*************
Yesterday, I posted that it was far less likely that a terrorist attack such as we saw in London, would take place in the United States. A number of readers disagreed, weighing in alongside the MSM that only distance and racial demographics have prevented such an attack up to now. I must strongly disagree, to the point of suggesting that the good readers might well need to “unlearn” things they have heard for so long from the mouths of the Stepford Rathers. America is different in many ways, for good or ill, and it’s vitally important to understand that character.
Before the advent of Television, the clear distinction between the American character and other nations could be found in many famous quotes. Some examples:
“It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate – to surmount every difficulty by resolution and contrivance” – Thomas Jefferson
“Two things in America are astonishing: the changeableness of most human behavior and the strange stability of certain principles. Men are constantly on the move, but the spirit of humanity seems almost unmoved.” – Alexis de Tocqueville
“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth” – John Adams
“We have, as all will agree, a free Government, where every man has a right to be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed” – Abraham Lincoln
“Young man, there is America--which at this day serves for little more than to amuse you with stories of savage men and uncouth manners; yet shall, before you taste of death, show itself equal to the whole that commerce which now attracts the envy of the world” – Edmund Burke
Pretty words, but of course others could counter that many nations have such praise. Indeed, if flowery prose were the currency of valid right, France would still be a world power. But I note the quotes by and about Americans, because for good or ill we have an unparalleled effect on the world, in every venue and enterprise. To speak bluntly, we always win in the end. Yes, we have lost wars before, to Canada and to Red Cloud’s Sioux, and in Vietnam, but always we came back later. We made Canada our veritable ward and junior partner in the continent, and the Sioux are extinct today. And Vietnam comes to us these days at our banks and boardrooms, hat in hand to ask for our assistance in their ventures. We obliterated every tribe of Apache and Iroquois and Comanche that dared rise up against us, and so too put down Mexican incursions into territory held by U.S. troops. Right or wrong, our history is one of ruthless victory, an inevitable tide sweeping away all opposition. We crushed the natives on land we wished to take, but we also swept away piracy on the high seas. We established a de facto empire on the North American continent, but have prevailed to make Civil Rights a reality in every place we control, and an issue not to be ignored in every nation who wishes to treat with us.
What does this have to do with Global Terrorism, and the risk to our cities? Lessons are taught in blood and horror, believe these sorts of men, and they themselves listen to instruction by pain. They raised the stakes by attacking our children, and we in turn raise the stakes again by promising the end to their culture. Not the culture of Islam, which threat would incite a true Jihad for the survival of their faith, but the culture of death and thuggery.
Osama bin Laden is proved a fool in the cast of Benito Mussolini, and Musab al-Zarqawi has been shown a fraud in his presumption, not unlike Pol Pot. That is, such men believed, like the fools before them, that the American character could be bullied into subservience, that the murder of our innocents would quell us into still acceptance of their control. It is the founding lie of Wahhabism and Fascist Terrorism, that strength is shown through butchery, that the more obscene the violence the greater and unstoppable the will. Instead, they have found that while there are weak Americans, there are many more who have hidden reserves of ideals and courage, who are not long dismayed by such atrocities, but they shall rise to fight it down. Knowing the threat, Americans are not content merely to avoid it, but seek its destruction and to crush the fathers of such evil. We may pause when led by weak men, but inevitably return to the challenge resolute and determined to make an end of the world’s vipers.
The tale of the last century should have made this clear. Europe could not avoid a useless war on its continent between monarchs who cared more for their pride than for reform to mutual gain; the Americans came in to end that fight, and it behooves notice that none of the participants in World War I who had a monarch going into the war, now has one in the same fashion or authority as they did when they began, but the Americans are now as they were then. When the Fascists rose, the British were steadfast and many allies were brave, but none doubt in fact that it was America which ended the war and remade Europe. When Communism held half the world in sway, it was America to whom the world depended to keep hope alive, and while some leaders proved unsuited to the challenge, others were beyond equal in their ability and moral stamina, setting the example and condition not only for resistance against the Red threat, but also setting the template for future leaders to follow. Now comes the threat of the dissolute order, where petty warlords and gangs of immoral theocrats think to hold sway over a region through sheer intimidation, believing that by abandoning the basic decency of human morality they can impel acceptance of their command. For a time, because Clinton was weak in the mold of Chirac and Schroeder, they were able to grab land and souls for their possession, but it did not last. On September 11, 2001, they attacked an America which did not exist as they believed. We were drowsy to the clarion but not dead, and President Bush was not a man to ignore the needs of the nation or of our responsibility.
The Taliban once held all of Afghanistan under its control, believing that no one could wrest away that rocky distant land, but they were wrong. Not only did the United States remove the Taliban from Afghanistan, but that nation has held free elections in voice of its future, a victory so complete that even the hypocrites on the Left who once opposed it are now silent, lest the truth of our cause and their own cowardice be made even more evident. Saddam Hussein once not only thumbed his nose at the terms of his signed Cease-Fire with American-led forces, but openly and generously funded and supplied over a dozen terrorist organizations. Today, he sits in a cell waiting for his trial, facing the knowledge that his country is free and has elected its own self-Sovereign government. Libya once promised a rain of destruction on America, but has instead been compelled to agree to destroy its WMD programs. Syria has been forced to remove occupying troops from Lebanon, specifically because the people of Lebanon called upon President Bush and America to assist them. Four major terrorist groups which exported hate and violence from the Middle East just four years ago, today no longer exist, their entire membership captured or killed. No other country on the planet does what America does, to fundamentally alter the foundations of power and authority when it acts with decision.
Terrorists select targets for different reasons than military men do. Where a military man seeks to achieve a victory in the war, and compels his tactics to suit the strategy, the terrorist looks only for opportunity, believing that enough pin-pricks will kill the nation he attacks, and that every thrill of violence will demoralize his enemy. He trusts his cause to be better simply because he has been told so, and he does not dare weigh the argument morally or in the context of his own claims. The evidence of past incidents shows the fallcy of such delusion. A weak government may well counsel compliance, even with monsters, rather than take up the hard and heavy sword, but though giants may look like ordinary men while they slumber, when roused they are another sort altogether. The terrorist groups, as much as they hate Americans, now know that there is an unavoidable price for attacking our cities and people. The Islamo-fascists have paid heavily for 9/11, and we are not nearly done. Attacking an American city will only renew focus on why we are at war and stoke the fire of our determination to win the conflict completely. The terrorists are slowly learning the truth of the different peoples they may attack:
Kill a Frenchman, and his government will apologize to you.
Kill an Italian, and he will curse and fight you, but his government will be silent.
Kill a Brit, and the government will kill some of yours.
Kill Americans, and the government may be slow to act, but in the end your group will be obliterated, totally destroyed.
That is the unavoidable lesson, which can be delayed if our leaders are lulled to sleep and if their personal nature be directed to cowardice and expediency, but inevitably we shall return to a leader unafraid to meet the challenge. If we are delayed by a Carter, there will yet be a Reagan. If there is a Clinton who refuses the call, it shall be answered by a Bush. Sooner or later, we will win, and in so doing utterly remove all that these Terrorists count dear. Islam shall hold its proper place in the Middle East, free from the bloody hands of men who can only speak threats and imprecations. And if a nation cannot conduct its affairs without respect for our people, we shall remove that power to be replaced by one which comes from its people. For the way of the terrorist is not the way of the Arab or the Muslim, and the way of the American is never to accept cowardice or submission to murder.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Early Thoughts About the Attacks in London
*+*+*+*+*
The facts are beginning to become clear about what happened today in London. In short, at 9:15 AM British Summer Time, there were four explosions caused by bombs; three in subway tunnels and one on a bus, in the financial district near Liverpool Station at the Aldgate Station, at Edgware Road and King’s Cross in north London, and Russell Square in central London. The bus explosion occurred at Tavistock Square. At this time, at least 41 people are known to be dead, with an unknown number of injured and maimed, although estimates vary from the low (300) to high (900) hundreds. Injuries and damage are consistent with conventional explosives. A previously unknown group claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the claim’s credibility has not been established yet, in large part because the claim was vague, lacking any evidence to prove their action, and because the claim was made after knowledge of the events was public.
My initial thoughts include great respect for the people of London, who refuse to be cowed by thuggery and butchers, and I note that the terrorists have tacitly accepted limits to their scope: The obvious target was to influence the G-8 Conference, but the fact that the terrorists chose to settle for civilian targets in London as much as admits they lack the planning and execution capacity they held just a few years ago. As terrible as the loss of these innocents is, it demonstrates the futile thrashing of a dying monster.
May the LORD watch over all His children, bringing aid and recovery to the victims able to receive it, solace and peace to those beyond return, and may His emissaries swiftly bring a terrible retribution to the men who planned and acted in this atrocity.
The facts are beginning to become clear about what happened today in London. In short, at 9:15 AM British Summer Time, there were four explosions caused by bombs; three in subway tunnels and one on a bus, in the financial district near Liverpool Station at the Aldgate Station, at Edgware Road and King’s Cross in north London, and Russell Square in central London. The bus explosion occurred at Tavistock Square. At this time, at least 41 people are known to be dead, with an unknown number of injured and maimed, although estimates vary from the low (300) to high (900) hundreds. Injuries and damage are consistent with conventional explosives. A previously unknown group claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the claim’s credibility has not been established yet, in large part because the claim was vague, lacking any evidence to prove their action, and because the claim was made after knowledge of the events was public.
My initial thoughts include great respect for the people of London, who refuse to be cowed by thuggery and butchers, and I note that the terrorists have tacitly accepted limits to their scope: The obvious target was to influence the G-8 Conference, but the fact that the terrorists chose to settle for civilian targets in London as much as admits they lack the planning and execution capacity they held just a few years ago. As terrible as the loss of these innocents is, it demonstrates the futile thrashing of a dying monster.
May the LORD watch over all His children, bringing aid and recovery to the victims able to receive it, solace and peace to those beyond return, and may His emissaries swiftly bring a terrible retribution to the men who planned and acted in this atrocity.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Christ The Catalyst, pt 2
+++
Continuing with the thought from my last post, if we assume that Jesus is who the NT says He is, and that He did and said what the NT claims, it strikes me that Jesus was very personal in His words and actions. While He sometimes spoke to crowds and a few of His miracles were for many, in the main He spoke one to one, and His miracles, especially His healing, was always at the personal level. That, to me, explains the devotion of the earliest disciples; they not only believed what they were teaching, but had experienced God Himself, one to one.
The Bible tells us God did this from time to time, though we can’t reasonably conclude that God only showed up where Scripture noted the event. Face to face with Adam, and personal contact with Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Elisha – you get the idea. The thing is, every time God makes a personal appearance, He gets results in that person’s life and work.
So the thing about Jesus is, even if you say that the whole Atonement thing is not necessary, it was never about that in the main, anyway. It was about God reaching out to all of us, every last one of us, with a gift of unlimited hope and joy if we will accept it.
You may know from my past articles, that I am one of those who believes that God will offer a universal salvation, indeed already has. Man, having free will, makes the matter a bit murky as to how each specific soul will be resolved, but except for “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, every sin and offense will be forgiven. That being the case, one might naturally wonder what purposes there is for Christians. We are vessels to carry and share the Good News, although some of us are better at the task than others. Further, we are meant to live in the light, so that men will see its goodness. Again, some are better in this venture than others, though that also counts to different gifts from the Father.
So, and this is something of a thought in development, the value of Christianity is the relationship, not the atonement alone.
Continuing with the thought from my last post, if we assume that Jesus is who the NT says He is, and that He did and said what the NT claims, it strikes me that Jesus was very personal in His words and actions. While He sometimes spoke to crowds and a few of His miracles were for many, in the main He spoke one to one, and His miracles, especially His healing, was always at the personal level. That, to me, explains the devotion of the earliest disciples; they not only believed what they were teaching, but had experienced God Himself, one to one.
The Bible tells us God did this from time to time, though we can’t reasonably conclude that God only showed up where Scripture noted the event. Face to face with Adam, and personal contact with Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Elisha – you get the idea. The thing is, every time God makes a personal appearance, He gets results in that person’s life and work.
So the thing about Jesus is, even if you say that the whole Atonement thing is not necessary, it was never about that in the main, anyway. It was about God reaching out to all of us, every last one of us, with a gift of unlimited hope and joy if we will accept it.
You may know from my past articles, that I am one of those who believes that God will offer a universal salvation, indeed already has. Man, having free will, makes the matter a bit murky as to how each specific soul will be resolved, but except for “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, every sin and offense will be forgiven. That being the case, one might naturally wonder what purposes there is for Christians. We are vessels to carry and share the Good News, although some of us are better at the task than others. Further, we are meant to live in the light, so that men will see its goodness. Again, some are better in this venture than others, though that also counts to different gifts from the Father.
So, and this is something of a thought in development, the value of Christianity is the relationship, not the atonement alone.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Christ The Catalyst
====
On another site, a member who is not Christian asked me to explain why, if the notion that all men are sinful and in need of a Savior was taken away, this would not collapse the foundations of Christ upon itself. Upon further thought, I would like to expand both the question and the answer.
The world has certainly changed, culturally, since that strange itinerant preacher made His way among the men and women of 1st-Century Judea, teaching and setting an example still talked about, if at odds, today. Not only because most 1st-world people are far more familiar with alternative religions and philosophies, but because the group condition for Christians has changed, and changed, and changed again. What I mean by that is, what was at first a small and much-persecuted group of believers, whose faith alone kept them intact in the first 200 years of their existence, found itself accepted and then suddenly supported as the favored state religion. From there, Christianity’s leaders soared to new heights of power and wealth, but this tore them away from the common touch of the early Church fathers. By the turn of the Millennium, the Church had stratified to a caste system, which in practical terms means that the average Christian, once again, had to depend on his faith to survive in a world of powers which cared not a whit for him.
This condition changed again as different kingdoms rose and fell, now the Romans, now the Huns, now the Muslims invading from the south, now the Crusade to push them back, then another to “reclaim” the Holy Lands, for purposes of merit only to men born to power. Small wonder that the Church denied individuals the right to own and read their own Bibles; the teachings of Christ found little support in the actions and doctrines of the Holy Roman Empire. This does not mean, by the way, that the Roman Catholic Church was the source or origin of this evil; many European villages depended on their parish priests in many ways, and at the level of the common man, the Church was a very good thing, noble at times. And the truth of the corrupting influence of power and wealth was in place long before the first Christian church.
All these things might well convince non-Christians that indeed there is nothing new under the sun, as for the most part, Christians have not often acted in a distinctly better example to Humanity than people of other beliefs. Also, the inability of the Christian Church as a whole to speak in unity on points of Doctrine does not suggest the Church has perfect wisdom. As a result, there is much confusion about what good it does to be Christian, or even why we choose the Way of Christ. This article attempts to address those points.
Let’s start with God. On the one hand, it appears that we mortal creatures cannot really understand our Immortal Creator. On the other, it seems reasonable to me that our loving Father wants us to know Him as well as we can. Assuming the Bible stories in Genesis are correct, the first humans had direct personal contact with God. Other faiths teach direct contact with God, and some of them I find quite believable. And it makes perfect sense to me. I have never found it reasonable to pray to a go-between for my most intimate needs, nor do I believe I have received holy blessings through a distribution center. Not that I reject priests and ministers; The LORD uses angels, after all, so there is a purpose for agents at different levels, but I begin with the belief that God reaches us directly. If you want to consider the distinction between the perfect Holiness of God, the love which has compassion for each of us, the truth which resides within us at the core, and the freedom we all possess to choose the course of our souls.
One element to God’s will is the composite effect of History. That is, each generation receives its share of blessings, along with its share of trials. It’s impossible, I think, for any human to explain why something particularly good or bad happens to a particular person or group at a particular place or time, but it seems clear to me that if we accept the proposition of a caring Lord, that there would be a purpose beyond the apparent. One critical dimension is the transition from the mortal and temporary, to the eternal and absolute. Trite as it sounds, Death is not the end, nor should a person be weighed solely on what is visible on the surface. The trick comes in finding the deeper meaning, and I do not think God disparages anyone willing to try that road.
So, with all that, what’s the value and plan for Christianity? It comes down to a closer look at the way Christ acted and taught. Jesus did His work for the most part by speaking to people one to one, by teaching case by case, and His miracles were primarily for individuals. Consider His healing - it would have been easier by far for Jesus to heal counties at a time. Instead, He reached out to individuals, whether healing, teaching, or setting the perfect example.
I’m still working on this thought, but it reinforces the precious nature of Christ’s love, to realize that He lived and worked and died and was resurrected for us all. One by one, by plan.
On another site, a member who is not Christian asked me to explain why, if the notion that all men are sinful and in need of a Savior was taken away, this would not collapse the foundations of Christ upon itself. Upon further thought, I would like to expand both the question and the answer.
The world has certainly changed, culturally, since that strange itinerant preacher made His way among the men and women of 1st-Century Judea, teaching and setting an example still talked about, if at odds, today. Not only because most 1st-world people are far more familiar with alternative religions and philosophies, but because the group condition for Christians has changed, and changed, and changed again. What I mean by that is, what was at first a small and much-persecuted group of believers, whose faith alone kept them intact in the first 200 years of their existence, found itself accepted and then suddenly supported as the favored state religion. From there, Christianity’s leaders soared to new heights of power and wealth, but this tore them away from the common touch of the early Church fathers. By the turn of the Millennium, the Church had stratified to a caste system, which in practical terms means that the average Christian, once again, had to depend on his faith to survive in a world of powers which cared not a whit for him.
This condition changed again as different kingdoms rose and fell, now the Romans, now the Huns, now the Muslims invading from the south, now the Crusade to push them back, then another to “reclaim” the Holy Lands, for purposes of merit only to men born to power. Small wonder that the Church denied individuals the right to own and read their own Bibles; the teachings of Christ found little support in the actions and doctrines of the Holy Roman Empire. This does not mean, by the way, that the Roman Catholic Church was the source or origin of this evil; many European villages depended on their parish priests in many ways, and at the level of the common man, the Church was a very good thing, noble at times. And the truth of the corrupting influence of power and wealth was in place long before the first Christian church.
All these things might well convince non-Christians that indeed there is nothing new under the sun, as for the most part, Christians have not often acted in a distinctly better example to Humanity than people of other beliefs. Also, the inability of the Christian Church as a whole to speak in unity on points of Doctrine does not suggest the Church has perfect wisdom. As a result, there is much confusion about what good it does to be Christian, or even why we choose the Way of Christ. This article attempts to address those points.
Let’s start with God. On the one hand, it appears that we mortal creatures cannot really understand our Immortal Creator. On the other, it seems reasonable to me that our loving Father wants us to know Him as well as we can. Assuming the Bible stories in Genesis are correct, the first humans had direct personal contact with God. Other faiths teach direct contact with God, and some of them I find quite believable. And it makes perfect sense to me. I have never found it reasonable to pray to a go-between for my most intimate needs, nor do I believe I have received holy blessings through a distribution center. Not that I reject priests and ministers; The LORD uses angels, after all, so there is a purpose for agents at different levels, but I begin with the belief that God reaches us directly. If you want to consider the distinction between the perfect Holiness of God, the love which has compassion for each of us, the truth which resides within us at the core, and the freedom we all possess to choose the course of our souls.
One element to God’s will is the composite effect of History. That is, each generation receives its share of blessings, along with its share of trials. It’s impossible, I think, for any human to explain why something particularly good or bad happens to a particular person or group at a particular place or time, but it seems clear to me that if we accept the proposition of a caring Lord, that there would be a purpose beyond the apparent. One critical dimension is the transition from the mortal and temporary, to the eternal and absolute. Trite as it sounds, Death is not the end, nor should a person be weighed solely on what is visible on the surface. The trick comes in finding the deeper meaning, and I do not think God disparages anyone willing to try that road.
So, with all that, what’s the value and plan for Christianity? It comes down to a closer look at the way Christ acted and taught. Jesus did His work for the most part by speaking to people one to one, by teaching case by case, and His miracles were primarily for individuals. Consider His healing - it would have been easier by far for Jesus to heal counties at a time. Instead, He reached out to individuals, whether healing, teaching, or setting the perfect example.
I’m still working on this thought, but it reinforces the precious nature of Christ’s love, to realize that He lived and worked and died and was resurrected for us all. One by one, by plan.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Sermons From Serpents
+++++++
One thing which has puzzled me about public opinion and the War On Terror, is why reasonable people so often seem to buy into lies and hysteria from the Left. Since very few people consider themselves Liberals these days, why would they buy into the Liberal version of Reality?
I went to my parents’ church this morning, and naturally the service was patriotic in theme. It struck me then, when during the organized prayer, the Associate Minister cautioned the congregation that perhaps we should reconsider going into places “with force and destruction, and then wondering why our reputation suffered”. Shortly after that, in a session recognizing Armed Services veterans and their families, the ministers made a point to note the sacrifices and service given in World War 2, in Korea, and in the Gulf War of 1990-1991, but were silent about veterans of the present conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. With or without the intent, the clergy implied that only certain veterans deserved respect and support. During the sermon, discussing the sin of Pride, the minister again made a point to claim that nations and leaders do not do well to act without considering the opinions of others. The Gospel According to Michael Moore, you see.
I do not mean to say that the United Methodist Church may not hold its own opinions on political matters and morality, nor that individual ministers may not speak out when they see what they deem sin in a leader. But I noted there was no balance to this Socialist Gospel; no mention of the millions of people freed in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor of their free elections, no mention of the effects the Bush Doctrine has had on Syria, on Lebanon, on Libya, and on all the rest of the Middle East. No attempt at all to express the matter in the broader context. Of course, the United Methodist Church was also silent when one of their own denomination, President Clinton, admitted to Adultery, even to lying under oath. Not our place to condemn opined the Serpents, no need to embarrass the man. No word of criticism about the foreign policy which left more than a hundred thousand dead in Rwanda, which excused the genocide in Bosnia, and which left dozens of tyrannical regimes unanswered, in power with the tacit approval not only of the Clinton Administration, but also of the Methodists. Lenin from a pulpit, n’cest pas?
There are many fronts in the war to renew American commitment to its ideals. Keeping the players honest, whether they wear a suit or robe, is a major part of that challenge.
One thing which has puzzled me about public opinion and the War On Terror, is why reasonable people so often seem to buy into lies and hysteria from the Left. Since very few people consider themselves Liberals these days, why would they buy into the Liberal version of Reality?
I went to my parents’ church this morning, and naturally the service was patriotic in theme. It struck me then, when during the organized prayer, the Associate Minister cautioned the congregation that perhaps we should reconsider going into places “with force and destruction, and then wondering why our reputation suffered”. Shortly after that, in a session recognizing Armed Services veterans and their families, the ministers made a point to note the sacrifices and service given in World War 2, in Korea, and in the Gulf War of 1990-1991, but were silent about veterans of the present conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. With or without the intent, the clergy implied that only certain veterans deserved respect and support. During the sermon, discussing the sin of Pride, the minister again made a point to claim that nations and leaders do not do well to act without considering the opinions of others. The Gospel According to Michael Moore, you see.
I do not mean to say that the United Methodist Church may not hold its own opinions on political matters and morality, nor that individual ministers may not speak out when they see what they deem sin in a leader. But I noted there was no balance to this Socialist Gospel; no mention of the millions of people freed in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor of their free elections, no mention of the effects the Bush Doctrine has had on Syria, on Lebanon, on Libya, and on all the rest of the Middle East. No attempt at all to express the matter in the broader context. Of course, the United Methodist Church was also silent when one of their own denomination, President Clinton, admitted to Adultery, even to lying under oath. Not our place to condemn opined the Serpents, no need to embarrass the man. No word of criticism about the foreign policy which left more than a hundred thousand dead in Rwanda, which excused the genocide in Bosnia, and which left dozens of tyrannical regimes unanswered, in power with the tacit approval not only of the Clinton Administration, but also of the Methodists. Lenin from a pulpit, n’cest pas?
There are many fronts in the war to renew American commitment to its ideals. Keeping the players honest, whether they wear a suit or robe, is a major part of that challenge.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
The Business and Utility of Opinion Polls
[].
[].
[].
I have written about the validity of National Opinion Polls, as they relate to politics, and a key statement summarizing any poll is this; “it should be understood that a poll is nothing more than the combined effect of its components”.
It’s very important to understand the demographic support, especially the base. During the 2004 campaign, I was aware that while George W. Bush had to work to convince Independents and Undecideds, his base was more solid than Kerry’s, which indicated not only a better share of his party support, but also forecast better Republican turnout than the Democrats, which turned out to be the case.
Back in August, I examined the demographics from past Presidential elections, to observe and note the ones which were the most relevant and effective to the outcome. Singularly effective among the opinion polls in this regard are the ones from the Gallup Organization, which I continue to regard as the most reliable and therefore the most influential poll group.
After the election, the poll focused on other questions than the candidates, and I noticed a shift in how the methodologies were used. The most significant changes were the abandonment of using Registered Voters and people known to have voted in the last election (the post-event version of the “Likely Voter”), with simple count of Adults, and a sometimes chaotic fluctuation in Party Identification.
In late May, I published an article which was critical of the weighting used by the poll groups, especially in terms of party identification. At that time, I noted a Pew analysis indicating that Republicans have nationally achieved a rough parity with Democrats in party identification. This led to an exchange of e-mails and a long telephone call, with an executive at one of the major polling groups. I was asked not to reveal the source’s name or position, or certain details provided for background about the group. The source I spoke with considers bloggers a vital resource for polling’s future, but notes that the controlling interests in polling groups are somewhat suspicious of the standards and professionalism of blogs, and further notes that if it were revealed that one blog had a contact with a specific polling group, other blogs would demand equal access, which would disrupt the polling group’s normal work. Also, it can hardly be denied that while some blogs are consistent and scholarly in their diligence, others can hardly be bothered to check their facts and support their contentions with any sort of rational foundation.
This created a conflict for me, however. In the first place, I have always desired to support my information with a source, ideally a link. In the case of direct interview, the link is not possible, and when a source wishes to remain anonymous, the attribution which would establish the fact is also removed from possibility. In such a case, I must ask the reader not to accept my word implicitly, but to weigh the uncited source in terms of his own judgment, qualifying the matter by reminding the reader to always consider multiple claims before believing too wholly in any one.
But I also had to sort out whether what I was told, was accurate in the general application. Even if what my source said was completely in the group for which he worked, it may be that his group was different in the main from other groups. To consider the matter more fully, I contacted two other sources I know in polling groups. From the results of those discussions, I satisfied my own curiosity about the priorities and restrictions under which polling groups work, and confirmed some similarities and differences.
Polls have existed for far longer than most people realize. They were first recorded in the United States during the campaign for the 1824 Presidential Election, which also was the first to allow Popular Votes. Polls were largely unscientific, however, until after the 1936 Election. The Literary Digest blew their prediction of the election so badly, that some scholars believe that’s why the magazine went out of business. But the new Gallup, Roper, and Crossley polls hit the mark rather closely, and this established that even with a small sample, a poll which used relevant data could be effective in reflecting the national mind.
Polls initially were created for the clients who paid for them. In the case of elections, candidates learned that knowing the areas which needed attention and the groups which could most easily be swayed, were critical to their chances for election. And news groups recognized that in the absence of sources, they could print poll results which demonstrated a demand for change or reform.
With the rise of 24-hour news services and the Internet, Polling claimed a much higher profile. No longer did polls only need to be produced in relation to a coming election or in response to a movement already underway; with demand in constant flow, regular polls became part of the news diet and the appetizer for talk shows nationwide. It’s not commonly noted, but one reason Harry Truman’s win in 1948 over Tom Dewey was such a shock, was because polls were sometimes months apart during that campaign. During the 2000 Campaign, most of the major polls published standings only 3 or 4 days apart in the last month, and in the 2004 Campaign, there were daily polls available from Super Tuesday straight through the Election.
That’s the good news for polling groups; they have a hungry and growing audience. The bad news is, with all that interest, the attention also brings questions about their methodology and its consistency. Polling groups generally try to follow the known demographics, most often basing their weights on the last U.S. Census for gender and racial composition. Weighting is taking the raw results and adjusting them to better reflect the actual balance between men and women and the different races. It is more controversial, when weighting is used to change more fluid elements, such as party identification, or when a poll which was based on Likely Voters or Registered Voters, decides to use random adults instead.
This brings us to the war room of a polling group. There are many theories of polls, some based on the mathematical anaylsis of statistical probability, others developed through analysis of historical evidence. The problem with trends and opinion, however, is that trends and opinions change, and it can be very difficult to note the difference between a momentary slowdown and a true shift in direction, much less to sort out the cause and scale. If you work for a polling group, you want to establish consistent, reliable rules for your polling, not only for the immediate results but to make your name in a growing industry. Where there were once less than a half-dozen polling groups of note, there are now more than thirty polling agencies which publish national releases, not touching the private groups which work only for their clients. This creates real pressure for pollsters to not only be accurate, but also find a way to set themselves apart from their competitors. I suspect this is why John Zogby made his boneheaded statement last year, showing himself an advocate of John Kerry in mid-year in a sequence of moves that ended up shredding his credibility; he was losing market share and became desperate. The reader may recall that Zogby followed up his declaration for Kerry, with the decision to mix his online and telephone respondent pools, and so corrupting the analysis and results for both poll methods. Zogby became to polling what Amy Carter was to Foreign Policy.
The debate about using National Adults in place of Registered or Likely Voters appears to have come down to money. It takes longer and costs more to ask people if they are a Registered Voter, or voted in the last election, and so the polling groups have all pretty much reverted back to just taking a somewhat human voice on the line. I understand the cost but cannot agree to the argument; while all three sources said they don’t believe the use of Adults instead of real Voters changes things, I cannot agree to the notion that a respondent who does not vote, is still somehow a reliable barometer to how voters see an issue, but until I get my own polling agency I will have to accept this condition, since it prevails across the board.
The real fireworks start, when one considers the question of political party identification. The first thing I hear when I raise this question, is that many people in polling do not consider party identification to be a true demographic, or even a salient indicator of support. For instance, the overwhelming majority of voters in Oklahoma consider themselves to be Democrats. Yet they are unyieldingly conservative on most of the issues, and have voted consistently for Republican Presidential candidates. If one considered only Oklahoma and New York voters, one would conclude that Democrats were more conservative than Republicans, but also that the population considered itself more heavily Democrat than Republican in party identification. Also, it is a plain fact that people think differently of their National, State, County and Local officials. Here in Houston for example, the city is weighted such that Democrats, especially liberals, usually win the City races, yet the County is predominantly Republican. That said however, it seems reasonable to me that when people know they are speaking to a national poll, they will identify themselves as they see the national parties.
The issue is complicated by the fact that the raw party identification breakdown changes rapidly, enough to raise the question of whether the variance reflects changes in the methodology. During the debate about the erroneous exit polls by Mitofsky which came out late morning of Election Day, it was revealed that the pollsters methods may well have deterred Conservatives and attracted Liberals; a clear breakdown of party identification would have shown the error much earlier than was later revealed. I do sympathize, however, with the difficulty a polling group has in establishing where a party weight should rest. But to me, that makes it all the more important to keep track of raw party weights, to be able to determine where it’s settling.
One difficulty the modern polls face, is a true evolution in political opinion. When Gallup and Roper came into existence, the Democrats enjoyed popular support under FDR, and the nation largely considered itself Democrat in the main through Truman, then Kennedy, Johnson, even through Carter. Eisenhower and Nixon were no more than a change of pace, and Watergate hurt the Republicans in every demographic sector. The Reagan Revolution convinced pollsters that Ronald Reagan was popular, and the Contract With America in 1994 convinced them that the New Deal was finally wearing out its influence. The close count in the 2000 Election misled pollsters into missing the clear signs of Republican growth, but the 2002 Midterm surprises finally snapped attention towards the undeniable trend. The last campaigns merely confirmed the results from the last 25 years; America is becoming far more Conservative, and the Republicans are now far more representative of most Americans’ opinions than the Democrats. Until the polls understand the numbers in that context, they will be fighting the tide.
[].
[].
I have written about the validity of National Opinion Polls, as they relate to politics, and a key statement summarizing any poll is this; “it should be understood that a poll is nothing more than the combined effect of its components”.
It’s very important to understand the demographic support, especially the base. During the 2004 campaign, I was aware that while George W. Bush had to work to convince Independents and Undecideds, his base was more solid than Kerry’s, which indicated not only a better share of his party support, but also forecast better Republican turnout than the Democrats, which turned out to be the case.
Back in August, I examined the demographics from past Presidential elections, to observe and note the ones which were the most relevant and effective to the outcome. Singularly effective among the opinion polls in this regard are the ones from the Gallup Organization, which I continue to regard as the most reliable and therefore the most influential poll group.
After the election, the poll focused on other questions than the candidates, and I noticed a shift in how the methodologies were used. The most significant changes were the abandonment of using Registered Voters and people known to have voted in the last election (the post-event version of the “Likely Voter”), with simple count of Adults, and a sometimes chaotic fluctuation in Party Identification.
In late May, I published an article which was critical of the weighting used by the poll groups, especially in terms of party identification. At that time, I noted a Pew analysis indicating that Republicans have nationally achieved a rough parity with Democrats in party identification. This led to an exchange of e-mails and a long telephone call, with an executive at one of the major polling groups. I was asked not to reveal the source’s name or position, or certain details provided for background about the group. The source I spoke with considers bloggers a vital resource for polling’s future, but notes that the controlling interests in polling groups are somewhat suspicious of the standards and professionalism of blogs, and further notes that if it were revealed that one blog had a contact with a specific polling group, other blogs would demand equal access, which would disrupt the polling group’s normal work. Also, it can hardly be denied that while some blogs are consistent and scholarly in their diligence, others can hardly be bothered to check their facts and support their contentions with any sort of rational foundation.
This created a conflict for me, however. In the first place, I have always desired to support my information with a source, ideally a link. In the case of direct interview, the link is not possible, and when a source wishes to remain anonymous, the attribution which would establish the fact is also removed from possibility. In such a case, I must ask the reader not to accept my word implicitly, but to weigh the uncited source in terms of his own judgment, qualifying the matter by reminding the reader to always consider multiple claims before believing too wholly in any one.
But I also had to sort out whether what I was told, was accurate in the general application. Even if what my source said was completely in the group for which he worked, it may be that his group was different in the main from other groups. To consider the matter more fully, I contacted two other sources I know in polling groups. From the results of those discussions, I satisfied my own curiosity about the priorities and restrictions under which polling groups work, and confirmed some similarities and differences.
Polls have existed for far longer than most people realize. They were first recorded in the United States during the campaign for the 1824 Presidential Election, which also was the first to allow Popular Votes. Polls were largely unscientific, however, until after the 1936 Election. The Literary Digest blew their prediction of the election so badly, that some scholars believe that’s why the magazine went out of business. But the new Gallup, Roper, and Crossley polls hit the mark rather closely, and this established that even with a small sample, a poll which used relevant data could be effective in reflecting the national mind.
Polls initially were created for the clients who paid for them. In the case of elections, candidates learned that knowing the areas which needed attention and the groups which could most easily be swayed, were critical to their chances for election. And news groups recognized that in the absence of sources, they could print poll results which demonstrated a demand for change or reform.
With the rise of 24-hour news services and the Internet, Polling claimed a much higher profile. No longer did polls only need to be produced in relation to a coming election or in response to a movement already underway; with demand in constant flow, regular polls became part of the news diet and the appetizer for talk shows nationwide. It’s not commonly noted, but one reason Harry Truman’s win in 1948 over Tom Dewey was such a shock, was because polls were sometimes months apart during that campaign. During the 2000 Campaign, most of the major polls published standings only 3 or 4 days apart in the last month, and in the 2004 Campaign, there were daily polls available from Super Tuesday straight through the Election.
That’s the good news for polling groups; they have a hungry and growing audience. The bad news is, with all that interest, the attention also brings questions about their methodology and its consistency. Polling groups generally try to follow the known demographics, most often basing their weights on the last U.S. Census for gender and racial composition. Weighting is taking the raw results and adjusting them to better reflect the actual balance between men and women and the different races. It is more controversial, when weighting is used to change more fluid elements, such as party identification, or when a poll which was based on Likely Voters or Registered Voters, decides to use random adults instead.
This brings us to the war room of a polling group. There are many theories of polls, some based on the mathematical anaylsis of statistical probability, others developed through analysis of historical evidence. The problem with trends and opinion, however, is that trends and opinions change, and it can be very difficult to note the difference between a momentary slowdown and a true shift in direction, much less to sort out the cause and scale. If you work for a polling group, you want to establish consistent, reliable rules for your polling, not only for the immediate results but to make your name in a growing industry. Where there were once less than a half-dozen polling groups of note, there are now more than thirty polling agencies which publish national releases, not touching the private groups which work only for their clients. This creates real pressure for pollsters to not only be accurate, but also find a way to set themselves apart from their competitors. I suspect this is why John Zogby made his boneheaded statement last year, showing himself an advocate of John Kerry in mid-year in a sequence of moves that ended up shredding his credibility; he was losing market share and became desperate. The reader may recall that Zogby followed up his declaration for Kerry, with the decision to mix his online and telephone respondent pools, and so corrupting the analysis and results for both poll methods. Zogby became to polling what Amy Carter was to Foreign Policy.
The debate about using National Adults in place of Registered or Likely Voters appears to have come down to money. It takes longer and costs more to ask people if they are a Registered Voter, or voted in the last election, and so the polling groups have all pretty much reverted back to just taking a somewhat human voice on the line. I understand the cost but cannot agree to the argument; while all three sources said they don’t believe the use of Adults instead of real Voters changes things, I cannot agree to the notion that a respondent who does not vote, is still somehow a reliable barometer to how voters see an issue, but until I get my own polling agency I will have to accept this condition, since it prevails across the board.
The real fireworks start, when one considers the question of political party identification. The first thing I hear when I raise this question, is that many people in polling do not consider party identification to be a true demographic, or even a salient indicator of support. For instance, the overwhelming majority of voters in Oklahoma consider themselves to be Democrats. Yet they are unyieldingly conservative on most of the issues, and have voted consistently for Republican Presidential candidates. If one considered only Oklahoma and New York voters, one would conclude that Democrats were more conservative than Republicans, but also that the population considered itself more heavily Democrat than Republican in party identification. Also, it is a plain fact that people think differently of their National, State, County and Local officials. Here in Houston for example, the city is weighted such that Democrats, especially liberals, usually win the City races, yet the County is predominantly Republican. That said however, it seems reasonable to me that when people know they are speaking to a national poll, they will identify themselves as they see the national parties.
The issue is complicated by the fact that the raw party identification breakdown changes rapidly, enough to raise the question of whether the variance reflects changes in the methodology. During the debate about the erroneous exit polls by Mitofsky which came out late morning of Election Day, it was revealed that the pollsters methods may well have deterred Conservatives and attracted Liberals; a clear breakdown of party identification would have shown the error much earlier than was later revealed. I do sympathize, however, with the difficulty a polling group has in establishing where a party weight should rest. But to me, that makes it all the more important to keep track of raw party weights, to be able to determine where it’s settling.
One difficulty the modern polls face, is a true evolution in political opinion. When Gallup and Roper came into existence, the Democrats enjoyed popular support under FDR, and the nation largely considered itself Democrat in the main through Truman, then Kennedy, Johnson, even through Carter. Eisenhower and Nixon were no more than a change of pace, and Watergate hurt the Republicans in every demographic sector. The Reagan Revolution convinced pollsters that Ronald Reagan was popular, and the Contract With America in 1994 convinced them that the New Deal was finally wearing out its influence. The close count in the 2000 Election misled pollsters into missing the clear signs of Republican growth, but the 2002 Midterm surprises finally snapped attention towards the undeniable trend. The last campaigns merely confirmed the results from the last 25 years; America is becoming far more Conservative, and the Republicans are now far more representative of most Americans’ opinions than the Democrats. Until the polls understand the numbers in that context, they will be fighting the tide.
Friday, July 01, 2005
The Right Pack
////////
John Hawkins at Right wing News has his picks for the most likely candidates to claim the 2008 GOP nomination for the office of the President of the United States.
Here are his candidates, and my thoughts on their viability:
1 – George Allen
2 – Bill Frist
3 - Rudy Giuliani
4 – Bill Owens
5 – John McCain
6 – Tom Tancredo
7 – Mike Huckabee
8 – Mark Sanford
9 – Mitt Romney
10 – Sam Brownback
11 – Tim Pawlenty
12 – Newt Gingrich
13 – Tom Ridge
14 – Ernie Fletcher
15 – Haley Barbour
16 – George Pataki
17 – Rick Santorum
18 – Chuck Hagel
“Not Looking Likely To Run At This Point”
a – Jeb Bush
b – Condi Rice
c – Dick Cheney
Personally, we can start by tossing out the Senators and the Congressmen. The last Senator to get elected was Kennedy, and not only will 2008 be far different than 1960, I really don’t see Allen, Frist, McCain, Brownback, Santorum, or Hagel with the kind of charisma to make Republicans look at a Senator and see a Leader, not after the past few Sessions. Gingrich is simply past his time, and Tancredo isn’t strong enough to win his state, much less the GOP nomination. I figure Allen, Frist, McCain, and Hagel will all run in the beginning, until Reality sucker-punches them to realize that Americans have longer memories and a better commitment to the nation’s ideals than they do.
Ridge, Huckabee, and Pawlenty will not run, for various reasons. Neither will Jeb Bush or Cheney. I still think Rice might reconsider, but only if there is evidence that she can be a force, which remains to be seen.
That leaves us pretty much with Owens, Sanford, Romney, Fletcher, Barbour, Pataki, and Giuliani. I agree with what I’ve read elsewhere – Romney and Fletcher don’t have the base to get the ball rolling. If they run, they’ll be out fast. Of the remaining choices, either Pataki or Giuliani will bow out and support the other New Yorker – they won’t feud, so one of them drops early, and my guess is Giuliani will get the nod to go on. My final three for the GOP:
1. Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi (Trent Lott’s revenge)
2. Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina
3. Condi Rice, a late entry after a ‘Draft Condi’ push. I expect her to settle for the VP nomination when the winner is clear, unless things blow the race open.
John Hawkins at Right wing News has his picks for the most likely candidates to claim the 2008 GOP nomination for the office of the President of the United States.
Here are his candidates, and my thoughts on their viability:
1 – George Allen
2 – Bill Frist
3 - Rudy Giuliani
4 – Bill Owens
5 – John McCain
6 – Tom Tancredo
7 – Mike Huckabee
8 – Mark Sanford
9 – Mitt Romney
10 – Sam Brownback
11 – Tim Pawlenty
12 – Newt Gingrich
13 – Tom Ridge
14 – Ernie Fletcher
15 – Haley Barbour
16 – George Pataki
17 – Rick Santorum
18 – Chuck Hagel
“Not Looking Likely To Run At This Point”
a – Jeb Bush
b – Condi Rice
c – Dick Cheney
Personally, we can start by tossing out the Senators and the Congressmen. The last Senator to get elected was Kennedy, and not only will 2008 be far different than 1960, I really don’t see Allen, Frist, McCain, Brownback, Santorum, or Hagel with the kind of charisma to make Republicans look at a Senator and see a Leader, not after the past few Sessions. Gingrich is simply past his time, and Tancredo isn’t strong enough to win his state, much less the GOP nomination. I figure Allen, Frist, McCain, and Hagel will all run in the beginning, until Reality sucker-punches them to realize that Americans have longer memories and a better commitment to the nation’s ideals than they do.
Ridge, Huckabee, and Pawlenty will not run, for various reasons. Neither will Jeb Bush or Cheney. I still think Rice might reconsider, but only if there is evidence that she can be a force, which remains to be seen.
That leaves us pretty much with Owens, Sanford, Romney, Fletcher, Barbour, Pataki, and Giuliani. I agree with what I’ve read elsewhere – Romney and Fletcher don’t have the base to get the ball rolling. If they run, they’ll be out fast. Of the remaining choices, either Pataki or Giuliani will bow out and support the other New Yorker – they won’t feud, so one of them drops early, and my guess is Giuliani will get the nod to go on. My final three for the GOP:
1. Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi (Trent Lott’s revenge)
2. Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina
3. Condi Rice, a late entry after a ‘Draft Condi’ push. I expect her to settle for the VP nomination when the winner is clear, unless things blow the race open.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
My Wife Has A Boyfriend
~~~~~~~
My wife called me this morning on my way to work. We talked about some things which needed to be done today, and then she mentioned that our daughter Jagan, told her, “Mommy, you have a boyfriend.”
“I do?” asked my wife.
“Yes”, said Jagan. “Daddy’s your boyfriend.”
My daughter Jagan is right. I am my wife’s boyfriend, and she is my girlfriend. If that seems silly to you, think back to when you were young, and you had a serious crush on someone. It made you feel good, didn’t it, to know you have someone you really cared about, especially if they cared back? Well, just because people get married and have kids, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve that feeling.
That’s all, no real deep lesson there. But if you are married like me, and maybe it’s been a while since you believed you were lucky to have your guy or your girl, then maybe now would be a good time to think about how much fun it would be, how truly exciting, to be as excited about your partner now as you were when you first met.
I have a cool girlfriend, and a cool princess who reminds us both about that.
My wife called me this morning on my way to work. We talked about some things which needed to be done today, and then she mentioned that our daughter Jagan, told her, “Mommy, you have a boyfriend.”
“I do?” asked my wife.
“Yes”, said Jagan. “Daddy’s your boyfriend.”
My daughter Jagan is right. I am my wife’s boyfriend, and she is my girlfriend. If that seems silly to you, think back to when you were young, and you had a serious crush on someone. It made you feel good, didn’t it, to know you have someone you really cared about, especially if they cared back? Well, just because people get married and have kids, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve that feeling.
That’s all, no real deep lesson there. But if you are married like me, and maybe it’s been a while since you believed you were lucky to have your guy or your girl, then maybe now would be a good time to think about how much fun it would be, how truly exciting, to be as excited about your partner now as you were when you first met.
I have a cool girlfriend, and a cool princess who reminds us both about that.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Attention To Detail
[]---[]
I love baseball. All the normal reasons, of course, but also because I am an umpire. Umpires provide a critical function, not in terms of exciting the fans, but in looking out for safety, sportsmanship, and fair application of the rules. It’s not easy to be an umpire, but it’s important to the game that they are there.
One statistic that a lot of people do not understand, is the claim that Major League Umpires make mistakes on approximately 7% of their calls. The first time I heard that, through my Umpire Association as it happens, I wondered who was making that claim, but on further thought I realized that could well be right. First, consider that the Home Plate umpire in a game may have to make almost 300 ball/strike calls in a game, and you can see how hard it would be to maintain a 93% accuracy rate. Also, it’s possible for an umpire to make a mistake but still get the call right, like an umpire who is in the wrong position to see the play, but who still makes the right call (that’s kind of complicated, so I will just say here that this does happen, though it makes the discussion with the unhappy coach a bit more difficult). The reason that umpires can still manage their duties effectively though, is because as each play unfolds, an umpire considers the most likely and most critical possibilities of the play. So, a Field umpire might miss seeing what a baserunner is doing, but he will make sure to get the catch/no catch call right. A Plate umpire will make sure he has the Home Plate covered for a potential scoring play. They might miss a detail, but not the main play. Some would disagree, but those are almost always people who have never spent a moment with the rulebook or working a game in the blue, and in any case they weren’t in position to see the play as well as the ump.
Right about now, I think of President Bush as a good umpire. Not popular at times, and he might make some mistakes, but he knows the calls are his and he makes sure the ones that really count, he gets right.
I love baseball. All the normal reasons, of course, but also because I am an umpire. Umpires provide a critical function, not in terms of exciting the fans, but in looking out for safety, sportsmanship, and fair application of the rules. It’s not easy to be an umpire, but it’s important to the game that they are there.
One statistic that a lot of people do not understand, is the claim that Major League Umpires make mistakes on approximately 7% of their calls. The first time I heard that, through my Umpire Association as it happens, I wondered who was making that claim, but on further thought I realized that could well be right. First, consider that the Home Plate umpire in a game may have to make almost 300 ball/strike calls in a game, and you can see how hard it would be to maintain a 93% accuracy rate. Also, it’s possible for an umpire to make a mistake but still get the call right, like an umpire who is in the wrong position to see the play, but who still makes the right call (that’s kind of complicated, so I will just say here that this does happen, though it makes the discussion with the unhappy coach a bit more difficult). The reason that umpires can still manage their duties effectively though, is because as each play unfolds, an umpire considers the most likely and most critical possibilities of the play. So, a Field umpire might miss seeing what a baserunner is doing, but he will make sure to get the catch/no catch call right. A Plate umpire will make sure he has the Home Plate covered for a potential scoring play. They might miss a detail, but not the main play. Some would disagree, but those are almost always people who have never spent a moment with the rulebook or working a game in the blue, and in any case they weren’t in position to see the play as well as the ump.
Right about now, I think of President Bush as a good umpire. Not popular at times, and he might make some mistakes, but he knows the calls are his and he makes sure the ones that really count, he gets right.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The American Empire
[[[]]]
It can be very hard trying to talk with someone interested only in throwing a tantrum. It can be just as hard, when you are addressing someone who thinks they can successfully lie to you, and while you know they are lying, you must still make the attempt to remain civil.
The United States, and in particular the Administration of George W. Bush, has faced and continues to face just such obstacles. This not only happens in confronting a biased media, but also the puerile tactics of the Democratic Party, first in their own minds but in chronic decline in every national venue. And then there’s France.
It’s not just France of course, but Paris comes to represent the friction against the American-led initiative. One could understand this, if any of the major claims made by the Left were true. Yet it has been conclusively shown that this war was never about controlling the price of flow of oil, never about using the war for political leverage (indeed, most polls have concluded repeatedly, that President Bush could have won re-election easily without the Iraq War, but risked his second term to pursue the course he believed was necessary), never about forcing nations to become American vassals or satellites. These were never anything but canards, false claims made to screen attention away from the truth continental Europe feared most of all; only the United States is truly relevant on the global stage.
In my last post, I noted that the People’s Republic of China, while noisome, is in no position to challenge the United States, militarily or economically or in terms of influence. This is in part to a key attribute to America, one which other countries could adopt but most will not; assimilation of immigrants. For all the chatter, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants entering the United States want to be Americans, and the United States government has a genuine stake in observing the rights and interests of immigrants. As a consequence, the USA ends up effectively inoculated against internal revolt, as it is in everyone’s best interest to work within the system and for the system to be responsive. No, it’s not perfect but it’s functional, a thing beyond the claims of many Old World governments.
The United States annoys its rivals, because they sense an empire but cannot determine its place or nature. So, the French and Russians and Germans all fall back on false claims, because they do not understand the source of our ubiquitous accomplishments. It is this; the American Empire is not what it was in the days of Robber Barons, but has become the empire of ideals and hopes. Anyone can succeed in America, and rise in power and success to match anyone else. Anyone can come here, still hold their culture, yet still fully belong to the American Identity. Our Constitution still works for the most part, and the government even pays some attention to the people they work for. We can be bureaucratic, but we do not have Ministries of State. We have elitist mandarins, but the people at the top work to help common people. We admit our errors and repair them, and them we move ahead. There is not one country on the planet superior in concept or performance of morals and hope. That is also why we are copied, and our Constitution as well. The citizens understand that, even if the French never will.
It can be very hard trying to talk with someone interested only in throwing a tantrum. It can be just as hard, when you are addressing someone who thinks they can successfully lie to you, and while you know they are lying, you must still make the attempt to remain civil.
The United States, and in particular the Administration of George W. Bush, has faced and continues to face just such obstacles. This not only happens in confronting a biased media, but also the puerile tactics of the Democratic Party, first in their own minds but in chronic decline in every national venue. And then there’s France.
It’s not just France of course, but Paris comes to represent the friction against the American-led initiative. One could understand this, if any of the major claims made by the Left were true. Yet it has been conclusively shown that this war was never about controlling the price of flow of oil, never about using the war for political leverage (indeed, most polls have concluded repeatedly, that President Bush could have won re-election easily without the Iraq War, but risked his second term to pursue the course he believed was necessary), never about forcing nations to become American vassals or satellites. These were never anything but canards, false claims made to screen attention away from the truth continental Europe feared most of all; only the United States is truly relevant on the global stage.
In my last post, I noted that the People’s Republic of China, while noisome, is in no position to challenge the United States, militarily or economically or in terms of influence. This is in part to a key attribute to America, one which other countries could adopt but most will not; assimilation of immigrants. For all the chatter, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants entering the United States want to be Americans, and the United States government has a genuine stake in observing the rights and interests of immigrants. As a consequence, the USA ends up effectively inoculated against internal revolt, as it is in everyone’s best interest to work within the system and for the system to be responsive. No, it’s not perfect but it’s functional, a thing beyond the claims of many Old World governments.
The United States annoys its rivals, because they sense an empire but cannot determine its place or nature. So, the French and Russians and Germans all fall back on false claims, because they do not understand the source of our ubiquitous accomplishments. It is this; the American Empire is not what it was in the days of Robber Barons, but has become the empire of ideals and hopes. Anyone can succeed in America, and rise in power and success to match anyone else. Anyone can come here, still hold their culture, yet still fully belong to the American Identity. Our Constitution still works for the most part, and the government even pays some attention to the people they work for. We can be bureaucratic, but we do not have Ministries of State. We have elitist mandarins, but the people at the top work to help common people. We admit our errors and repair them, and them we move ahead. There is not one country on the planet superior in concept or performance of morals and hope. That is also why we are copied, and our Constitution as well. The citizens understand that, even if the French never will.
Monday, June 27, 2005
China The Bogeyman
{[{[{[]}]}]}
Some centuries back, an explorer by the name of Marco Polo brought discovery of the “Middle Kingdom” to Europe, and with him came the seeds of many rumors. Among these were the sort that are still around today, including fears of conquest and alien customs. Throughout History, people have had to balance the fear of this foreign power with the lure of rich trade routes. It’s a sad commentary on modern History classes, that many people forget the motivation for Columbus’ expedition was to discover a shorter trade route from West Europe to India. The contact with China has often been founded on equally expeditious hopes.
Throughout the 20th Century, fears of threats from the Orient have long affected U.S. policies. It is not now commonly understood, that during the 1930s Japan was allowed to build its military, in part because China was seen as a greater threat. It is not commonly explained, that while many in the United States were confident that the U.S.S.R. would eventually fall of its own weight and American discipline, most were unsure of how to battle a reinvigorated Chinese dragon. During the Vietnam War, misconceptions about arrangements between Moscow and Peking (as it was then called) prevented the U.S. from acting effectively in the region, for fear that China would flood troops into Vietnam they way it had in Korea.
Fast forward through the 1980s and 1990s. Along the way, through the blur you can see periods of Japan-phobia, a little Taiwan-phobia, even some recent India-phobia, but for some reason the People’s (supposed) Republic of China is only spoken of in terms much like those used in the old PRAVDA dailies. Ooohh, China is an economic powerhouse, didn’t you know? Ooohh, China is about to become equal with the United States in military might, better be nice to them! Ooohh, China has more people than anywhere else on the planet, they deserve our respect! Please. I notice the same stuff gets said about China over and over again, and it never pans out.
The hard facts are not very pretty. China has over a billion people, but no effective system to feed and protect them. In the old days, most people in China never saw the Emperor, nor even one of his mandarins, unless they lived close to one of the provincial capitals. Actual government came down to three things: paying taxes to keep the government pretty much off their backs, taking issues and concerns to the local magistrate, and after the Tangs came to power, civil service exams to provide something not unlike a meritocracy for those who did not wish to stay at home, or who had no prospects there. Things have not really changed much overall in China. A sad example is the recent rains in China, which led to mudslides, killing hundreds but displacing more than a million people. China still has trouble with basic civil performance issues.
It doesn’t get prettier when you consider business. The blunt fact is that well over 80% of Chinese private businesses fail, for two main causes: Either the government fails to provide an environment to allow the business to prosper, or else it tries to turn the business into a money grab. Beijing’s new securities laws very nearly destroyed the Hong Kong stock market after the 1997 takeover, as government agencies imposed draconian restrictions and fees. Worse, Beijing chose not to copy the successful British regulation of the markets, which allowed for extensive fraud and embezzlement. Even now, most analysts view Chinese financial statements with serious skepticism, as there is no effective audit confirmation of claims, especially when a business works with the Chinese government. Since Hong Kong was a choice prize specifically because of its stock market, the powers in Beijing have backed off, but there is no guarantee the HK markets will ever be under China what they were under the UK.
This does not even address the serious questions that must be asked about China’s economic stability. Like the Soviets they modeled their government after, the Chinese government does not release verifiable numbers on Unemployment or Financial Reserves, to say nothing of a Consumer Confidence Index or any measure of Inflation. Imagine any serious company being asked to invest in a venture where there is no effective guarantee that any of the claims they hear are valid, and you will find that China is involved. China has marketed itself well enough to pick some choice plums, but any investor in those companies would do well to question that decision and its consequences.
It is true that China works hard to educate its children, with very high literacy rates and truly impressive math programs. Then again, the Soviet Union covered reading, writing, and arithmetic instruction very well, which resulted in over-qualified people chasing jobs which did not yet exist, and which led to their best and brightest coming to the United States once they realized the situation. We’re starting to see that with China as well. The Committee for State Security is trying to figure out a way to be sure that Chinese kids to come to the U.S. for college, will eventually come back. A rising percentage of Chinese graduates simply don’t move back home.
And that brings us to the happy world of the Chinese dreaded Red Dragon, otherwise known as the Red Army, the People’s Republican Army, or the Paper Tiger. It’s true that China is pursuing the latest weapons. It’s true that China intends to fully modernize its navy, complete with aircraft carriers. It’s true that China intends to be the dominant power, in every respect, in Asian waters. The problems come with figuring out how to do that strategically.
Many people have neither the time nor inclination to seriously study military strategy, especially the mix between geopolitics and the purely military campaign. The PRC suffers in several respects if and when it attempts a military conquest. It’s not commonly observed, yet significant to this consideration, that the Chinese forces found the conquest of Nepal very difficult to accomplish, far slower and bloodier than they have ever admitted. More, during the 1989 Tienanmen Square crackdown, splits and outright revolts among armored units in the Chinese military occurred.
China, for all its bluster, is simply not trained, equipped or in any way prepared for a major war of conquest. Most effective battle doctrines in place today require significant delegation of authority to field and unit commanders, but this is plainly not an option for Communist forces. It is not commonly understood that by the late 1980s, the Soviets generally were considered superior in fighter, bomber, and tank weapon quality, but their doctrine was hopelessly unable to employ those advantages in a battlefield situation. The battlefield lesson of the Boer War, then Vietnam, was rammed home again in the Soviet invasion and abandonment of Afghanistan, and continues in Russia’s futile efforts against Chechnya. In blunt terms, Beijing has the capability to destroy Taiwan, but not to invade and hold it. And with relatively impressive democratic reforms in Taiwan, the troop morale and discipline in Taiwan is improving.
These points must be understood when considering the nature and intent of Chinese ambitions.
Some centuries back, an explorer by the name of Marco Polo brought discovery of the “Middle Kingdom” to Europe, and with him came the seeds of many rumors. Among these were the sort that are still around today, including fears of conquest and alien customs. Throughout History, people have had to balance the fear of this foreign power with the lure of rich trade routes. It’s a sad commentary on modern History classes, that many people forget the motivation for Columbus’ expedition was to discover a shorter trade route from West Europe to India. The contact with China has often been founded on equally expeditious hopes.
Throughout the 20th Century, fears of threats from the Orient have long affected U.S. policies. It is not now commonly understood, that during the 1930s Japan was allowed to build its military, in part because China was seen as a greater threat. It is not commonly explained, that while many in the United States were confident that the U.S.S.R. would eventually fall of its own weight and American discipline, most were unsure of how to battle a reinvigorated Chinese dragon. During the Vietnam War, misconceptions about arrangements between Moscow and Peking (as it was then called) prevented the U.S. from acting effectively in the region, for fear that China would flood troops into Vietnam they way it had in Korea.
Fast forward through the 1980s and 1990s. Along the way, through the blur you can see periods of Japan-phobia, a little Taiwan-phobia, even some recent India-phobia, but for some reason the People’s (supposed) Republic of China is only spoken of in terms much like those used in the old PRAVDA dailies. Ooohh, China is an economic powerhouse, didn’t you know? Ooohh, China is about to become equal with the United States in military might, better be nice to them! Ooohh, China has more people than anywhere else on the planet, they deserve our respect! Please. I notice the same stuff gets said about China over and over again, and it never pans out.
The hard facts are not very pretty. China has over a billion people, but no effective system to feed and protect them. In the old days, most people in China never saw the Emperor, nor even one of his mandarins, unless they lived close to one of the provincial capitals. Actual government came down to three things: paying taxes to keep the government pretty much off their backs, taking issues and concerns to the local magistrate, and after the Tangs came to power, civil service exams to provide something not unlike a meritocracy for those who did not wish to stay at home, or who had no prospects there. Things have not really changed much overall in China. A sad example is the recent rains in China, which led to mudslides, killing hundreds but displacing more than a million people. China still has trouble with basic civil performance issues.
It doesn’t get prettier when you consider business. The blunt fact is that well over 80% of Chinese private businesses fail, for two main causes: Either the government fails to provide an environment to allow the business to prosper, or else it tries to turn the business into a money grab. Beijing’s new securities laws very nearly destroyed the Hong Kong stock market after the 1997 takeover, as government agencies imposed draconian restrictions and fees. Worse, Beijing chose not to copy the successful British regulation of the markets, which allowed for extensive fraud and embezzlement. Even now, most analysts view Chinese financial statements with serious skepticism, as there is no effective audit confirmation of claims, especially when a business works with the Chinese government. Since Hong Kong was a choice prize specifically because of its stock market, the powers in Beijing have backed off, but there is no guarantee the HK markets will ever be under China what they were under the UK.
This does not even address the serious questions that must be asked about China’s economic stability. Like the Soviets they modeled their government after, the Chinese government does not release verifiable numbers on Unemployment or Financial Reserves, to say nothing of a Consumer Confidence Index or any measure of Inflation. Imagine any serious company being asked to invest in a venture where there is no effective guarantee that any of the claims they hear are valid, and you will find that China is involved. China has marketed itself well enough to pick some choice plums, but any investor in those companies would do well to question that decision and its consequences.
It is true that China works hard to educate its children, with very high literacy rates and truly impressive math programs. Then again, the Soviet Union covered reading, writing, and arithmetic instruction very well, which resulted in over-qualified people chasing jobs which did not yet exist, and which led to their best and brightest coming to the United States once they realized the situation. We’re starting to see that with China as well. The Committee for State Security is trying to figure out a way to be sure that Chinese kids to come to the U.S. for college, will eventually come back. A rising percentage of Chinese graduates simply don’t move back home.
And that brings us to the happy world of the Chinese dreaded Red Dragon, otherwise known as the Red Army, the People’s Republican Army, or the Paper Tiger. It’s true that China is pursuing the latest weapons. It’s true that China intends to fully modernize its navy, complete with aircraft carriers. It’s true that China intends to be the dominant power, in every respect, in Asian waters. The problems come with figuring out how to do that strategically.
Many people have neither the time nor inclination to seriously study military strategy, especially the mix between geopolitics and the purely military campaign. The PRC suffers in several respects if and when it attempts a military conquest. It’s not commonly observed, yet significant to this consideration, that the Chinese forces found the conquest of Nepal very difficult to accomplish, far slower and bloodier than they have ever admitted. More, during the 1989 Tienanmen Square crackdown, splits and outright revolts among armored units in the Chinese military occurred.
China, for all its bluster, is simply not trained, equipped or in any way prepared for a major war of conquest. Most effective battle doctrines in place today require significant delegation of authority to field and unit commanders, but this is plainly not an option for Communist forces. It is not commonly understood that by the late 1980s, the Soviets generally were considered superior in fighter, bomber, and tank weapon quality, but their doctrine was hopelessly unable to employ those advantages in a battlefield situation. The battlefield lesson of the Boer War, then Vietnam, was rammed home again in the Soviet invasion and abandonment of Afghanistan, and continues in Russia’s futile efforts against Chechnya. In blunt terms, Beijing has the capability to destroy Taiwan, but not to invade and hold it. And with relatively impressive democratic reforms in Taiwan, the troop morale and discipline in Taiwan is improving.
These points must be understood when considering the nature and intent of Chinese ambitions.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Jedi Family
[]----
To be Jedi in the Star Wars movies, was to be Jedi as your family. You left your parents behind to be trained, and you were not allowed to marry. This was Lucas’ method to create the tension behind Anikin Skywalker, and his eventual turn to the Dark Side. In real life however, things are a bit better, though much more complex.
The fundamental unit of relationships for humans begins with family. We are born to a mother, hopefully also to a father on hand, and by the time an infant can speak as a small schild, his or her first word is very often ‘Mommy’ or ‘Daddy’. The presence of brothers and sisters creates an initial community and social order. Biologically and psycholigically, the family is the indispensible unit.
The absence of key elements in the social order has undeniable consequences. By far, children who grow up missing Mom or Dad suffer academically, financially, and in personal judgment. And the most important element missing in failed marriages is often the commitment to make it work when it’s not new and exciting anymore. This is where Jedi matters.
The Jedi is disciplined, sure. But the Jedi knows why something is important, and how to decide between competing interests and desires. The Jedi plans for the long-term, and does not make a commitment lightly, because he is bound by his word far more than most people. Every relationship for a Jedi, is one where he must have unfailing integrity. A Jedi may marry, certainly, but only if he is sure he will stay with the marriage, come what may. Divorce may be an option for normal people, but it must be forsworn by Jedi.
And that brings us to the children. There is no greater blessing than children. To have a child brings great responsibility, however. If a Jedi must be commited to a marriage for as long as he lives, he must be committed to his child’s welfare for even after he dies, for his child’s life to come. Not just financially, but in every respect that can be addressed.
This is not to say that a parent must control the child; not at all. Over-protected children can suffer as well as children who are neglected, though obviously in different ways. It is impossible to write a guide or set of rules which will apply perfectly to every child’s condition or identity, but a parent should be careful to note the child’s strengths and areas to work on, and must build a strong relationship with their child. The Jedi will invest more in his child than in any other person; this is not only the way to fulfillment for the Jedi, but also for the child and to promulgate Jedi into the next generation.
To be Jedi in the Star Wars movies, was to be Jedi as your family. You left your parents behind to be trained, and you were not allowed to marry. This was Lucas’ method to create the tension behind Anikin Skywalker, and his eventual turn to the Dark Side. In real life however, things are a bit better, though much more complex.
The fundamental unit of relationships for humans begins with family. We are born to a mother, hopefully also to a father on hand, and by the time an infant can speak as a small schild, his or her first word is very often ‘Mommy’ or ‘Daddy’. The presence of brothers and sisters creates an initial community and social order. Biologically and psycholigically, the family is the indispensible unit.
The absence of key elements in the social order has undeniable consequences. By far, children who grow up missing Mom or Dad suffer academically, financially, and in personal judgment. And the most important element missing in failed marriages is often the commitment to make it work when it’s not new and exciting anymore. This is where Jedi matters.
The Jedi is disciplined, sure. But the Jedi knows why something is important, and how to decide between competing interests and desires. The Jedi plans for the long-term, and does not make a commitment lightly, because he is bound by his word far more than most people. Every relationship for a Jedi, is one where he must have unfailing integrity. A Jedi may marry, certainly, but only if he is sure he will stay with the marriage, come what may. Divorce may be an option for normal people, but it must be forsworn by Jedi.
And that brings us to the children. There is no greater blessing than children. To have a child brings great responsibility, however. If a Jedi must be commited to a marriage for as long as he lives, he must be committed to his child’s welfare for even after he dies, for his child’s life to come. Not just financially, but in every respect that can be addressed.
This is not to say that a parent must control the child; not at all. Over-protected children can suffer as well as children who are neglected, though obviously in different ways. It is impossible to write a guide or set of rules which will apply perfectly to every child’s condition or identity, but a parent should be careful to note the child’s strengths and areas to work on, and must build a strong relationship with their child. The Jedi will invest more in his child than in any other person; this is not only the way to fulfillment for the Jedi, but also for the child and to promulgate Jedi into the next generation.
Friday, June 24, 2005
An Open Letter to President Bush - I
[[[]]]
A website called deargeorgeletters.com is compiling a project to write and display letters to the President. Here’s what I wrote:
Dear Mr. President:
It’s been a long four years, Mister President, but you’ve done well. But now is the time to continue that effort to seal the victory and mark the way for the next generation of Americans. You are right, and you have the support of the people who are doing the heavy lifting, never forget that.
Your enemies insult you, because they cannot produce a better answer than your policies. Your rivals deride you, because they see a greatness they cannot match. Do not pay heed to polls created by people paid to find failure or blame America. Do not worry about what people who spent more time and money choosing their clothes than building a base of knowledge, just because they get in front of a camera.
You are, sir, simply the most effective President since Ronald Reagan, and in many ways you have the same opportunity to set the world right in a way no one else possibly could.
Stay strong, stay confident, stay on course. Don’t ever give up.
Respectfully,
DJ Drummond
A website called deargeorgeletters.com is compiling a project to write and display letters to the President. Here’s what I wrote:
Dear Mr. President:
It’s been a long four years, Mister President, but you’ve done well. But now is the time to continue that effort to seal the victory and mark the way for the next generation of Americans. You are right, and you have the support of the people who are doing the heavy lifting, never forget that.
Your enemies insult you, because they cannot produce a better answer than your policies. Your rivals deride you, because they see a greatness they cannot match. Do not pay heed to polls created by people paid to find failure or blame America. Do not worry about what people who spent more time and money choosing their clothes than building a base of knowledge, just because they get in front of a camera.
You are, sir, simply the most effective President since Ronald Reagan, and in many ways you have the same opportunity to set the world right in a way no one else possibly could.
Stay strong, stay confident, stay on course. Don’t ever give up.
Respectfully,
DJ Drummond
We Owe These Guys
*****__________
*****__________
*****__________
If I mention the following names, what do you suppose they have in common?
Sergeant Mike Meiner
Sergeant Brian Wilhelm
Sergeant Mike McNaughton
Airman 1st Class Scott Pizzifred
Airman 1st Class Scott Palomino
Marine Corporal James Eddie Wright
Army Specialist Danielle Green
Buck Sergeant Keith Wolverton
Marine Corporal Casey Owens
Navy Corpsman Jose “Doc” Ramos
Any thoughts? You might suspect these are people who all served in the War on Terror, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They also are combat veterans who were disabled, often requiring amputations. They are mentioned here, because of the efforts of these people:
Dick Lynch, founder of IMPACT
Dan Goodale, West Coast Director of IMPACT
Larry Boyd, IMPACT General Chairman
Christian Okoye, Kansas City Chiefs and early IMPACT organizer
Jake Plummer, Denver Broncos
Jim McMahon, Chicago Bears
Mike Lee (pro bullrider)
Mike Shanahan, Denver Broncos
Reuben Droughns, Denver Broncos
Champ Bailey, Denver Broncos
John Lynch, Denver Broncos
Arnold Palmer, Pro Golf legend
Brian Kilmeade, Fox News
Ben Crenshaw, PGA star
The Buffalo Bills Football Club, NFL
Isiah Thomas, NBA star
The Cincinnati Bengals Football Club, NFL
Jeff Gordon, NASCAR
President George W. Bush
Darryl Grant, musician
Pat Bowlen, CEO Denver Broncos
Rudolph Giuliani
Junior Seau, Miami Dolphins
The New York Yankees Baseball Club, MLB
Carl Peterson, folksinger
The New York Knicks Basketball Club, NBA
George Strait, country singer
The Washington Redskins Football Club, NFL
Bob McNair, owner Houston Texans
Houston Force, Professional Softball Team
The Houston Texans Football Club,NFL
Jimmie Johnson, Hall of Fame Coach
The Miami Dolphins Football Club, NFL
David Carr, Houston Texans
Andre Johnson, Houston Texans
Joe Nemechek, pro Motocross driver
Greg Bifle, NASCAR
Zach Thomas, Miami Dolphins
Jason Taylor, Miami Dolphins
Scottie Pippen, NBA Hall of Famer
David Stern, NBA Commissioner
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor New York City
John Peyton, Mayor Jacksonville Florida
These people are all direct supporters and participants in Impact Player Partners, which honors and provides support to American military personnel who are severely injured or disabled. Impact Player Partners arranges for these brave heroes to meet with their favorite sports and entertainment personalities, and to honor these veterans before, during, or after sporting and entertainment events. Impact Player Partners also provides career, emotional, and financial support to these veterans, including transportation and lodging expenses for family members visiting their injured loved one, uncovered medical expenses or prosthetic device upgrades, and assistance to help with loss of income. They plan to build at least one home per years for an injured war on terror hero. You can help be a part of this. Simply go to Impact Player.org , read up on these guys and what they are doing, and help where you can. The easiest way is to buy some of their “Impact a hero” wristbands, like I just did.
“When I saw the stumps, I thought, ‘Damn, both of them? ‘ Then I looked at my leg and I was trying to figure how to put a tourniquet on it because I didn’t have any hands.” - Marine Corporal James “Eddie” Wright
The Summit Daily News summed it up with its headline:
“We owe this to these guys”.
*****__________
*****__________
If I mention the following names, what do you suppose they have in common?
Sergeant Mike Meiner
Sergeant Brian Wilhelm
Sergeant Mike McNaughton
Airman 1st Class Scott Pizzifred
Airman 1st Class Scott Palomino
Marine Corporal James Eddie Wright
Army Specialist Danielle Green
Buck Sergeant Keith Wolverton
Marine Corporal Casey Owens
Navy Corpsman Jose “Doc” Ramos
Any thoughts? You might suspect these are people who all served in the War on Terror, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They also are combat veterans who were disabled, often requiring amputations. They are mentioned here, because of the efforts of these people:
Dick Lynch, founder of IMPACT
Dan Goodale, West Coast Director of IMPACT
Larry Boyd, IMPACT General Chairman
Christian Okoye, Kansas City Chiefs and early IMPACT organizer
Jake Plummer, Denver Broncos
Jim McMahon, Chicago Bears
Mike Lee (pro bullrider)
Mike Shanahan, Denver Broncos
Reuben Droughns, Denver Broncos
Champ Bailey, Denver Broncos
John Lynch, Denver Broncos
Arnold Palmer, Pro Golf legend
Brian Kilmeade, Fox News
Ben Crenshaw, PGA star
The Buffalo Bills Football Club, NFL
Isiah Thomas, NBA star
The Cincinnati Bengals Football Club, NFL
Jeff Gordon, NASCAR
President George W. Bush
Darryl Grant, musician
Pat Bowlen, CEO Denver Broncos
Rudolph Giuliani
Junior Seau, Miami Dolphins
The New York Yankees Baseball Club, MLB
Carl Peterson, folksinger
The New York Knicks Basketball Club, NBA
George Strait, country singer
The Washington Redskins Football Club, NFL
Bob McNair, owner Houston Texans
Houston Force, Professional Softball Team
The Houston Texans Football Club,NFL
Jimmie Johnson, Hall of Fame Coach
The Miami Dolphins Football Club, NFL
David Carr, Houston Texans
Andre Johnson, Houston Texans
Joe Nemechek, pro Motocross driver
Greg Bifle, NASCAR
Zach Thomas, Miami Dolphins
Jason Taylor, Miami Dolphins
Scottie Pippen, NBA Hall of Famer
David Stern, NBA Commissioner
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor New York City
John Peyton, Mayor Jacksonville Florida
These people are all direct supporters and participants in Impact Player Partners, which honors and provides support to American military personnel who are severely injured or disabled. Impact Player Partners arranges for these brave heroes to meet with their favorite sports and entertainment personalities, and to honor these veterans before, during, or after sporting and entertainment events. Impact Player Partners also provides career, emotional, and financial support to these veterans, including transportation and lodging expenses for family members visiting their injured loved one, uncovered medical expenses or prosthetic device upgrades, and assistance to help with loss of income. They plan to build at least one home per years for an injured war on terror hero. You can help be a part of this. Simply go to Impact Player.org , read up on these guys and what they are doing, and help where you can. The easiest way is to buy some of their “Impact a hero” wristbands, like I just did.
“When I saw the stumps, I thought, ‘Damn, both of them? ‘ Then I looked at my leg and I was trying to figure how to put a tourniquet on it because I didn’t have any hands.” - Marine Corporal James “Eddie” Wright
The Summit Daily News summed it up with its headline:
“We owe this to these guys”.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Resolve
[][][][]
The 2005 Baseball season for the Baylor Bears is over. The Bears dropped a heart-breaking 4-3 decision to the Texas Longhorns last night in a College World Series 'Bracket Final' game. Along the way however, Baylor had a thrilling run. At one time holding a record of only 8-7, the Bears got their house in order and finished with a great 19-8 Big XII record, good enough to tie Nebraska for the Conference regular-season title. The 39-21 record after the Big XII Conference Tournament was not only good enough to earn an at-large berth to the NCAA Regionals, but to host as the #1 seed in the Waco Regional, which the Bears won in three straight games. Against Clemson in the Super-Regionals, the Bears lost the first game in the best-of-three matchup, but came back to not only win the next two games but dominate. That earned Baylor’s ticket to the College World Series, for the first time since 1978.
After a 5-1 loss to arch-nemesis Texas and a come-from-behind 4-3 win in extra innings over Oregon State, the Bears found themselves in an elimination game against top-ranked and top-seeded Tulane, who carried 56 wins on their record into the game. I spent Tuesday evening watching the game and following online messages from Baylor fans as the game progressed. This is also why I did not blog yesterday; I spent the day recovering!
Tulane started the game with a foul-out, a single, a strike-out, a throwing error by Baylor that moved the runner to second, then another strikeout. The Bears, home team for this game, started by reaching on a Tulane error, which looked good but didn’t blossom. A fielder’s choice took out the lead runner, followed by a caught stealing and a pop-up. Everyone settled down for a long game. Then Baylor’s version of ‘Titanic Meets Iceberg’ happened.
In the second inning, Madden singled for Tulane through the right side. Bogusevic moved him over to 2nd with a Sac bunt. Then Dini singled, and Tulane got their first run. 1-0 Tulane, and there was an annoying unhappiness from the Baylor fans, not many but they shouldn’t have been grumbling off just one run.
Things quickly got worse. On a 1-1 pitch, Hamilton homered for Tulane, and just like that it was 3-0 Tulane. When Holland grounded out to the Shortstop, it looked like Baylor would recover with limited damage, but Southard reached on a throwing error, all the way to 2nd, and then he stole 3rd. Emaus walked, putting men on the corners and that brought up Manzella, who singled through the middle to move Emaus to 2nd and score Southard, unearned but still 4-0 Tulane.
The online messages were distinctly bitter at this point, in large part giving up. More than a few of the fans left the board and did not return, clearly giving up on a top 5 team and its season, with more than two-thirds of the game still to go.
Did I mention it got worse? Owings reached on another Baylor error, which allowed Manzella and Emaus to score unearned runs. 6-0 Tulane. Madden struck out to end the Tulane 2nd, but they had batted around and put a half-dozen runs on the board, the most Baylor had given up since the regular season. The ESPN announcers, particularly Harold Reynolds, were saying Baylor could not come back. With 7 innings to go, most of the fans and both ESPN announcers have flat-out given up. “Warm up the bus” quipped Reynolds, enjoying an undeserved slap at the Bears. The Bears got walks on both sides of a one-out double by Russo, but couldn’t bring anyone in to score.
The third and fourth innings passed without notable events. One hit and one walk for Baylor during that span, but no solid results. Tulane settled in to protect a large lead, planning on conservative baseball. In the fifth inning, Madden walked after 2 outs, and a Bogusevic double sent him home to score Tulane’s 7th run. The Bears got the third out when Dini grounded out, but could not manage anything in the bottom of the inning. In the sixth inning, Holland singled but otherwise Tulane was quiet. The Bears went 1-2-3 in the sixth, and the announcers duly noted that in 2005, Tulane had never lost when leading after six innings. Reynolds repeatedly suggested that Baylor start playing its bench so that the young players could say they had played in a CWS game. Online, perhaps five fans remained, stubbornly hoping against the odds that the Bears could make a comeback like they did earlier in the year, like the May 13th game when the Bears trailed Texas A&M 8-0 but came back to win 10-9. Sometimes, wishing for the impossible gets granted.
Tulane went 1-2-3 in the seventh inning. At first, the Bears seemed to have nothing new, as Fortenberry struck out. But Witt made it to 1st on a fielding error, and moved to 3rd when Sevigny doubled to left center. A wild pitch allowed Witt to score and Sevigny to move to 3rd, and Baylor was on the board, trailing Tulane by a 7-1 score with 8 outs left to use. Griffin then doubled down the line and Sevigny scored. 7-2. Then Reynolds singled to center field and griffin scored. 7-3. Tulane changed pitchers and Ford popped up. Brees got a single into right field, but when Dillon popped up the inning was over. But with six outs left, the Bears had done some real damage.
Tulane knew it needed to grab the momentum back, but while Hamilton got a single up the middle, it came after the first two batters struck out and popped up. A fielder’s choice ended the Tulane eighth. After Russo flied out, Fortenberry smacked the first pitch he saw up the middle for a single. Witt singled through the left side, and that moved Fortenberry to 2nd. Sevigny struck out swinging for the second out, but in a double steal, Witt stole 2nd and Fortenberry stole 3rd. When Griffin smacked a single through the left side, Witt and Fortenberry scored. Reynolds on ESPN admitted the double steal was a brilliant move; it made the score possible, especially since Reynolds next grounded out to end the inning. But now it was 7-5 with 3 outs left apiece and everybody realized the game was very much in play.
It can be a very tough order, getting your offense moving on short notice. While Tulane knew after the seventh inning that they needed to get going, making it happen was something else entirely. Now with their splendid 7-run lead cut all the way down to 2, they felt real pressure. Southard grounded out to second, Emaus and Manzella popped up, and Tulane knew it would all come down to their pitching and fielding. The stands were loud and excited, and suddenly while both sides wore green, you couldn’t shake the feeling that the Rosenblatt fans were Bearish.
Ford started the Baylor ninth by singling through the right side. That brought the potential tying run to the plate, something which had seemed impossible just a little while earlier. Tulane changed pitchers, bringing in Morgan. The Bears brought in a pinch runner, sending Mandel in for Ford to get extra speed on the base paths. Brees followed with a single through the left side, moving Mandel to 2nd. That put the potential tying run on base, and the potential winning run came to the plate for Baylor in the person of Dillon. The Bears sent Gerdes in to pinch run for Brees, again playing all-in to score the runs they needed in their last chance. Dillon doubled down the right field line, but Tulane played it well enough that only one run scored, as Mandel touched the plate. Dillon was at 2nd, and Gerdes reached 3rd. It was now 7-6, with Baylor players at 2nd and 3rd and nobody out. Tulane sent Gomes in to pitch, replacing Morgan. Gomes walked Russo on purpose, hoping to set up a double play opportunity. It was pretty smart, with Baylor already having the tying run at 3rd and the potential winning run at 2nd. The guy at 1st was just a detail, it seemed. When Fortenberry popped up to the Shortstop, the move looked even smarter. If Gomes could coax the right ground ball out of Witt, a double play could end the game with a Tulane win, and all the Baylor noise wouldn’t change that. When Witt hit a slow bouncing ground ball to the second baseman, it looked like Tulane had wrapped it up.
But while the second baseman tagged the base for the 2nd out, he suddenly realized that Witt was running faster than he thought. If Witt beat the throw to 1st, then Gerdes’ tying run from 3rd would count and tie the game. So, he threw a little harder to get the ball there. The throw was just a smidge high and the first baseman couldn’t catch it, as the umpire signaled Witt safe at 1st base. Gerdes indeed scored from 3rd, but with the ball bouncing away from the first baseman, Dillon came around at full speed touching 3rd base and rounding the course to get home for the winning score before the first baseman could get hold of the errant baseball. Just like that, 8-7 Baylor wins, final.
If you’re not a baseball fan, what I wrote may not seem all that interesting, but it has parallels in Life as well. The announcers at ESPN, usually professional, turned into jerks when it seemed Baylor was out of it. Many of the fans online gave up when the score looked insurmountable, and many of the paying customers at Rosenblatt became quiet and sullen, unaware of the drama yet to unfold. But the Baylor fans and the announcers should have realized that Baylor had indeed earned its place at the College World Series, as well as their national ranking and NCAA seed. That was not coincidence, but the result of attributes that the team called upon all year, discipline and confidence and yes, resolve.
I noted at the start that Baylor followed that incredible win with a loss to Texas, and they are now packed up and done for the season. So, why brag about one win when they lost the chance for the National title? Because baseball teaches lessons if you pay attention, and part of that is to recognize what you have done along the way. The Conference co-title, the Regional and Super Regional triumphs, and a seriously valid national run all still stand. As for that 4-3 loss to Texas, hey it was 3-2 Baylor late in the game. Hats off to Texas for gutting it out; sometimes a game’s results doesn’t mean anybody lost, but rather that one team found an extra strength and determination and resolve to win. Way to go Texas, but way to go Bears as well.
Whether we’re talking baseball or the life it imitates, we should all be looking for that resolve, and how to use it.
The 2005 Baseball season for the Baylor Bears is over. The Bears dropped a heart-breaking 4-3 decision to the Texas Longhorns last night in a College World Series 'Bracket Final' game. Along the way however, Baylor had a thrilling run. At one time holding a record of only 8-7, the Bears got their house in order and finished with a great 19-8 Big XII record, good enough to tie Nebraska for the Conference regular-season title. The 39-21 record after the Big XII Conference Tournament was not only good enough to earn an at-large berth to the NCAA Regionals, but to host as the #1 seed in the Waco Regional, which the Bears won in three straight games. Against Clemson in the Super-Regionals, the Bears lost the first game in the best-of-three matchup, but came back to not only win the next two games but dominate. That earned Baylor’s ticket to the College World Series, for the first time since 1978.
After a 5-1 loss to arch-nemesis Texas and a come-from-behind 4-3 win in extra innings over Oregon State, the Bears found themselves in an elimination game against top-ranked and top-seeded Tulane, who carried 56 wins on their record into the game. I spent Tuesday evening watching the game and following online messages from Baylor fans as the game progressed. This is also why I did not blog yesterday; I spent the day recovering!
Tulane started the game with a foul-out, a single, a strike-out, a throwing error by Baylor that moved the runner to second, then another strikeout. The Bears, home team for this game, started by reaching on a Tulane error, which looked good but didn’t blossom. A fielder’s choice took out the lead runner, followed by a caught stealing and a pop-up. Everyone settled down for a long game. Then Baylor’s version of ‘Titanic Meets Iceberg’ happened.
In the second inning, Madden singled for Tulane through the right side. Bogusevic moved him over to 2nd with a Sac bunt. Then Dini singled, and Tulane got their first run. 1-0 Tulane, and there was an annoying unhappiness from the Baylor fans, not many but they shouldn’t have been grumbling off just one run.
Things quickly got worse. On a 1-1 pitch, Hamilton homered for Tulane, and just like that it was 3-0 Tulane. When Holland grounded out to the Shortstop, it looked like Baylor would recover with limited damage, but Southard reached on a throwing error, all the way to 2nd, and then he stole 3rd. Emaus walked, putting men on the corners and that brought up Manzella, who singled through the middle to move Emaus to 2nd and score Southard, unearned but still 4-0 Tulane.
The online messages were distinctly bitter at this point, in large part giving up. More than a few of the fans left the board and did not return, clearly giving up on a top 5 team and its season, with more than two-thirds of the game still to go.
Did I mention it got worse? Owings reached on another Baylor error, which allowed Manzella and Emaus to score unearned runs. 6-0 Tulane. Madden struck out to end the Tulane 2nd, but they had batted around and put a half-dozen runs on the board, the most Baylor had given up since the regular season. The ESPN announcers, particularly Harold Reynolds, were saying Baylor could not come back. With 7 innings to go, most of the fans and both ESPN announcers have flat-out given up. “Warm up the bus” quipped Reynolds, enjoying an undeserved slap at the Bears. The Bears got walks on both sides of a one-out double by Russo, but couldn’t bring anyone in to score.
The third and fourth innings passed without notable events. One hit and one walk for Baylor during that span, but no solid results. Tulane settled in to protect a large lead, planning on conservative baseball. In the fifth inning, Madden walked after 2 outs, and a Bogusevic double sent him home to score Tulane’s 7th run. The Bears got the third out when Dini grounded out, but could not manage anything in the bottom of the inning. In the sixth inning, Holland singled but otherwise Tulane was quiet. The Bears went 1-2-3 in the sixth, and the announcers duly noted that in 2005, Tulane had never lost when leading after six innings. Reynolds repeatedly suggested that Baylor start playing its bench so that the young players could say they had played in a CWS game. Online, perhaps five fans remained, stubbornly hoping against the odds that the Bears could make a comeback like they did earlier in the year, like the May 13th game when the Bears trailed Texas A&M 8-0 but came back to win 10-9. Sometimes, wishing for the impossible gets granted.
Tulane went 1-2-3 in the seventh inning. At first, the Bears seemed to have nothing new, as Fortenberry struck out. But Witt made it to 1st on a fielding error, and moved to 3rd when Sevigny doubled to left center. A wild pitch allowed Witt to score and Sevigny to move to 3rd, and Baylor was on the board, trailing Tulane by a 7-1 score with 8 outs left to use. Griffin then doubled down the line and Sevigny scored. 7-2. Then Reynolds singled to center field and griffin scored. 7-3. Tulane changed pitchers and Ford popped up. Brees got a single into right field, but when Dillon popped up the inning was over. But with six outs left, the Bears had done some real damage.
Tulane knew it needed to grab the momentum back, but while Hamilton got a single up the middle, it came after the first two batters struck out and popped up. A fielder’s choice ended the Tulane eighth. After Russo flied out, Fortenberry smacked the first pitch he saw up the middle for a single. Witt singled through the left side, and that moved Fortenberry to 2nd. Sevigny struck out swinging for the second out, but in a double steal, Witt stole 2nd and Fortenberry stole 3rd. When Griffin smacked a single through the left side, Witt and Fortenberry scored. Reynolds on ESPN admitted the double steal was a brilliant move; it made the score possible, especially since Reynolds next grounded out to end the inning. But now it was 7-5 with 3 outs left apiece and everybody realized the game was very much in play.
It can be a very tough order, getting your offense moving on short notice. While Tulane knew after the seventh inning that they needed to get going, making it happen was something else entirely. Now with their splendid 7-run lead cut all the way down to 2, they felt real pressure. Southard grounded out to second, Emaus and Manzella popped up, and Tulane knew it would all come down to their pitching and fielding. The stands were loud and excited, and suddenly while both sides wore green, you couldn’t shake the feeling that the Rosenblatt fans were Bearish.
Ford started the Baylor ninth by singling through the right side. That brought the potential tying run to the plate, something which had seemed impossible just a little while earlier. Tulane changed pitchers, bringing in Morgan. The Bears brought in a pinch runner, sending Mandel in for Ford to get extra speed on the base paths. Brees followed with a single through the left side, moving Mandel to 2nd. That put the potential tying run on base, and the potential winning run came to the plate for Baylor in the person of Dillon. The Bears sent Gerdes in to pinch run for Brees, again playing all-in to score the runs they needed in their last chance. Dillon doubled down the right field line, but Tulane played it well enough that only one run scored, as Mandel touched the plate. Dillon was at 2nd, and Gerdes reached 3rd. It was now 7-6, with Baylor players at 2nd and 3rd and nobody out. Tulane sent Gomes in to pitch, replacing Morgan. Gomes walked Russo on purpose, hoping to set up a double play opportunity. It was pretty smart, with Baylor already having the tying run at 3rd and the potential winning run at 2nd. The guy at 1st was just a detail, it seemed. When Fortenberry popped up to the Shortstop, the move looked even smarter. If Gomes could coax the right ground ball out of Witt, a double play could end the game with a Tulane win, and all the Baylor noise wouldn’t change that. When Witt hit a slow bouncing ground ball to the second baseman, it looked like Tulane had wrapped it up.
But while the second baseman tagged the base for the 2nd out, he suddenly realized that Witt was running faster than he thought. If Witt beat the throw to 1st, then Gerdes’ tying run from 3rd would count and tie the game. So, he threw a little harder to get the ball there. The throw was just a smidge high and the first baseman couldn’t catch it, as the umpire signaled Witt safe at 1st base. Gerdes indeed scored from 3rd, but with the ball bouncing away from the first baseman, Dillon came around at full speed touching 3rd base and rounding the course to get home for the winning score before the first baseman could get hold of the errant baseball. Just like that, 8-7 Baylor wins, final.
If you’re not a baseball fan, what I wrote may not seem all that interesting, but it has parallels in Life as well. The announcers at ESPN, usually professional, turned into jerks when it seemed Baylor was out of it. Many of the fans online gave up when the score looked insurmountable, and many of the paying customers at Rosenblatt became quiet and sullen, unaware of the drama yet to unfold. But the Baylor fans and the announcers should have realized that Baylor had indeed earned its place at the College World Series, as well as their national ranking and NCAA seed. That was not coincidence, but the result of attributes that the team called upon all year, discipline and confidence and yes, resolve.
I noted at the start that Baylor followed that incredible win with a loss to Texas, and they are now packed up and done for the season. So, why brag about one win when they lost the chance for the National title? Because baseball teaches lessons if you pay attention, and part of that is to recognize what you have done along the way. The Conference co-title, the Regional and Super Regional triumphs, and a seriously valid national run all still stand. As for that 4-3 loss to Texas, hey it was 3-2 Baylor late in the game. Hats off to Texas for gutting it out; sometimes a game’s results doesn’t mean anybody lost, but rather that one team found an extra strength and determination and resolve to win. Way to go Texas, but way to go Bears as well.
Whether we’re talking baseball or the life it imitates, we should all be looking for that resolve, and how to use it.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Guest Workers
/[]
Republicans and Democrats alike have chided President Bush for not tightening immigration controls, especially the border with Mexico. More than a couple political theorists suggest that a Democrat could win the White House in 2008 by running “to the right” of the GOP on the issue of Immigration, by pursuing a sterner position on Immigration and Border Security than has been presented up to now. The problem with such thinking is that it misses the nature of alien worker demographics in the United States, and so cannot claim a solution where it misdiagnoses the cause.
To be sure, many aliens enter the United States, legally and otherwise, for the purpose of becoming citizens here, and especially in the hope that their children will be American citizens. But observers miss key clues that show other plans and intentions of these visiting workers. A common practice by Mexican workers in the United States, especially among migrant workers, is to work in the United States and send money home to Mexico and other Latin American countries. More than a few alien workers have openly stated their plan to work in the United States until they have saved a certain amount, then return home where their money brings a relatively comfortable life. Americans themselves do that all the time; my own father once took a contract position that sent him to work in far north Alaska for eight months, because the money for the job was far better than any regular work he could get that allowed him to come home every day.
And it’s not just Latinos that do this. I have met with a large number of Asians who work hard in the United States because they can do so with few restrictions, sending as much as 80% of their earnings home. They do this by living in conditions most Americans would consider appalling, such as gong si fongs where as many as fifteen men may share a single apartment, and do little more than work, eat, and sleep. The modern convenience of wire transfers makes such finances possible.
The United States certainly suffers from this practice; the illegal workers do not pay income taxes, and the habit of using indigent services for medical and social care for families certainly taxes an overburdened system. Also, companies learn to play the game, hiding illegal workers to avoid their share of Social Security taxes and INS audits, and the habit of some to cheat their workers then report them to Immigration is a disgusting practice. But the United States also benefits from this condition, as skilled workers perform their work for far less than nominal wages, allowing regions to profit from a corrupt tradition. Reform is not going to be enough, but closing the borders would simply cause as many problems as it solves.
The proper steps, I believe, are not politically sexy but common-sense. Begin with enforcing the laws on the books. Beef up funding for the Border Patrol and INS, especially with linguists. Punish companies which abuse alien workers, make an example of two or three of them, and put real teeth into laws against smuggling people into the country, especially where their subjects have been coerced into carrying drugs or prostitution. Make it unprofitable. One immediate effect this will have, is to show our neighbors that things have changed on this particular playing field, and that will make the next steps easier to plan and make reality.
Republicans and Democrats alike have chided President Bush for not tightening immigration controls, especially the border with Mexico. More than a couple political theorists suggest that a Democrat could win the White House in 2008 by running “to the right” of the GOP on the issue of Immigration, by pursuing a sterner position on Immigration and Border Security than has been presented up to now. The problem with such thinking is that it misses the nature of alien worker demographics in the United States, and so cannot claim a solution where it misdiagnoses the cause.
To be sure, many aliens enter the United States, legally and otherwise, for the purpose of becoming citizens here, and especially in the hope that their children will be American citizens. But observers miss key clues that show other plans and intentions of these visiting workers. A common practice by Mexican workers in the United States, especially among migrant workers, is to work in the United States and send money home to Mexico and other Latin American countries. More than a few alien workers have openly stated their plan to work in the United States until they have saved a certain amount, then return home where their money brings a relatively comfortable life. Americans themselves do that all the time; my own father once took a contract position that sent him to work in far north Alaska for eight months, because the money for the job was far better than any regular work he could get that allowed him to come home every day.
And it’s not just Latinos that do this. I have met with a large number of Asians who work hard in the United States because they can do so with few restrictions, sending as much as 80% of their earnings home. They do this by living in conditions most Americans would consider appalling, such as gong si fongs where as many as fifteen men may share a single apartment, and do little more than work, eat, and sleep. The modern convenience of wire transfers makes such finances possible.
The United States certainly suffers from this practice; the illegal workers do not pay income taxes, and the habit of using indigent services for medical and social care for families certainly taxes an overburdened system. Also, companies learn to play the game, hiding illegal workers to avoid their share of Social Security taxes and INS audits, and the habit of some to cheat their workers then report them to Immigration is a disgusting practice. But the United States also benefits from this condition, as skilled workers perform their work for far less than nominal wages, allowing regions to profit from a corrupt tradition. Reform is not going to be enough, but closing the borders would simply cause as many problems as it solves.
The proper steps, I believe, are not politically sexy but common-sense. Begin with enforcing the laws on the books. Beef up funding for the Border Patrol and INS, especially with linguists. Punish companies which abuse alien workers, make an example of two or three of them, and put real teeth into laws against smuggling people into the country, especially where their subjects have been coerced into carrying drugs or prostitution. Make it unprofitable. One immediate effect this will have, is to show our neighbors that things have changed on this particular playing field, and that will make the next steps easier to plan and make reality.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Monday
[]...
Monday is more than a day of the week. It represents picking up some tasks already in a state of momentum from the previous week, and beginning a few new projects and putting out a few new fires. And of course, every so often a bear created by a co-worker gets loose and finds its way into your territory, with the real possibility that some bears are aimed your way by your colleagues.
As my work continues towards the completion of a major project, along with the normal complement of surprises, I began to consider what a workweek in Washington is like. If nothing else, it helps me appreciate my own position.
To begin with, Washington is still abuzz with the ‘Slander The Marines’ act by Senator Durbin last Tuesday evening, followed by an absurd attempt to defend the insults. Naturally, the reverberations continued into Monday, as politicos tried to decide whether to hide from the echoes or deal with them. Being politicians, most tried to ignore the issue.
In that same vein, Congress refused to consider the appointment confirmation of John Bolton to the United Nations. Lunch and drinks were apparently much higher on the agenda.
In a political tribute to “Money For Nothing”, the Congress also waylaid discussion on Social Security Reform or Reform for the Internal Revenue Service, while staffs hurried to manage the most important priority; television interviews and fundraisers for the politicians as the July 4th break approaches.
And of course the best news; the whole day, regardless of its lack of accomplishment, was paid for by the American taxpayer.
Tuesday should be just as fun.
Monday is more than a day of the week. It represents picking up some tasks already in a state of momentum from the previous week, and beginning a few new projects and putting out a few new fires. And of course, every so often a bear created by a co-worker gets loose and finds its way into your territory, with the real possibility that some bears are aimed your way by your colleagues.
As my work continues towards the completion of a major project, along with the normal complement of surprises, I began to consider what a workweek in Washington is like. If nothing else, it helps me appreciate my own position.
To begin with, Washington is still abuzz with the ‘Slander The Marines’ act by Senator Durbin last Tuesday evening, followed by an absurd attempt to defend the insults. Naturally, the reverberations continued into Monday, as politicos tried to decide whether to hide from the echoes or deal with them. Being politicians, most tried to ignore the issue.
In that same vein, Congress refused to consider the appointment confirmation of John Bolton to the United Nations. Lunch and drinks were apparently much higher on the agenda.
In a political tribute to “Money For Nothing”, the Congress also waylaid discussion on Social Security Reform or Reform for the Internal Revenue Service, while staffs hurried to manage the most important priority; television interviews and fundraisers for the politicians as the July 4th break approaches.
And of course the best news; the whole day, regardless of its lack of accomplishment, was paid for by the American taxpayer.
Tuesday should be just as fun.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
The Aluminati, redux
[]--[]
About a year ago, I wrote about the creation of a new class of political operatives; the Aluminati.
Over the years, becoming noticeable after the resignation of Richard Nixon and the subsequent abrogation of the U.S. promise to defend South Vietnam, the Aluminati came into influence, spreading the most irresponsible gossip and anti-American propaganda from the safe comfort of academic and journalistic bastions, free from criticism or the need to prove their case; the allegation was enough for the Left. One wonders what the Boston inflection of ‘J’accuse!’ might be.
Once established, the Aluminati fed richly off their unchallenged assertions. Claims that the Central Intelligence Agency had deliberatedly created and spread AIDS, while created from whole cloth of Leftist paranoia, nonetheless found currency among inner-city radicals and anti-American agents. The connection between Ronald Reagan and the Iranian government, though it never existed in fact, was firmly set in the minds of those pre-disposed to believe that an American President would put connivance ahead of his sworn oath. Even a Democrat President was not immune; as the end of the century approached, the completely unbalanced not only came to believe that the U.S. government was about to impose martial law and replace the American Constitution with something from the 'X-Files' for no reason or cause at all, but produced hoax tapes and fake documents to sell their story. Small wonder then, that when a Republican won the next election, the Aluminati saw the election as a coup d’tat, and when a terrorist group actually did kill thousands of Americans in a vicious act of malice, the Aluminati blamed America for the attack. Success in the War on Terror must, to their mind, be derided as failure. Authorizing the tools to be used against terrorists, already in use against gangsters and drug cartels, must be denounced as attacks on Civil Liberties. An age of unparalleled hypocrisy and hate began in 2002, not by the government but by those individuals and groups which hated the American ideal and mission.
The Aluminati knew they were losing in 2003. The fall of Baghdad was a crushing blow for thugs in Fallujah and Damascus, and also for professors in Berkeley and Senators known to Martha’s Vineyard. The Aluminati might have been unbalanced, but they were not without resources, and it is no coincidence that Michael Moore began production of his most infamous propaganda piece to counter the clear U.S. victory. It is no coincidence that Moore sided with the terrorists in Iraq; he knew their brothers as his patrons in the film industry.
Moore’s earlier success in selling lies cloaked as a documentary opened the door to a cottage industry for the Aluminati. It worked for Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, and Barbra Streisand, and it allowed Jane Fonda and Sean Penn to commit treason with effective impunity. It wasn’t long before the Democrats, aware of their chronic losses in federal elections, decided to consider implementing Aluminati tactics in their campaigns. It became apparent early in the primary season, that attacks on the Republicans brought in contributions and poll support, even when those attacks were completely irresponsible and included lies about the troops and misquoted history. With the support of the television and print media, the Aluminati believed they had little reason to worry about contradiction or backlash. Fortunately, the 21st Century has produced a social antibody to the Aluminati; the New Media.
Abuses of the truth and public trust by the Old Media had become obvious to most Americans by the end of the 1980s. Even the clear disdain by the New York and Los Angelese elites against regular people and their concerns could not stop the rising popularity of Talk Radio, and the subsequent stardom of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh proved unanswerable for the Aluminati, in large part because he destroyed their contentions simply by presenting them in context, by presenting the historical facts against their claims, and by allowing regular people to say their piece. While Limbaugh at times is himself bombastic and over-the-top, he still presented a threat the Aluminati could not answer. And Limbaugh was only the first of many voices in radio. By 1999, the Aluminati could no longer present a claim with the assumption that it would be accepted simply because they said it was so.
Many people born before 1980 do not understand the full impact of the personal computer; certainly IBM blundered in not even making a true PC available until after Apple proved the market’s viability for the product. But the evolution of the Internet Community was unseen by almost everyone. The Aluminati believed that by controlling the print and television media, they could prevent any serious threat to their control of the flow of information. The creation of the FOX network proved that was incorrect but worse, the sudden rise in the ability and number of blogs showed a vector dominated not by political factions, but by the users and audience themselves. Where Old Media influence was controlled by money and patronage, the New Media depended on the coin of Credibility of the blogs. By the beginning of 2004, the number of blogs showed a strong rise, and by the end of 2004 the count had positively exploded, with speciality blogs relevant to any consideration. The Aluminati falsely compared the Bush Administration to failed economic periods and disastrous enterprises; blog economists and historians not only countered their claims, but provided compelling proof. The Aluminati lied about military morale and conditions; military on active duty themselves countered those claims with the new class of ‘Milblogs’. The Aluminati lied about the polls; statisticians and analysts ripped open contrived analyses to show flawed demographics, even the outright manipulation of the respondent pool to obtain the desired results. The Aluminati even found themselves unable to manipulate smear campaigns; an attempt to defame the Swift Boat Veterans’ criticism of John Kerry backfired as the Swift Boat Vets provided consistent and corroborated evidence to back up their claims; to this date John Kerry has not backed his contentions. Worse for the tinfoil warriors, a crass attempt by CBS to influence the 2004 Presidential Election by using forged documents to back up false claims about President Bush’s service during the Vietnam conflict backfired when document and typesetting experts, along with military clerks who served during the early 1970s and family of the supposed author countered the claims effectively. The Aluminati’s favorite weapon, to flood the airwaves with rumors and charges against Conservatives, was now worth a great deal less, as average Americans began to challenge unsupported contentions and demand evidence.
The 2004 re-election of George W. Bush, accompanied by gains in the Congress which reinforced the message, has scared the Aluminati enough that a number of Democrats have reverted to the faux Americana that got Bill Clinton elected. But a number of the Aluminati refuse to reject the tactics that brought wealth to Michael Moore and fame to Howard Dean. The easy glory from the Hard Left has become an addiction the Aluminati cannot do without, even in the face of growing evidence that America is growing more conservative, away from liberalism.
The selection of Howard Dean as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the continuing efforts by CNN and CBS to pursue an all-out policy of false accusation against the Bush Administration, and the resurgent attempts to quell free speech on the internet and in radio all show the determined if last-ditch effort to stop or slow the advance of citizen journalism. For the near future at least, the market for tinfoil accessories remains alive, however futile its mission.
About a year ago, I wrote about the creation of a new class of political operatives; the Aluminati.
Over the years, becoming noticeable after the resignation of Richard Nixon and the subsequent abrogation of the U.S. promise to defend South Vietnam, the Aluminati came into influence, spreading the most irresponsible gossip and anti-American propaganda from the safe comfort of academic and journalistic bastions, free from criticism or the need to prove their case; the allegation was enough for the Left. One wonders what the Boston inflection of ‘J’accuse!’ might be.
Once established, the Aluminati fed richly off their unchallenged assertions. Claims that the Central Intelligence Agency had deliberatedly created and spread AIDS, while created from whole cloth of Leftist paranoia, nonetheless found currency among inner-city radicals and anti-American agents. The connection between Ronald Reagan and the Iranian government, though it never existed in fact, was firmly set in the minds of those pre-disposed to believe that an American President would put connivance ahead of his sworn oath. Even a Democrat President was not immune; as the end of the century approached, the completely unbalanced not only came to believe that the U.S. government was about to impose martial law and replace the American Constitution with something from the 'X-Files' for no reason or cause at all, but produced hoax tapes and fake documents to sell their story. Small wonder then, that when a Republican won the next election, the Aluminati saw the election as a coup d’tat, and when a terrorist group actually did kill thousands of Americans in a vicious act of malice, the Aluminati blamed America for the attack. Success in the War on Terror must, to their mind, be derided as failure. Authorizing the tools to be used against terrorists, already in use against gangsters and drug cartels, must be denounced as attacks on Civil Liberties. An age of unparalleled hypocrisy and hate began in 2002, not by the government but by those individuals and groups which hated the American ideal and mission.
The Aluminati knew they were losing in 2003. The fall of Baghdad was a crushing blow for thugs in Fallujah and Damascus, and also for professors in Berkeley and Senators known to Martha’s Vineyard. The Aluminati might have been unbalanced, but they were not without resources, and it is no coincidence that Michael Moore began production of his most infamous propaganda piece to counter the clear U.S. victory. It is no coincidence that Moore sided with the terrorists in Iraq; he knew their brothers as his patrons in the film industry.
Moore’s earlier success in selling lies cloaked as a documentary opened the door to a cottage industry for the Aluminati. It worked for Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, and Barbra Streisand, and it allowed Jane Fonda and Sean Penn to commit treason with effective impunity. It wasn’t long before the Democrats, aware of their chronic losses in federal elections, decided to consider implementing Aluminati tactics in their campaigns. It became apparent early in the primary season, that attacks on the Republicans brought in contributions and poll support, even when those attacks were completely irresponsible and included lies about the troops and misquoted history. With the support of the television and print media, the Aluminati believed they had little reason to worry about contradiction or backlash. Fortunately, the 21st Century has produced a social antibody to the Aluminati; the New Media.
Abuses of the truth and public trust by the Old Media had become obvious to most Americans by the end of the 1980s. Even the clear disdain by the New York and Los Angelese elites against regular people and their concerns could not stop the rising popularity of Talk Radio, and the subsequent stardom of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh proved unanswerable for the Aluminati, in large part because he destroyed their contentions simply by presenting them in context, by presenting the historical facts against their claims, and by allowing regular people to say their piece. While Limbaugh at times is himself bombastic and over-the-top, he still presented a threat the Aluminati could not answer. And Limbaugh was only the first of many voices in radio. By 1999, the Aluminati could no longer present a claim with the assumption that it would be accepted simply because they said it was so.
Many people born before 1980 do not understand the full impact of the personal computer; certainly IBM blundered in not even making a true PC available until after Apple proved the market’s viability for the product. But the evolution of the Internet Community was unseen by almost everyone. The Aluminati believed that by controlling the print and television media, they could prevent any serious threat to their control of the flow of information. The creation of the FOX network proved that was incorrect but worse, the sudden rise in the ability and number of blogs showed a vector dominated not by political factions, but by the users and audience themselves. Where Old Media influence was controlled by money and patronage, the New Media depended on the coin of Credibility of the blogs. By the beginning of 2004, the number of blogs showed a strong rise, and by the end of 2004 the count had positively exploded, with speciality blogs relevant to any consideration. The Aluminati falsely compared the Bush Administration to failed economic periods and disastrous enterprises; blog economists and historians not only countered their claims, but provided compelling proof. The Aluminati lied about military morale and conditions; military on active duty themselves countered those claims with the new class of ‘Milblogs’. The Aluminati lied about the polls; statisticians and analysts ripped open contrived analyses to show flawed demographics, even the outright manipulation of the respondent pool to obtain the desired results. The Aluminati even found themselves unable to manipulate smear campaigns; an attempt to defame the Swift Boat Veterans’ criticism of John Kerry backfired as the Swift Boat Vets provided consistent and corroborated evidence to back up their claims; to this date John Kerry has not backed his contentions. Worse for the tinfoil warriors, a crass attempt by CBS to influence the 2004 Presidential Election by using forged documents to back up false claims about President Bush’s service during the Vietnam conflict backfired when document and typesetting experts, along with military clerks who served during the early 1970s and family of the supposed author countered the claims effectively. The Aluminati’s favorite weapon, to flood the airwaves with rumors and charges against Conservatives, was now worth a great deal less, as average Americans began to challenge unsupported contentions and demand evidence.
The 2004 re-election of George W. Bush, accompanied by gains in the Congress which reinforced the message, has scared the Aluminati enough that a number of Democrats have reverted to the faux Americana that got Bill Clinton elected. But a number of the Aluminati refuse to reject the tactics that brought wealth to Michael Moore and fame to Howard Dean. The easy glory from the Hard Left has become an addiction the Aluminati cannot do without, even in the face of growing evidence that America is growing more conservative, away from liberalism.
The selection of Howard Dean as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the continuing efforts by CNN and CBS to pursue an all-out policy of false accusation against the Bush Administration, and the resurgent attempts to quell free speech on the internet and in radio all show the determined if last-ditch effort to stop or slow the advance of citizen journalism. For the near future at least, the market for tinfoil accessories remains alive, however futile its mission.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Dealing With Our Ghosts
[][]
A generation ago, General Patton spoke for Americans in general when he said
“America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war”.
Patton was using hyperbole, of course. The United States actually had lost wars before, against Canada and against Red Cloud’s Sioux warriors. In the long term, however, Canada’s influence and power waned against the rising American strength, and the U.S. Army eradicated the Sioux as a tribe. Patton meant that Americans may lose a battle, but in the end will stick with a fight until it’s won. Patton never knew Walter Cronkite and the subversive style of warfare by the press. There is no question that the Left not only was delighted by the collapse of South Vietnam, nor that many on the Left were willing to commit treason to make it happen. After Nixon’s resignation, the Democrat-controlled Congress took every support out of the treaty with South Vietnam, allowing North Vietnam unopposed entry and seizure of the nation. The Leftist press chortled with glee, as tens of millions of innocents in the region fled for their lives. A reign of terror, analogous to Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’, began in Southeast Asia, largely unchronicled and unanswered.
Bruce Kesler, who writes for the Augusta Free Press, has a great article prepared, on the need for President Bush to renew the initiative to free Southeast Asia for her people, not for the despots able to hold on to their palaces through thuggery and schemes. Kesler noted the respose from Jean Libby, an American History teacher to a transcript of an interview with Prime Minister Phan Van Khai of Vietnam in the Washington Post on June 16, 2005.
“The government Phan Van Khai represents is in power because a Treaty was
violated—North Vietnam signed the agreement not to invade South Vietnam
in 1973, but invaded in 1975 because, very simply, they could. The
United States did not back up its ally, South Vietnam, because, very
simply, they couldn’t.”
“The Socialist government of Vietnam originated based on deception. The
revered hero, Ho Chi Minh, committed genocide on nationalists who wanted
a free Vietnam beginning in August, 1945. The teachers, the
intellectuals, the small property owners, the soldiers who had defeated
the colonial power, France, at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 but were not willing
to become communists were exterminated. This process began in most
earnest in June, 1961, with the establishment of concentration camps
(those were the words in Resolution #49) for the purpose of
“reeducation.” Those camps were enlarged in 1975 when an entire
population that worked and fought for democracy in Vietnam were
imprisoned, either in camps or in New Economic Zones that removed women
and the elderly from their property and confiscated it as a reward to
communist soldiers or government workers, particularly the ever-present
police.”
The cruel fact is, that this totalitarian regime is still very much in control, and has neither changed its methods nor its goals. Bruce’s article notes:
“- Dr. Pham Hong Son translated the article "What is Democracy?" from the
U.S. Embassy web site into Vietnamese and distributed it through the
Internet to his friends. He was arrested, charged with espionage and is
now in a 12 year sentence.
- Mr. Nguyen Khac Toan, a veteran, who simply helped the people write
petitions and appeals against illegal appropriation of land. He is now
serving a 4-year sentence for espionage.
- Mr. Nguyen Vu Binh, former ideology writer. He applied for permission
to form an opposition party. He's now in his 7-year sentence. Charge?
Espionage!”
President Bush will send a message when his emissaries meet with those from Vietnam. They can condone the existing regime of malice and oppression, or they can make clear that the world has changed, and with it expectations from Vietnam.
Please send a message to President Bush, to be as strong for the people of Vietnam, as he has been for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The email address is president@whitehouse.gov, and the phone number is 202-456-1111.
Thanks to Bruce Kesler for highlighting the issue, and for remembering the victims. And especially Nguyen Chi Thien and Dr. Hai V. Tran. If you don’t know these two heroes of freedom, ask around.
A generation ago, General Patton spoke for Americans in general when he said
“America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war”.
Patton was using hyperbole, of course. The United States actually had lost wars before, against Canada and against Red Cloud’s Sioux warriors. In the long term, however, Canada’s influence and power waned against the rising American strength, and the U.S. Army eradicated the Sioux as a tribe. Patton meant that Americans may lose a battle, but in the end will stick with a fight until it’s won. Patton never knew Walter Cronkite and the subversive style of warfare by the press. There is no question that the Left not only was delighted by the collapse of South Vietnam, nor that many on the Left were willing to commit treason to make it happen. After Nixon’s resignation, the Democrat-controlled Congress took every support out of the treaty with South Vietnam, allowing North Vietnam unopposed entry and seizure of the nation. The Leftist press chortled with glee, as tens of millions of innocents in the region fled for their lives. A reign of terror, analogous to Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’, began in Southeast Asia, largely unchronicled and unanswered.
Bruce Kesler, who writes for the Augusta Free Press, has a great article prepared, on the need for President Bush to renew the initiative to free Southeast Asia for her people, not for the despots able to hold on to their palaces through thuggery and schemes. Kesler noted the respose from Jean Libby, an American History teacher to a transcript of an interview with Prime Minister Phan Van Khai of Vietnam in the Washington Post on June 16, 2005.
“The government Phan Van Khai represents is in power because a Treaty was
violated—North Vietnam signed the agreement not to invade South Vietnam
in 1973, but invaded in 1975 because, very simply, they could. The
United States did not back up its ally, South Vietnam, because, very
simply, they couldn’t.”
“The Socialist government of Vietnam originated based on deception. The
revered hero, Ho Chi Minh, committed genocide on nationalists who wanted
a free Vietnam beginning in August, 1945. The teachers, the
intellectuals, the small property owners, the soldiers who had defeated
the colonial power, France, at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 but were not willing
to become communists were exterminated. This process began in most
earnest in June, 1961, with the establishment of concentration camps
(those were the words in Resolution #49) for the purpose of
“reeducation.” Those camps were enlarged in 1975 when an entire
population that worked and fought for democracy in Vietnam were
imprisoned, either in camps or in New Economic Zones that removed women
and the elderly from their property and confiscated it as a reward to
communist soldiers or government workers, particularly the ever-present
police.”
The cruel fact is, that this totalitarian regime is still very much in control, and has neither changed its methods nor its goals. Bruce’s article notes:
“- Dr. Pham Hong Son translated the article "What is Democracy?" from the
U.S. Embassy web site into Vietnamese and distributed it through the
Internet to his friends. He was arrested, charged with espionage and is
now in a 12 year sentence.
- Mr. Nguyen Khac Toan, a veteran, who simply helped the people write
petitions and appeals against illegal appropriation of land. He is now
serving a 4-year sentence for espionage.
- Mr. Nguyen Vu Binh, former ideology writer. He applied for permission
to form an opposition party. He's now in his 7-year sentence. Charge?
Espionage!”
President Bush will send a message when his emissaries meet with those from Vietnam. They can condone the existing regime of malice and oppression, or they can make clear that the world has changed, and with it expectations from Vietnam.
Please send a message to President Bush, to be as strong for the people of Vietnam, as he has been for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The email address is president@whitehouse.gov, and the phone number is 202-456-1111.
Thanks to Bruce Kesler for highlighting the issue, and for remembering the victims. And especially Nguyen Chi Thien and Dr. Hai V. Tran. If you don’t know these two heroes of freedom, ask around.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Jack's Take On Dick
[][][]
Vincent Flynn changed only three words to allow Colonel Nathan R. Jessep (as played by Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men”) to explain his opinion of Senator Durbin:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Senator Durbin? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Al Queda, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the detainees suffering, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. "
I sure wish a real Marine would get the chance to say something along those lines to the Senator.
Vincent Flynn changed only three words to allow Colonel Nathan R. Jessep (as played by Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men”) to explain his opinion of Senator Durbin:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Senator Durbin? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Al Queda, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the detainees suffering, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. "
I sure wish a real Marine would get the chance to say something along those lines to the Senator.
Homeland Update
[]
[]
My series on Homeland will continue, but investigation and consideration of the factors and relevant trends makes it necessary to push back the next few entries.
[]
[]
[]
My series on Homeland will continue, but investigation and consideration of the factors and relevant trends makes it necessary to push back the next few entries.
[]
[]
Thursday, June 16, 2005
"By Any Means Necessary"
./\.
I saw this phrase on another board, used justify radical change in an area the poster believe had become extremely unjust. I didn’t like that phrase however; it bothered me on a deeper level, and I thought for a while about why that should be.
Don’t misunderstand me, please. I’m a student of History, enough to know that when reforms and corrections are not made within a certain frame of time, a backlash happens. I am also comfortable with sometimes-radical change, especially when the alternative is true disaster. But that phrase is far too easy to use to justify any sort of behavior. In fact, something very like it was used to justify the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11, something very like it was used to justify napalming villages, something very like it was used to justify countless wars and purges. It was essentially the motive behind both the Jihad that swept across southern Europe in the 7th through 10th Centuries, and also for the Crusades that swept back the other way into the Middle East. It was the excuse for the Salem Witch Trials, and the pogroms against the Jews, Gypsies, Indigenous people in many places, and whenever an opposing force was met.
I simply cannot agree with the phrase; it’s too broad and too bloody. It’s used to justify anyone, anywhere, for anything.
Many people have commented on the unfortunate differences between the early Christians, and modern ones. Three major differences concern me the most. The first century of Christendom went fully after Christ’s example, becoming essentially a tribe of families who shared everything they had and considered each other equals regardless of race, social status or any other superficial element. Second, they went everywhere with the Gospel, spreading it quickly and far; evidence of Christendom spread throughout the Roman empire, as well as Africa and parts of Asia by the end of the 1st Century CE. But most of all, the Christians endured relentless and terrible persecution, dying rather than renouncing their faith, and enduring the worst sorts of torture ever known to man. Compare that to today, when many social Christians appear to begrudge charity, where the Gospel is not often take outside the neighborhood, and then usually by “prayer warriors” more likely to impose the Gospel on someone than share it with them, and the mildest insult becomes a prized battle scar for the contentious advocate. It is a terrible thing to consider that Jesus may have had many modern Christians in mind when He said, “They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” (John 16:3).
My point is, a small group of believers, outrageously persecuted through no fault of their own, nearly wiped out simply for being who they were, survived not by retaliation or malice, but through devoted application of their faith, effectively showing the truth of their faith through endurance. Their way was not “by any means necessary”, but only by the means they accepted as right and good. I honestly believe that God protects those people who will not desert their faith in Him, holding fast against the lure of power and influence and wealth, and also against the torment of harassment, the oppression from mortal forces, and the loss of present gain. This is true, whether one is speaking of the Christians or another faith, Jews or another nation, dominant cultures or repressed ones. It is not the ends which matter, but the methods.
I saw this phrase on another board, used justify radical change in an area the poster believe had become extremely unjust. I didn’t like that phrase however; it bothered me on a deeper level, and I thought for a while about why that should be.
Don’t misunderstand me, please. I’m a student of History, enough to know that when reforms and corrections are not made within a certain frame of time, a backlash happens. I am also comfortable with sometimes-radical change, especially when the alternative is true disaster. But that phrase is far too easy to use to justify any sort of behavior. In fact, something very like it was used to justify the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11, something very like it was used to justify napalming villages, something very like it was used to justify countless wars and purges. It was essentially the motive behind both the Jihad that swept across southern Europe in the 7th through 10th Centuries, and also for the Crusades that swept back the other way into the Middle East. It was the excuse for the Salem Witch Trials, and the pogroms against the Jews, Gypsies, Indigenous people in many places, and whenever an opposing force was met.
I simply cannot agree with the phrase; it’s too broad and too bloody. It’s used to justify anyone, anywhere, for anything.
Many people have commented on the unfortunate differences between the early Christians, and modern ones. Three major differences concern me the most. The first century of Christendom went fully after Christ’s example, becoming essentially a tribe of families who shared everything they had and considered each other equals regardless of race, social status or any other superficial element. Second, they went everywhere with the Gospel, spreading it quickly and far; evidence of Christendom spread throughout the Roman empire, as well as Africa and parts of Asia by the end of the 1st Century CE. But most of all, the Christians endured relentless and terrible persecution, dying rather than renouncing their faith, and enduring the worst sorts of torture ever known to man. Compare that to today, when many social Christians appear to begrudge charity, where the Gospel is not often take outside the neighborhood, and then usually by “prayer warriors” more likely to impose the Gospel on someone than share it with them, and the mildest insult becomes a prized battle scar for the contentious advocate. It is a terrible thing to consider that Jesus may have had many modern Christians in mind when He said, “They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” (John 16:3).
My point is, a small group of believers, outrageously persecuted through no fault of their own, nearly wiped out simply for being who they were, survived not by retaliation or malice, but through devoted application of their faith, effectively showing the truth of their faith through endurance. Their way was not “by any means necessary”, but only by the means they accepted as right and good. I honestly believe that God protects those people who will not desert their faith in Him, holding fast against the lure of power and influence and wealth, and also against the torment of harassment, the oppression from mortal forces, and the loss of present gain. This is true, whether one is speaking of the Christians or another faith, Jews or another nation, dominant cultures or repressed ones. It is not the ends which matter, but the methods.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Jedi Businessman
///
It has been said of the new Star Wars movie, that the Empire is the Conservative Right, and the Jedis are, well, something else. That doesn't work for me, actually. Looking through all six movies, what I see is that the Empire is a focused effort to seize power for its own reward, while the Jedi serve a greater cause, and the world at large.
So, what do I mean by Jedi businesmen? We live in a world of corporations and trade agreements. The United States and China do not compete militarily very much, but are active partners and rivals in world commerce. The dominant question for most Americans is how well they can take care of their families, financially. And the definition for success in most eyes depends on the standard of living attained.
Clearly, this is a superficial way of thinking, but because of the number of people involved and the pervasive impact money has on lives in general, it needs to be considered., Returning to the movies' as an example, see how often the Jedi offered a deal, in place of conflict? Obi-wan did this in the bar at Mos Eisley, and negotiated well with Han Solo. Luke made the offer to Jabba the Hutt before taking him down, and Qui-Gon made offers to resolve conflicts with the Trade Federation. It may be reasoned that the Jedi kept their word, and so a deal would have been as advertised, good for all parties. So in Jedi, to be a businessman depends on keeping your word and seeking advantage for all parties. Even in a suit and tie, if one keeps honor, one may be Jedi.
It has been said of the new Star Wars movie, that the Empire is the Conservative Right, and the Jedis are, well, something else. That doesn't work for me, actually. Looking through all six movies, what I see is that the Empire is a focused effort to seize power for its own reward, while the Jedi serve a greater cause, and the world at large.
So, what do I mean by Jedi businesmen? We live in a world of corporations and trade agreements. The United States and China do not compete militarily very much, but are active partners and rivals in world commerce. The dominant question for most Americans is how well they can take care of their families, financially. And the definition for success in most eyes depends on the standard of living attained.
Clearly, this is a superficial way of thinking, but because of the number of people involved and the pervasive impact money has on lives in general, it needs to be considered., Returning to the movies' as an example, see how often the Jedi offered a deal, in place of conflict? Obi-wan did this in the bar at Mos Eisley, and negotiated well with Han Solo. Luke made the offer to Jabba the Hutt before taking him down, and Qui-Gon made offers to resolve conflicts with the Trade Federation. It may be reasoned that the Jedi kept their word, and so a deal would have been as advertised, good for all parties. So in Jedi, to be a businessman depends on keeping your word and seeking advantage for all parties. Even in a suit and tie, if one keeps honor, one may be Jedi.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Homeland: Race Relations
.{}{}.
Almost two centuries after the nation’s founders wrote words promising equality for all men, the United States still had to address basic rights of minorities. Even with the Civil Rights Act, the clear disparity in how Race is addressed in the United States is one of the most dangerous long-term problems the country faces. Worse, the problem has grown in complexity, even as the initial issues are finally being settled.
Through advancements in the law, minorities enjoy the same rights as majority races, but that is not the same thing as equal conditions or opportunities. Unfortunately, this is not something which can be addressed with law, but which requires cultural adjustment.
During the first century of the United States, immigrants understood that to succeed they needed to assimilate. In the U.S., this should not mean losing the culture of their race, but it does mean accepting the American identity. Since the dominant culture has often expected participants to act in the fashion they found acceptable, there has been a clash about where the line is drawn; for many decades, immigrants were compelled to change their appearance and dress to conform to expectations, but now there has been a backlash, where minorities who attempt to succeed through excelling at the practices of the dominant culture are attacked and insulted for their success, as sell-outs. The determination of where to draw the line should depend on the individual’s decision and commitment, but there is a lot of work to do on that count.
Worse is the now-chronic problem of gangs. There is, simply put, no longer any race, neighborhood, or region of the country which is immune to gangs, and racist gangs are increasing in size, number, and violence. Predatory recruiting practices make families everywhere concerned, and the knowledge that a child may be attacked simply for their skin color, makes it that much harder to establish cooperation and trust between races. And that affects the nation's future at its core.
Almost two centuries after the nation’s founders wrote words promising equality for all men, the United States still had to address basic rights of minorities. Even with the Civil Rights Act, the clear disparity in how Race is addressed in the United States is one of the most dangerous long-term problems the country faces. Worse, the problem has grown in complexity, even as the initial issues are finally being settled.
Through advancements in the law, minorities enjoy the same rights as majority races, but that is not the same thing as equal conditions or opportunities. Unfortunately, this is not something which can be addressed with law, but which requires cultural adjustment.
During the first century of the United States, immigrants understood that to succeed they needed to assimilate. In the U.S., this should not mean losing the culture of their race, but it does mean accepting the American identity. Since the dominant culture has often expected participants to act in the fashion they found acceptable, there has been a clash about where the line is drawn; for many decades, immigrants were compelled to change their appearance and dress to conform to expectations, but now there has been a backlash, where minorities who attempt to succeed through excelling at the practices of the dominant culture are attacked and insulted for their success, as sell-outs. The determination of where to draw the line should depend on the individual’s decision and commitment, but there is a lot of work to do on that count.
Worse is the now-chronic problem of gangs. There is, simply put, no longer any race, neighborhood, or region of the country which is immune to gangs, and racist gangs are increasing in size, number, and violence. Predatory recruiting practices make families everywhere concerned, and the knowledge that a child may be attacked simply for their skin color, makes it that much harder to establish cooperation and trust between races. And that affects the nation's future at its core.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Homeland: The Dominant Culture
.[].
When the United States formed their Republic in the 18th Century, the notion of citizenship was restricted to White Land-Owning Men. In some measure, idealism was a healthy part of the new government, but self-service was certainly part as well. The advantage for the Americans, was that their own reluctance to advance their own ideals was no worse than the intransigence in Europe and Asia. It also helped that the Americans were willing to work together beyond state boundaries, where the other continents still fought wars over tariffs and trade disputes.
Whatever one thinks of the man as a politician, it is beyond debate that Andrew Jackson was a man of strong will and mind. The same fellow who invited the whole of the city of Washington to visit the White House upon his inaugeration, practically compelled the creation of a party to oppose the staid party of George Washington, and began the balancing act which has driven American politics ever since. The next upheaval came with Lincoln, the avatar of the party of true reform, the Republicans. While he meant to save the Union as his ultimate goal, Lincoln destroyed Slavery in the process, and began the forced acceptance of Equal Rights on a broader level.
Civil Rights in the United States has come a long way, but historically it is still very much in its infancy. To be male, white, and own property in the United States is still a clear advantage, culturally. Counter-culture is successful as a niche market, but the real money and power still comes from the same historical base. It’s why every President has been white, male, and a landowner. It’s why the image of American power still looks like something the founding fathers could have predicted. Overall, however, the dominance of power and money is becoming dependant on collaboration and mutual objectives by separate cultures.
When the United States formed their Republic in the 18th Century, the notion of citizenship was restricted to White Land-Owning Men. In some measure, idealism was a healthy part of the new government, but self-service was certainly part as well. The advantage for the Americans, was that their own reluctance to advance their own ideals was no worse than the intransigence in Europe and Asia. It also helped that the Americans were willing to work together beyond state boundaries, where the other continents still fought wars over tariffs and trade disputes.
Whatever one thinks of the man as a politician, it is beyond debate that Andrew Jackson was a man of strong will and mind. The same fellow who invited the whole of the city of Washington to visit the White House upon his inaugeration, practically compelled the creation of a party to oppose the staid party of George Washington, and began the balancing act which has driven American politics ever since. The next upheaval came with Lincoln, the avatar of the party of true reform, the Republicans. While he meant to save the Union as his ultimate goal, Lincoln destroyed Slavery in the process, and began the forced acceptance of Equal Rights on a broader level.
Civil Rights in the United States has come a long way, but historically it is still very much in its infancy. To be male, white, and own property in the United States is still a clear advantage, culturally. Counter-culture is successful as a niche market, but the real money and power still comes from the same historical base. It’s why every President has been white, male, and a landowner. It’s why the image of American power still looks like something the founding fathers could have predicted. Overall, however, the dominance of power and money is becoming dependant on collaboration and mutual objectives by separate cultures.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Homeland
[]_[]_[]
The United States is not understood by most of the world, which is why most of the world does not like or respect the United States. Unable to fathom American thinking, other nations find themselves applying their own perspective to our conditions, and when we do not do as they expect, they become suspicious and cynical of our stated goals and intentions, partly because of old U.S. history, and more often because of their own bitter experience.
In some ways, the United States is the senior partner for the planet. I say this not only because the United States has runs its country for the longest period under the same system of government (every nation on the planet besides the US, has changed its form of government since the US created its Constitution in 1783) , but because most nations which actually operate under the terms of their Constitution, modeled that Constitution after the U.S. Constitution. This means that nations are comparing an effectively short history of their own, to the relatively stable and trail-blazing standard of the Americans.
But it is also true that the United States is a new nation, in many ways. First off, while the U.S. form of government has enviable stability and success, as a people the Americans continue to grow and change. The most common thinking in 21st Century America was rare only a century ago, to say nothing of comparing the demographics of today’s average American to the colonial populace of 1781. The United States is also a strange bird to many other nations. The countries of antiquity are generally recognized by the nationality of their people - that is, the Greeks, Russians, Chinese and so forth are identified culturally much more than by their political functions. To most of the world, a country defined by its immigrants is beyond their comprehension. The United States, on the other hand, is constantly changing, as the races and nationalities of its people continue to change in proportion and interaction. It has been noted that only in America do Jews and Palestinians coexist peacefully, only in America do Serbs and Croats carry no feuds, only in America may people from both Taiwan and Beijing expect equal respect and treatment for their person.
After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Government created a new authority for National Defense; the Department of Homeland Security. It was a strange sounding name for many people, but it identified a new self-image for America - we are a homeland. But where other nations are homelands for a race or ethnicity, America is a homeland for an ideal. We are a collaborative nation, made up of many parts and members, each worthy in its own right and possessing not only a unique identity, but a special place in the functioning homeland of the United States.
Over the coming week, I intend to examine the character and interests of some of the major groups participating in our homeland. But make no mistake; the emerging identity of America in the 21st Century is already coalescing, and this must be the focus of government planning and direction.
The United States is not understood by most of the world, which is why most of the world does not like or respect the United States. Unable to fathom American thinking, other nations find themselves applying their own perspective to our conditions, and when we do not do as they expect, they become suspicious and cynical of our stated goals and intentions, partly because of old U.S. history, and more often because of their own bitter experience.
In some ways, the United States is the senior partner for the planet. I say this not only because the United States has runs its country for the longest period under the same system of government (every nation on the planet besides the US, has changed its form of government since the US created its Constitution in 1783) , but because most nations which actually operate under the terms of their Constitution, modeled that Constitution after the U.S. Constitution. This means that nations are comparing an effectively short history of their own, to the relatively stable and trail-blazing standard of the Americans.
But it is also true that the United States is a new nation, in many ways. First off, while the U.S. form of government has enviable stability and success, as a people the Americans continue to grow and change. The most common thinking in 21st Century America was rare only a century ago, to say nothing of comparing the demographics of today’s average American to the colonial populace of 1781. The United States is also a strange bird to many other nations. The countries of antiquity are generally recognized by the nationality of their people - that is, the Greeks, Russians, Chinese and so forth are identified culturally much more than by their political functions. To most of the world, a country defined by its immigrants is beyond their comprehension. The United States, on the other hand, is constantly changing, as the races and nationalities of its people continue to change in proportion and interaction. It has been noted that only in America do Jews and Palestinians coexist peacefully, only in America do Serbs and Croats carry no feuds, only in America may people from both Taiwan and Beijing expect equal respect and treatment for their person.
After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Government created a new authority for National Defense; the Department of Homeland Security. It was a strange sounding name for many people, but it identified a new self-image for America - we are a homeland. But where other nations are homelands for a race or ethnicity, America is a homeland for an ideal. We are a collaborative nation, made up of many parts and members, each worthy in its own right and possessing not only a unique identity, but a special place in the functioning homeland of the United States.
Over the coming week, I intend to examine the character and interests of some of the major groups participating in our homeland. But make no mistake; the emerging identity of America in the 21st Century is already coalescing, and this must be the focus of government planning and direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
