was different. We cannot go back to where we were on September 10. While debate is still very right and necessary, pre-emptive War cannot be rejected for the reasons used in the old wars. We need to find the threats to our nation, and remove them. There is a natural friction against it, and a point where it is not even feasible to be done, but where there is a need and the means exist, we must consider the option of pre-emptive attack on unstable nations.
The War in Iraq has cost over a thousand lives of American Soldiers. That is reason to question its worth. However, the claims that "Bush Lied" (or, as if it was somehow less offensive, "misled") simply don't hold up logically. Since the President knew the U.S. would win in Iraq, it follows that he knew any statements he made would be reviewed in the light of that time, it is simply ludicrous to believe that President Bush would make statements (and defend them) which he knew would not hold up later. I mention this, only to show that many on the Left need to explain the morality of their own claims and arguments.
As we approach the second term of President Bush, the War in Iraq is evolving into a new phase. The one point we should be able to agree on now, is that this war should be resolved as quickly and thoroughly as possible. And that means no more hindering of the plans in place by law. The President clearly won the election, and the Republicans made gains in both the House and Senate. The mandate now, certainly includes letting the war be run as it is planned by the men and women in charge. Anything else, and the Liberals are more immoral than any claim they have made about the President so far.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Rise of the New City-State
You wouldn't know it for all the rumors flying around, but the 2004 Presidential Election is over. And to our great relief, we got to know the results by something not far from the Election Night itself.
Along with the clear majority President Bush claimed in this election (his tally crossed sixty million votes today), there have been many posts about "Bush Country", showing the huge advantage Bush has, not only in States won but also by Counties led. But the results show another message, one both parties should heed.
In ancient Greece, power was held by city-states. Small wonder; each city not only represented a focus of military power, but also a center for commerce and art and learning. To read Plato or Socrates, you could easily conclude that no one lived anywhere in Greece, except for cities like Sparta or Athens, but there were a lot of people, in small villages and the like; they just got ignored by the sophisticates. Sound familiar? For all the talk of the heart of Democracy, however, in Greece it amounted to mob rule, and the Greek despots knew how to control large mobs in large cities, and so gain power through manipulation of the masses. A lot of people who think themselves wise in their support for pure Democracy, have never thought through the wisdom of a Democratic Republic, where the whole of the nation, geographically as well as in population, is considered in the administration of power. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were wiser here, than were Al Gore or Terry McAuliffe.
In the Presidential election just concluded, President Bush took 31 states to Kerry's 19 (Kerry also took D.C.) , but as many have noted, the majority for Bush is much more pronounced when the counties are examined. But it goes even further than that. Take a look at the major cities, and Kerry's strong suit becomes obivous. Kerry took New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit for example, and was strong in Bush states in cities like Miami, Austin, Columbus and Las Vegas. There is a point of demarcation; above a certain concentration or urban development, the Democrat message gains appeal, and where populations are less concentrated, the Republican message is strongly favored.
At first look, some Republicans may be inclined to shrug and note, that since Bush won the election, it's more a problem for the Democrats, and to a degree that's true. If the Democrats don't start listening to the people in the whole country, they will have committed themselves to second-tier as a political party, occasionally taking the White House but gradually fading to irrelevance. Since the Democrats in the main are unwilling to take the hard look at their recent losses (2000, 2002, now 2004), this is a bad situation for them. But Republicans need to be aware of a weak spot for them, signified by their weak results in major cities. Note also that this aligns with minority results; the question is whether poor support from minorities hurts Republicans in large cities, whether the rejection by large cities causes minority results to be low (since minorities still mainly live in cities, rather than in small towns), or some combination of each.
There has been extensive polling throughout this election year, and the information taken can be very useful. Americans have consistently said the top 4 issues in this election were Terrorism, the War in Iraq, the Economy in General, or Jobs in Particular. John Kerry gained by making the War in Iraq an issue, and by questioning Job Security during Bush's first term. Kerry also gained for a while in the Economy overall, but Bush was able to regain much of his losses there. The strongest suits for Bush, the War on Terrorism and National Security in the wake of 9/11, were not only important to all Americans, but Kerry's poor explanation of his plans in those issues hurt him badly. It could fairly be said, that except for 9/11 Kerry could have won this election. That should warn Republicans to pay attention to domestic and economic issues before planning on 2006 or 2008.
As for the Democrats, their solution may be amazingly simple, or nearly impossible. If I were in charge of the Democratic strategy for a Presidential campaign, I would take copious notes from the Clinton campaigns, especially 1996. First off, Bill Clinton had a lot of things working for him in 1992, but one very smart move, was he stayed away from attacking the President he was trying to beat. Every winning President does that. Next, Bill Clinton was careful to note his strengths and weaknesses, and to avoid calling attention to the opponent's strengths or his weaknesses. In the case of Kerry, he did exactly the opposite. It's very possible, that the Democrat's nominee for President in 2008, can win by just learning to go in through the door, not to attack walls. Of course, it could also be that Kerry was facing other opposing factors, not so obvious, and if that is the case, nothing but a complete review and reformation of the Democratic Party will be enough. The evidence for that lies in the way that Republicans took the White House in 2000 in time of peace and prosperity, against a VP in a popular Administration, and in 2002 against the normal historical flow of mid-term elections, and again in 2004 under conditions which have historically ended other Administrations. I like George W. Bush, but he's not articulate or charming enough to explain his streak of wins like that. That suggests an underlying strength for the GOP/weakness in the Democrats that is not immediately obvious.
A lot more looking is in order. For now, though, I would suggest to Republicans to consider tailoring an urban message to win some of those cities, and the Democrats need to take some bitter medicine, and listen to the people in those red states and counties, no matter how much they may hate what they learn.
Along with the clear majority President Bush claimed in this election (his tally crossed sixty million votes today), there have been many posts about "Bush Country", showing the huge advantage Bush has, not only in States won but also by Counties led. But the results show another message, one both parties should heed.
In ancient Greece, power was held by city-states. Small wonder; each city not only represented a focus of military power, but also a center for commerce and art and learning. To read Plato or Socrates, you could easily conclude that no one lived anywhere in Greece, except for cities like Sparta or Athens, but there were a lot of people, in small villages and the like; they just got ignored by the sophisticates. Sound familiar? For all the talk of the heart of Democracy, however, in Greece it amounted to mob rule, and the Greek despots knew how to control large mobs in large cities, and so gain power through manipulation of the masses. A lot of people who think themselves wise in their support for pure Democracy, have never thought through the wisdom of a Democratic Republic, where the whole of the nation, geographically as well as in population, is considered in the administration of power. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were wiser here, than were Al Gore or Terry McAuliffe.
In the Presidential election just concluded, President Bush took 31 states to Kerry's 19 (Kerry also took D.C.) , but as many have noted, the majority for Bush is much more pronounced when the counties are examined. But it goes even further than that. Take a look at the major cities, and Kerry's strong suit becomes obivous. Kerry took New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit for example, and was strong in Bush states in cities like Miami, Austin, Columbus and Las Vegas. There is a point of demarcation; above a certain concentration or urban development, the Democrat message gains appeal, and where populations are less concentrated, the Republican message is strongly favored.
At first look, some Republicans may be inclined to shrug and note, that since Bush won the election, it's more a problem for the Democrats, and to a degree that's true. If the Democrats don't start listening to the people in the whole country, they will have committed themselves to second-tier as a political party, occasionally taking the White House but gradually fading to irrelevance. Since the Democrats in the main are unwilling to take the hard look at their recent losses (2000, 2002, now 2004), this is a bad situation for them. But Republicans need to be aware of a weak spot for them, signified by their weak results in major cities. Note also that this aligns with minority results; the question is whether poor support from minorities hurts Republicans in large cities, whether the rejection by large cities causes minority results to be low (since minorities still mainly live in cities, rather than in small towns), or some combination of each.
There has been extensive polling throughout this election year, and the information taken can be very useful. Americans have consistently said the top 4 issues in this election were Terrorism, the War in Iraq, the Economy in General, or Jobs in Particular. John Kerry gained by making the War in Iraq an issue, and by questioning Job Security during Bush's first term. Kerry also gained for a while in the Economy overall, but Bush was able to regain much of his losses there. The strongest suits for Bush, the War on Terrorism and National Security in the wake of 9/11, were not only important to all Americans, but Kerry's poor explanation of his plans in those issues hurt him badly. It could fairly be said, that except for 9/11 Kerry could have won this election. That should warn Republicans to pay attention to domestic and economic issues before planning on 2006 or 2008.
As for the Democrats, their solution may be amazingly simple, or nearly impossible. If I were in charge of the Democratic strategy for a Presidential campaign, I would take copious notes from the Clinton campaigns, especially 1996. First off, Bill Clinton had a lot of things working for him in 1992, but one very smart move, was he stayed away from attacking the President he was trying to beat. Every winning President does that. Next, Bill Clinton was careful to note his strengths and weaknesses, and to avoid calling attention to the opponent's strengths or his weaknesses. In the case of Kerry, he did exactly the opposite. It's very possible, that the Democrat's nominee for President in 2008, can win by just learning to go in through the door, not to attack walls. Of course, it could also be that Kerry was facing other opposing factors, not so obvious, and if that is the case, nothing but a complete review and reformation of the Democratic Party will be enough. The evidence for that lies in the way that Republicans took the White House in 2000 in time of peace and prosperity, against a VP in a popular Administration, and in 2002 against the normal historical flow of mid-term elections, and again in 2004 under conditions which have historically ended other Administrations. I like George W. Bush, but he's not articulate or charming enough to explain his streak of wins like that. That suggests an underlying strength for the GOP/weakness in the Democrats that is not immediately obvious.
A lot more looking is in order. For now, though, I would suggest to Republicans to consider tailoring an urban message to win some of those cities, and the Democrats need to take some bitter medicine, and listen to the people in those red states and counties, no matter how much they may hate what they learn.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Evil In Transition
Yassir Arafat is dead. Reaction to his demise has been varied but distinct, and I harbor strong suspicions that many leaders who would prefer to properly denounce the scoundrel and applaud his riddance, have instead chosen to speak "moderately", in hopes of placating, well, violent monsters in their own countries, or those vicious groups of murderers who demand laurels for their cause and figureheads. For my own part, I will not wish evil on a man who has earned so much on his head, yet I find myself praying God that for once, the evil will be interred with the thing which led a people to near obliteration because of his greed and heinous visions.
Reading articles and comments across the world, however, I am struck by the large number of people determined to make Arafat a victim, to somehow excuse his many crimes, and instead, as is the Liberal custom now, to put all at the feet of others, no matter how obscene the claim. Many blame the victims, while many more try to explain away the deliberate murders of so many innocents, including women and children, Palestinian as often as anyone else, for the cause of "Social Justice". Somewhere in his dank astral dungeon as he awaits his final judgment, Der Fuhrer must smile grimly at the knowledge that so many are carryiong his vision of exterminating the Jews. The ways in which murder and deliberate targeting of schoolchildren and civilians are excused and defended by these puerile villains would dismay Orwell.
But, thank God, there is hope. Real hope. The Palestinians have managed to make the wrong choice in every decision of the past 150 years, but there is still a chance for them to have a homeland. Let me be clear, though - there is no right to a Palestinian homeland, because racially there is no 'Palestinian' people. "Palestine" was a name used by the British to define the geographic territory of their Mandate in the Middle East, and has no more historical or cultural significance than, say, Waller County in Texas. Moreover, most of the people who call themsleves 'Palestinian' today, have no direct connection to the arabs who lived in the present-day Israel before 1948. Accordingly, the establishment of a Palestinian state is nothing more or less than a means to resolve old grievances without more bloodshed and rancor. The Palestinians, whether they admit it or not, have an unexpected and powerful ally this time around: President Bush. But to succeed thie time, they must put down the terrorist groups, disavow any and all who would advocate violence and murder for political gain. And the Palestinian Authority must become a legitimate and responsible agency for keeping the peace and protecting all innocents.
Unfortunately, History warns us that even if this comes to pass, there will be more and different troubles later. So long as we humans rule our lives, Evil is not destroyed, but only in transition.
Reading articles and comments across the world, however, I am struck by the large number of people determined to make Arafat a victim, to somehow excuse his many crimes, and instead, as is the Liberal custom now, to put all at the feet of others, no matter how obscene the claim. Many blame the victims, while many more try to explain away the deliberate murders of so many innocents, including women and children, Palestinian as often as anyone else, for the cause of "Social Justice". Somewhere in his dank astral dungeon as he awaits his final judgment, Der Fuhrer must smile grimly at the knowledge that so many are carryiong his vision of exterminating the Jews. The ways in which murder and deliberate targeting of schoolchildren and civilians are excused and defended by these puerile villains would dismay Orwell.
But, thank God, there is hope. Real hope. The Palestinians have managed to make the wrong choice in every decision of the past 150 years, but there is still a chance for them to have a homeland. Let me be clear, though - there is no right to a Palestinian homeland, because racially there is no 'Palestinian' people. "Palestine" was a name used by the British to define the geographic territory of their Mandate in the Middle East, and has no more historical or cultural significance than, say, Waller County in Texas. Moreover, most of the people who call themsleves 'Palestinian' today, have no direct connection to the arabs who lived in the present-day Israel before 1948. Accordingly, the establishment of a Palestinian state is nothing more or less than a means to resolve old grievances without more bloodshed and rancor. The Palestinians, whether they admit it or not, have an unexpected and powerful ally this time around: President Bush. But to succeed thie time, they must put down the terrorist groups, disavow any and all who would advocate violence and murder for political gain. And the Palestinian Authority must become a legitimate and responsible agency for keeping the peace and protecting all innocents.
Unfortunately, History warns us that even if this comes to pass, there will be more and different troubles later. So long as we humans rule our lives, Evil is not destroyed, but only in transition.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Borders
One issue which showed up from time to time in the Presidential Election just concluded, was the issue of Border Security. Clearly, said many, if we want to protect America, we must secure our borders. Both Bush and Kerry agreed to this idea, but each differed on the best path to such security, and neither candidate went into great detail about their plans to secure the borders. There are good reasons for this silence, actually, though it is time to consider the matter again, in Congress and in the Oval Office.
Border Security in the United States really comes down to four fronts:
[] Air and Sea Port Security
[] Alaska and Hawaii Territorial Security
[] The Canada-U.S. Border
[] The Mexico-U.S. Border
Air and Sea Port Security is not often discussed, much less comprehensively, and I have to admit, a full examination of this facet is beyond me here. Blogs work best with pithy issues and succinct discussions, so I am really only able to provide a sketchy overview, but that may still be useful. The simple fact is, throughout history people have been trying to keep out the unsavory types; locked doors are not indicative of paranoia, nor are metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs. John Kerry may have displayed the best example of functional stupidity on the security issue, by comparing the safety of Americans to checking each and every vessel passing through our ports. Rather like stopping every car in traffic, or inspecting every package in the mail; it simply is not feasible, and there are functional alternatives. In the case of nuclear materials, for example, Magnetic Anomaly Detectors can be used by aircraft to scan approaching vessels long before they reach U.S. territorial waters (Kerry suggested we stop ships at the ports themselves, never considering what would happen if a dirty bomb was detonated at the inspection point), which would pick up heavy metals in even minute quantities. Ultimately, though, we depend on the sorts of tools which have always worked in the past, and which we have always needed; common sense protections and good HUMINT. In short, President Bush has done what is reasonable, establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and beefing up border security’s budget and tools.
Alaska and Hawaii Territorial Security have not, to my knowledge, been discussed anywhere, and that is a bit alarming. While AK and HI are not geographically joined to the ‘contiguous 48’, they are very definitely U.S. states, and if you show up in, say, Honolulu or Anchorage and board a plane to, say, New York or Los Angeles, you won’t need passports or other proof of citizenship. Fortunately, the DHS and Customs have taken some steps to address that matter, which is why Al Qaeda has not tried to enter the U.S. via the Hula. It’s also why “Whiner John” Kerry couldn’t bring up the extra-continental states as a point in his campaigns.
The Canada-U.S. Border has actually been the historical weak spot for our territory. For all the talk about the Southern border, in World Wars 1 and 2, it was the Canadian border which saw the most enemy infiltrations, and during the Cold War the most Soviet traffic. Also, in the events following the 9/11 attacks, DHS and FBI agents found terrorist support groups in Northern locations near Dearborn Michigan and Seattle Washington, but none near the Rio Grande. The Bush Administration has been working to address this danger with the Martin Administration, but with only limited success. While cooperation between the FBI and the RCMP has been exemplary, deliberate interference and hostility from MP’s like Carolyn Parrish has endangered the security of both nations.
The Mexico-U.S. Border has received the most attention of all these factors, yet it is in many ways the least understood. A good example of that rests in the way President Bush has been heckled by both Left and Right for his plans regarding relations between Mexico and the United States. To understand the matter better, I would like to point out the objectives, some history, and a quick glance at likely consequences of different alternatives.
A lot of people, even on the Left, have made noise demanding that our borders be sealed. Sounds like a good idea, but how practical is that, really? As an example, remember the Iron Curtain, how the Soviet Union sealed its borders? I mean, if you want a textbook for how to use overwhelming military force to seal a border, you look at the USSR. Yet all those guns, soldiers, and missiles did not stop Matias Rust from flying right into Moscow and landing his rented Cessna right in Red Square in June of 1987, did they? I also recall an incident a few years back, where a Mexican shepherd in the Rio Grande Valley came across a National Guardsman on maneuvers. The young man foolishly aimed a rifle at the soldier, who fired in self-defense, killing the Mexican. The fact is, putting guns on a border will likely mean killing people, sometimes by accidents like that one. The fact is, migrants, smugglers, pirates and all sundry of people salesmen have been crossing borders throughout history; there just is no way to stop it from happening. The best answer then, is to control the flow as best you can, and that, to me, means addressing the causes of border crossings.
A lot of people also forget the history of migrant families. While most of us prefer the stability and relative prosperity of settling in one town and country, there are those whose lives have been in constant motion, for a variety of reasons. While many people have only recently been made aware of it, the fact is that migrant workers in the Southwest United States go back several generations. This complicates the issue, because the common stereotypes just don’t work. It doesn’t fit everyone by any means, but it’s obvious to me that any successful plan for controlling the Southern borders means addressing the million or so migrant workers who aren’t going to change their behavior just because someone makes a speech or wins an election. I’m sure that I don’t need to explain the potentially serious cultural and economic effects which would result from suddenly wrecking the system in place now.
People also forget the fact that there are real limits on what we can accomplish in the immediate future, and to understand that, you have to recall a bit of Mexican history. Before I go into that, take a look at the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Governor of California. Was he everything a rock-solid Conservative would like in a Governor? Of course not, but he was a distinct jump up from the previous fraud, Gray Davis, or the Democrats’ choice to replace him, Cruz Bustamante. You take what you can get, and that applies to the border issue, as well.
Most Americans forget that Mexico did not become an Independent nation with her own President until 1824. In fact, many Americans are unaware that Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, a man known as the villain at the Alamo massacre, is revered in Mexican history as a great patriot, and was once Mexico’s President (1833, again in 1834-1835). The problem was, that Mexico lacked the unity of the American system, wherein a strong central government also embodied protection of individual rights, and a Federal government enjoyed the respect and cooperation from the states. Mexico had an army, but beyond that the government was often unable to enforce the laws enacted. Even today, there remain revolutionaries in the country, attempting to assassinate and overthrow the existing government (the Zapatistas, for instance).
But a great obstacle to true reform in Mexico was the monster known as PRI, the “Institutional Revolutionary Party” which came to power following the 1921 Revolution and came to control every major office in Mexican government. I could go on, but there has been a potential watershed event; the election of Vicente Fox. Fox is the first “opposition-party” candidate to be elected President of Mexico since 1910, and he represents an opportunity Bush knows very well. Fortunately, President Bush was Governor Bush of Texas at the time Fox was elected, so he knows better than most the conditions in Mexico, as well as the opportunity for growth in relations and opportunity on both sides of the border. Fox has had to overcome stubborn resistance from PRI holdouts (to say nothing of attempts on his life at least 3 times) to institute critical reforms in Mexican government. We are fortunate that Fox is also determined to root out narco-terrorists, who have established fortified complexes in a number of towns on Mexico’s north and south borders, and the FBI has assisted GAFE in ridding a number of regions of these threats to both the U.S. and Mexico. Fox and Bush have met numerous times, and the media has somehow failed to recognize that cooperation between the two leaders has been handled adroitly and quietly. Professionals often receive less credit than they deserve, and that is certainly the case here.
Now, as to the “guest worker” issue, some people would like to see an “iron fist” approach, but all that would do, really, is prevent people from cooperating with authorities. Let me elaborate on that.
There are, in basic, four classes of people who want to cross our border from Mexico:
[] People who want to come here for a better life
[] People who want to come here and sell their products, expanding their range of business (NAFTA)
[] People who want to smuggle things or people in, like drugs
[] People who want to come into the U.S. to commit violence
Think for a moment about those people. Do they all think alike, and would they all want the same things? Obviously not. More, it’s just reasonable to think that the first two groups are far more numerous than the other two, and are also the most likely to notice people in the last two groups. So, it would seem to me that the best course of action is to establish a situation, where the first two groups are encouraged, at least well enough that they would work to expose the last two groups.
I’m not saying that people who break the law to get into the USA should get rewarded for it, but I do think there is a problem, where a citizen who drives drunk may be treated more leniently than a man who comes into our country to try to help feed his family. And I know there’s a problem, when people who could be helping authorities catch the really bad guys, run at the sight of a badge, because they have no reason to expect any kind of break.
Is the “guest worker” concept the best solution? Maybe not, but think. We already know that passing laws to punish illegal aliens doesn’t really stop them from coming across; we just make life really hard on the ones we catch. We know that we need to catch terrorists and smugglers, and the people who know where to catch those guys are afraid of the INS and DHS.
If we put a bunch of soldiers and guns on the border, the terrorist will just look for an easier way (like planes from other countries, or that Canada border I talked about), we’ll spend a ton of money and sooner or later some people will get killed in an incident, and Vicente Fox will look to the Mexican voters like a man who can’t protect Mexicans. Yeah, the Democrats play up the story that Bush is a unilateralist, but in point of fact, Bush is thinking more about helping our allies than any Democrat I know.
No, there won’t be a wave of happy Mexicans rushing to work with the United States, but gradually there can be a foundation of trust. And frankly, something has got to be done about this problem, which respects not only our need for National Security, but a fair and effective resolution which improves conditions for the nation as a whole. It will help Mexico stabilize, which improves their chances for becoming a First-world nation, which is, all in all, the best and quickest way to stem the tide of illegal immigration. When a man can make a life for his family without crossing borders, then he won’t have that motive. And no, it’s not a handout, but simply recognizing that helping Mexico now in 2004 will pay our nation dividends in generations to come.
I am, of course, willing to consider alternate solutions. I just haven’t read or heard any. Whining by people unfamiliar with the issue doesn’t count. Carping by people trying to get in a cheap shot is even less acceptable.
Border Security in the United States really comes down to four fronts:
[] Air and Sea Port Security
[] Alaska and Hawaii Territorial Security
[] The Canada-U.S. Border
[] The Mexico-U.S. Border
Air and Sea Port Security is not often discussed, much less comprehensively, and I have to admit, a full examination of this facet is beyond me here. Blogs work best with pithy issues and succinct discussions, so I am really only able to provide a sketchy overview, but that may still be useful. The simple fact is, throughout history people have been trying to keep out the unsavory types; locked doors are not indicative of paranoia, nor are metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs. John Kerry may have displayed the best example of functional stupidity on the security issue, by comparing the safety of Americans to checking each and every vessel passing through our ports. Rather like stopping every car in traffic, or inspecting every package in the mail; it simply is not feasible, and there are functional alternatives. In the case of nuclear materials, for example, Magnetic Anomaly Detectors can be used by aircraft to scan approaching vessels long before they reach U.S. territorial waters (Kerry suggested we stop ships at the ports themselves, never considering what would happen if a dirty bomb was detonated at the inspection point), which would pick up heavy metals in even minute quantities. Ultimately, though, we depend on the sorts of tools which have always worked in the past, and which we have always needed; common sense protections and good HUMINT. In short, President Bush has done what is reasonable, establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and beefing up border security’s budget and tools.
Alaska and Hawaii Territorial Security have not, to my knowledge, been discussed anywhere, and that is a bit alarming. While AK and HI are not geographically joined to the ‘contiguous 48’, they are very definitely U.S. states, and if you show up in, say, Honolulu or Anchorage and board a plane to, say, New York or Los Angeles, you won’t need passports or other proof of citizenship. Fortunately, the DHS and Customs have taken some steps to address that matter, which is why Al Qaeda has not tried to enter the U.S. via the Hula. It’s also why “Whiner John” Kerry couldn’t bring up the extra-continental states as a point in his campaigns.
The Canada-U.S. Border has actually been the historical weak spot for our territory. For all the talk about the Southern border, in World Wars 1 and 2, it was the Canadian border which saw the most enemy infiltrations, and during the Cold War the most Soviet traffic. Also, in the events following the 9/11 attacks, DHS and FBI agents found terrorist support groups in Northern locations near Dearborn Michigan and Seattle Washington, but none near the Rio Grande. The Bush Administration has been working to address this danger with the Martin Administration, but with only limited success. While cooperation between the FBI and the RCMP has been exemplary, deliberate interference and hostility from MP’s like Carolyn Parrish has endangered the security of both nations.
The Mexico-U.S. Border has received the most attention of all these factors, yet it is in many ways the least understood. A good example of that rests in the way President Bush has been heckled by both Left and Right for his plans regarding relations between Mexico and the United States. To understand the matter better, I would like to point out the objectives, some history, and a quick glance at likely consequences of different alternatives.
A lot of people, even on the Left, have made noise demanding that our borders be sealed. Sounds like a good idea, but how practical is that, really? As an example, remember the Iron Curtain, how the Soviet Union sealed its borders? I mean, if you want a textbook for how to use overwhelming military force to seal a border, you look at the USSR. Yet all those guns, soldiers, and missiles did not stop Matias Rust from flying right into Moscow and landing his rented Cessna right in Red Square in June of 1987, did they? I also recall an incident a few years back, where a Mexican shepherd in the Rio Grande Valley came across a National Guardsman on maneuvers. The young man foolishly aimed a rifle at the soldier, who fired in self-defense, killing the Mexican. The fact is, putting guns on a border will likely mean killing people, sometimes by accidents like that one. The fact is, migrants, smugglers, pirates and all sundry of people salesmen have been crossing borders throughout history; there just is no way to stop it from happening. The best answer then, is to control the flow as best you can, and that, to me, means addressing the causes of border crossings.
A lot of people also forget the history of migrant families. While most of us prefer the stability and relative prosperity of settling in one town and country, there are those whose lives have been in constant motion, for a variety of reasons. While many people have only recently been made aware of it, the fact is that migrant workers in the Southwest United States go back several generations. This complicates the issue, because the common stereotypes just don’t work. It doesn’t fit everyone by any means, but it’s obvious to me that any successful plan for controlling the Southern borders means addressing the million or so migrant workers who aren’t going to change their behavior just because someone makes a speech or wins an election. I’m sure that I don’t need to explain the potentially serious cultural and economic effects which would result from suddenly wrecking the system in place now.
People also forget the fact that there are real limits on what we can accomplish in the immediate future, and to understand that, you have to recall a bit of Mexican history. Before I go into that, take a look at the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Governor of California. Was he everything a rock-solid Conservative would like in a Governor? Of course not, but he was a distinct jump up from the previous fraud, Gray Davis, or the Democrats’ choice to replace him, Cruz Bustamante. You take what you can get, and that applies to the border issue, as well.
Most Americans forget that Mexico did not become an Independent nation with her own President until 1824. In fact, many Americans are unaware that Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, a man known as the villain at the Alamo massacre, is revered in Mexican history as a great patriot, and was once Mexico’s President (1833, again in 1834-1835). The problem was, that Mexico lacked the unity of the American system, wherein a strong central government also embodied protection of individual rights, and a Federal government enjoyed the respect and cooperation from the states. Mexico had an army, but beyond that the government was often unable to enforce the laws enacted. Even today, there remain revolutionaries in the country, attempting to assassinate and overthrow the existing government (the Zapatistas, for instance).
But a great obstacle to true reform in Mexico was the monster known as PRI, the “Institutional Revolutionary Party” which came to power following the 1921 Revolution and came to control every major office in Mexican government. I could go on, but there has been a potential watershed event; the election of Vicente Fox. Fox is the first “opposition-party” candidate to be elected President of Mexico since 1910, and he represents an opportunity Bush knows very well. Fortunately, President Bush was Governor Bush of Texas at the time Fox was elected, so he knows better than most the conditions in Mexico, as well as the opportunity for growth in relations and opportunity on both sides of the border. Fox has had to overcome stubborn resistance from PRI holdouts (to say nothing of attempts on his life at least 3 times) to institute critical reforms in Mexican government. We are fortunate that Fox is also determined to root out narco-terrorists, who have established fortified complexes in a number of towns on Mexico’s north and south borders, and the FBI has assisted GAFE in ridding a number of regions of these threats to both the U.S. and Mexico. Fox and Bush have met numerous times, and the media has somehow failed to recognize that cooperation between the two leaders has been handled adroitly and quietly. Professionals often receive less credit than they deserve, and that is certainly the case here.
Now, as to the “guest worker” issue, some people would like to see an “iron fist” approach, but all that would do, really, is prevent people from cooperating with authorities. Let me elaborate on that.
There are, in basic, four classes of people who want to cross our border from Mexico:
[] People who want to come here for a better life
[] People who want to come here and sell their products, expanding their range of business (NAFTA)
[] People who want to smuggle things or people in, like drugs
[] People who want to come into the U.S. to commit violence
Think for a moment about those people. Do they all think alike, and would they all want the same things? Obviously not. More, it’s just reasonable to think that the first two groups are far more numerous than the other two, and are also the most likely to notice people in the last two groups. So, it would seem to me that the best course of action is to establish a situation, where the first two groups are encouraged, at least well enough that they would work to expose the last two groups.
I’m not saying that people who break the law to get into the USA should get rewarded for it, but I do think there is a problem, where a citizen who drives drunk may be treated more leniently than a man who comes into our country to try to help feed his family. And I know there’s a problem, when people who could be helping authorities catch the really bad guys, run at the sight of a badge, because they have no reason to expect any kind of break.
Is the “guest worker” concept the best solution? Maybe not, but think. We already know that passing laws to punish illegal aliens doesn’t really stop them from coming across; we just make life really hard on the ones we catch. We know that we need to catch terrorists and smugglers, and the people who know where to catch those guys are afraid of the INS and DHS.
If we put a bunch of soldiers and guns on the border, the terrorist will just look for an easier way (like planes from other countries, or that Canada border I talked about), we’ll spend a ton of money and sooner or later some people will get killed in an incident, and Vicente Fox will look to the Mexican voters like a man who can’t protect Mexicans. Yeah, the Democrats play up the story that Bush is a unilateralist, but in point of fact, Bush is thinking more about helping our allies than any Democrat I know.
No, there won’t be a wave of happy Mexicans rushing to work with the United States, but gradually there can be a foundation of trust. And frankly, something has got to be done about this problem, which respects not only our need for National Security, but a fair and effective resolution which improves conditions for the nation as a whole. It will help Mexico stabilize, which improves their chances for becoming a First-world nation, which is, all in all, the best and quickest way to stem the tide of illegal immigration. When a man can make a life for his family without crossing borders, then he won’t have that motive. And no, it’s not a handout, but simply recognizing that helping Mexico now in 2004 will pay our nation dividends in generations to come.
I am, of course, willing to consider alternate solutions. I just haven’t read or heard any. Whining by people unfamiliar with the issue doesn’t count. Carping by people trying to get in a cheap shot is even less acceptable.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Myopia
"There are none so blind, as those who will not see"
I should know the person who said that, and yeah, I'm probably misquoting it slightly too, but for here it's enough to dwell a bot on that thought.
One week removed from "The Most Important Election in Our Lifetimes" (so says Senator Kerry, after all) , it's interesting to watch the direction each faction takes in digesting the results. Particularly interesting to me, is to speculate on the future of the Old Media.
Earlier this year, I wrote that we should not expect to see radical or sudden changes in the way most people get their news and information; while the New Media is a real force, and in time will simply abolish those bastions of elitism and blatant bias in the guise of objective journalism, it's a gradual process, and in any case, we will always need to be careful about trusting everything we read or hear, no matter the source. Also, since the Main Pain Media is the only source for most front-line reporting, hairspray and condescension will be in sharp focus in many television sets for the forseeable future. But then again, maybe not as long as I originally thought.
As you have doubtless heard from countless Home Entertainment salepeople, we are entering the where it is possible to integrate all your electronics, from cell phones to televisions to CD players and computers... you get the idea. What I find interesting is that sites like Ananova make it possible for you to specialize your news, and that's a trend worth thinking about. In a future world, Joe 'Merican is going to be able to program his news for the category, style, you name it. Imagine a world where you can program your computer to seek links to verify statements made by the newscaster, or where you can submit search queries to balance, say, CBS against positions by Little Green Footballs or Instapundit? Imagine programs which score the veracity of news aencies by measuring their claims against support? The simple fact is, the technology is already there, and the audience is heading there. It's entirely possible that the MPM will choose not to go there, fearing the loss of their influence, and so abrogate the evolution of Information Retrieval to a new competitor, as yet unnamed.
Wait and see, I guess. But I would remind Dan Rather, et al, that their game plan has been tried before. And there's a reason people speak dismissively of anyone who is a 'dinosaur'.
I should know the person who said that, and yeah, I'm probably misquoting it slightly too, but for here it's enough to dwell a bot on that thought.
One week removed from "The Most Important Election in Our Lifetimes" (so says Senator Kerry, after all) , it's interesting to watch the direction each faction takes in digesting the results. Particularly interesting to me, is to speculate on the future of the Old Media.
Earlier this year, I wrote that we should not expect to see radical or sudden changes in the way most people get their news and information; while the New Media is a real force, and in time will simply abolish those bastions of elitism and blatant bias in the guise of objective journalism, it's a gradual process, and in any case, we will always need to be careful about trusting everything we read or hear, no matter the source. Also, since the Main Pain Media is the only source for most front-line reporting, hairspray and condescension will be in sharp focus in many television sets for the forseeable future. But then again, maybe not as long as I originally thought.
As you have doubtless heard from countless Home Entertainment salepeople, we are entering the where it is possible to integrate all your electronics, from cell phones to televisions to CD players and computers... you get the idea. What I find interesting is that sites like Ananova make it possible for you to specialize your news, and that's a trend worth thinking about. In a future world, Joe 'Merican is going to be able to program his news for the category, style, you name it. Imagine a world where you can program your computer to seek links to verify statements made by the newscaster, or where you can submit search queries to balance, say, CBS against positions by Little Green Footballs or Instapundit? Imagine programs which score the veracity of news aencies by measuring their claims against support? The simple fact is, the technology is already there, and the audience is heading there. It's entirely possible that the MPM will choose not to go there, fearing the loss of their influence, and so abrogate the evolution of Information Retrieval to a new competitor, as yet unnamed.
Wait and see, I guess. But I would remind Dan Rather, et al, that their game plan has been tried before. And there's a reason people speak dismissively of anyone who is a 'dinosaur'.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Turf
To understand the climate and territorial imperatives in Washington D.C. today, take a look back at April 1974.
Richard Milhous Nixon had stunned the Establishment. A man elected with barely 43% of the Popular Vote in 1968, who seemed unable to proceed with anything not supported by both the Republican Party leadership and the majority of the House and Senate (both dominated by Democrats), Nixon had managed to end the war in Vietnam, establish the Environmental Protection Agency, reach critical new agreements with both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, and survive a recession without significant consequences. In his re-election bid in 1972, Nixon took more than 60% of the Popular Vote and all but one state in the Electoral Vote. Nixon had centralized Federal power in the White House beyond the dreams of most Presidents, and certainly far beyond the expectations of any Congressional Republican or Democrat. The Congress, to put it plainly, did not like this balance one bit.
While the excesses of the Nixon Administration are clearly inexcusable, it bears noting that Nixon may reasonably be compared to Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton in his arrogance of power, yet neither LBJ nor Clinton was ever in significant danger of losing their office (yes, Clinton was impeached, but even a number of Republicans in the Senate said they were not sure about voting for conviction. In the event, less than half the Senate voted to convict Clinton). The difference, among other factors, was that both Johnson and Clinton made sure to mend fences in key relationships, while Nixon took on all opponents full-bore.
Many Democrats might like to compare the characters of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, but there is no such similarity. However, just like Nixon, then Reagan, Dubya finds himself in time of rising power at his hand. If he is careless in his positions, then challenges like the one shot by Arlen "Benedict Arnold" Specter will be repeated, but if Bush is careful to build his coalition and make clear that the heart of the GOP comes from his support (remember the effect of Bush campaigning in 2002, and the coat-tails acknowledged even by Dan Rather this year), then the President may proceed to accomplish more lasting effect than any Republican President in a century.
It's not only the Democrats who need to look at that Election results map by County, and note that the title is "Bush Country".
Richard Milhous Nixon had stunned the Establishment. A man elected with barely 43% of the Popular Vote in 1968, who seemed unable to proceed with anything not supported by both the Republican Party leadership and the majority of the House and Senate (both dominated by Democrats), Nixon had managed to end the war in Vietnam, establish the Environmental Protection Agency, reach critical new agreements with both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, and survive a recession without significant consequences. In his re-election bid in 1972, Nixon took more than 60% of the Popular Vote and all but one state in the Electoral Vote. Nixon had centralized Federal power in the White House beyond the dreams of most Presidents, and certainly far beyond the expectations of any Congressional Republican or Democrat. The Congress, to put it plainly, did not like this balance one bit.
While the excesses of the Nixon Administration are clearly inexcusable, it bears noting that Nixon may reasonably be compared to Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton in his arrogance of power, yet neither LBJ nor Clinton was ever in significant danger of losing their office (yes, Clinton was impeached, but even a number of Republicans in the Senate said they were not sure about voting for conviction. In the event, less than half the Senate voted to convict Clinton). The difference, among other factors, was that both Johnson and Clinton made sure to mend fences in key relationships, while Nixon took on all opponents full-bore.
Many Democrats might like to compare the characters of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, but there is no such similarity. However, just like Nixon, then Reagan, Dubya finds himself in time of rising power at his hand. If he is careless in his positions, then challenges like the one shot by Arlen "Benedict Arnold" Specter will be repeated, but if Bush is careful to build his coalition and make clear that the heart of the GOP comes from his support (remember the effect of Bush campaigning in 2002, and the coat-tails acknowledged even by Dan Rather this year), then the President may proceed to accomplish more lasting effect than any Republican President in a century.
It's not only the Democrats who need to look at that Election results map by County, and note that the title is "Bush Country".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
