Hypocrisy – The Conservative Hydra?

[---]

Vox Day writes for a rag called the World Net Daily. I call it a rag, because even the New York Times has higher standards, and so WND cannot reasonably called a news source. Hate, however, they have and to spare.

Mr. Day wrote a hit piece on President Bush, which I will not honor with a link. Nothing new there, a lot of people seem to find it amusing to trash Dubs for doing his job, as bratty children sometimes resent the adult interrupting their sport, even when that sport is malicious and wrong. In what may be his kindred spirit, Mr. Day accused President Bush of lying by claiming that the Nazis provided an effective answer he should consider in terms of removing illegal aliens from the country. Mr. Day actually praised the Nazi system, which stole property from millions of native Jews, forcibly evicted millions more, and out & out tortured and murdered still millions more. In addition of course, we should recall that the Nazis’ Eugenics and Racial Purity programs also took action against such undesirables as Gypsies and Homosexuals, murdering many of them as well. What a swell plan, eh? And Mr. Day not only thought it was a winner, but that Bush should be attacked for not embracing it.

The blog “Called As Seen” bravely took up the gauntlet, and properly took “Vox” to the woodshed for his vulgar suggestion. Harold C. Hutchison, who writes the blog, also took nationally prominent columnist Michelle Malkin to task, since she herself has columns on WND, knows Mr. Day by his work, and has seen fit to trash responsible Republicans for far more reasonable positions. Mr. Hutchison found it strange, as I do, that Ms. Malkin saw no reason to rebuke Mr. Day, even for suggesting that the Nazis’ methods should be defended, much less adopted. I responded to this myself in the comments:

“So Vox is saying that we can solve our illegals problem by getting millions of people to leave the way the Nazis did.

The Nazis, and yes I looked this up, did not “deport” people in the way that the INS does. No air-conditioned buses or airplanes. In fact, the preferred method of deportation, before they decided it would be cool to enslave them, murder a few by gas and kill the rest through slave labor, was to take away their property, beat them bloody, and basically terrorize them into fleeing the country, making sure to take anything they could from the poor wretches.

Millions of people fled the country because they knew it was death to stay. So, Vox is basically saying we don’t actually have to kill millions of people, just convince them that we will murder them if they stay … sorry, I will pass on that plan.

And by the way, the President never said it was “impossible”, he said it was not feasible, not realistic. As in no one has figured out the cost of apprehending and deporting over ten million people and their possessions, to say nothing of the resources which would have to be pulled away from other vital jobs.

It’s a paranoid pipe dream, this idea of treating people like trash to be collected and disposed of.

We all want secure borders, but the Nazi analogy just proves that some people don’t care so much about keeping their souls intact.”

The problem is not the nerve of one malicious writer, who continues to see Nazis under his bed, in his closet, and consequently in his writing. It is the arrogance of high-profile Conservatives, who cannot bring themselves to respect the twice-elected President of the United States, by his work or his office, and who cannot treat with civility those who question the method of yell first, then stamp feet. After all, we have long mocked, with cause and logic, those on the Left whose every answer for a Republican initiative was to scream and moan. The only acceptable standard is to propose rational suggestions, to test them with reason and evidence, and to seek alternatives which also are measured and calm. Emotion certainly has its place, but it cannot be the focus of an issue.

Celebrities like Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage are not advancing the discussion or even seeking realistic solutions. Instead, they are trying to drive up their audience by demagoguing a crisis, and trashing reasonable people whose opinion should be considered on its merits. They are using the very same tactics we saw employed on the Left, historically and in recent days. It is an unfortunate fact that such tactics do work to drive up viewers and readers. It is a worse fact that such tactics damage the debate, the party, our ideals, and the nation.

The Myth of Border Security – “The Speech, pt 2”

[oo]

Some years back, there was a nation with a real thing for secure borders. They didn’t just want to control who came in, but also who left the country. Walls, fences, barbed wire, land mines, attack dogs, armed guards, you get the idea. After the fall of the Soviet Union, this nation continued the same policy of border control. Despite this, the nation has been dragged into a bitter and bloody conflict over one of its provinces, from which terrorists have killed hundreds of innocents by coming across borders guarded by armed forces. Russia stands as a clear warning, against the fairy tale that a long border can be completely secure. The best option is to functionally control the border against a specific threat. When we discuss the matter of the border between the United States and Mexico, we have to step back from the angry shouting, and sort out what we need to do most, determine what options can best address that, and provide for the cost in money and resources which must be provided.

The border between the United States and Mexico is two thousand miles long, and includes many places which are very difficult to patrol and monitor. This, by the way, is why President Bush made such an emphasis on the “virtual” fence – those angry ranters who will accept nothing but a brick wall along the lines of the one we disliked in Berlin, don’t have a very good idea of the conditions in some places, the habit of some people to tunnel under the border, or the fact that any wall/fence can be and has been climbed over, cut through or dug under – to control a border you need an effective way to see more than one dimension, and to direct patrols for quick interceptions. Bush has spent more resources on physical fences and supported more work on interception resources than any President in history, but he knows – he’s lived down here, you know – that we need to use more effective methods, especially tools which the most dangerous border crossers, like the gangs and the smugglers, do not have and cannot easily evade. A predator with IR scanning is a better answer to this problem than even a mile of brick wall.

The best way to treat this problem is a layered approach. First, we need to see people before they get to the border, which reinforces the value of airborne surveillance. That same layer would track people from detection to either deterrence or interception, and the process for that stage is already in development. The second layer would be to watch for new arrivals in border towns; people just across will want food and rest, and there are processes in development to see who arrives where they are not expected. And third, we need to pursue intruders who wish to move inland. This is probably the weakest link in the present system; it puts everything in the front sections, so that someone who can get through the first couple days often finds it easier as they move farther in. Unfortunately, this is exactly the way that sleeper cells for a terrorist group would also move in, to reach target locations using the convenient and largely unsecured highway network. A national system of freeway monitors is being developed however, using extant systems like TRANSTAR in combination with high-speed element profile programs at places like the NRO, to find vehicles which are out of place; things like unusual weight, out-of-state/country plates, or unusual levels of occupancy will trigger closer inspection, possibly a stop by a police officer. This is already how border states catch trucks with human cargo, and how we hope to intercept more dangerous traffic. People tend to drive in the manner where they learned, and so non-American drivers tend to stand out in their actions, compared to natives.

In conclusion for this article, the issue of Border Control is probably the most worrisome in the whole matter. However, the actions of the DHS in the past 4+ years have been largely productive, but also largely invisible. If Congress is willing to work with the White House, control of the borders can continue to be improved, especially by creating a consistent policy with adequate resources.

Next - Pt 3, Alien Entry Protocols

The Speech – Analysis Part 1

[.]

Oh yes, I am serious about this being a multi-parter, because this speech by President Bush was not just good, it was historic. As in people will be quoting parts from this speech when they want to describe what kind of President was George Walker Bush.

This speech was a lot meatier than folks realize, and part of what I want to do here is educate the willing as to why this was a multi-dimensional presentation. First, for all the noise, a lot of people still do not realize that this issue is actually three issues in one package:

• Border Security
• Alien Entry Protocols
• Immigration Reform

Also, the debate to address these problems depends on three legs of decision:

• Strategic Course
• Functional Implementation
• Cost

And, as if that were not enough, the plans must be weighed before action on the three measures of effect:

• Immediate
• Short Term (<10 years)
• Long Term (10+ years)

This should begin to show the complexity of the issue; even if each point I referenced had only two possible values (the classic Yes/No result), we would be looking at 54 possible conditions from it. And since the number of possible outcomes for each point is a fluid variable, the actual number of conditions approaches a high end, certainly well beyond any sense of a controlled environment. To put it bluntly, this lack of controlled outcome is one major reason so few people have been brave enough to even tackle the issue.

To be continued. Next episode – the Myth of Border Security .

Simple Math

[] + []

I don’t hold much with polls these days, but this number seems worth mentioning:

79% of those who watched the speech by President Bush last night approved of it. Also, approval of his policies climbed 25 points in a single night.

Amazing what happens when the man is allowed to speak for himself.

After The Big Bang

!*!

Back in 2004, I was commenting on this great blog called “Polipundit”, and I got an e-mail from the site owner. Seems he wanted to go on vacation, and wondered if I and a few other commenters might be interested in writing a few articles while he was out? I did, and the results were pleasing for everyone. Thus a temporary gig became a team of five talented writers addressing the interests and issues of Conservative thought. We didn’t always agree, but we respected each other, and Polipundit.com shot onto the radar screen of the Blogosphere in a major way; during the Presidential Debates of 2004, we sometimes had more than a hundred thousand people visit in a single day.

But the topic of Immigration, specifically the crisis of millions of people crossing the southern border illegally into the United States, became too hot to handle, it seems. It did not help that the Rabies Wing of the Republican Party started it’s own vendetta against the President, after he chose a nominee for the Supreme Court who was not on their pre-Approved List, and it got worse when the President suggested that a deal allowing a company based in the United Arab Emirates, whose record as an American ally in the past quarter-century is arguably the best of any Arab nation, was not a threat to U.S. Security, and would actually be a good choice compared to the alternative, which essentially would be selling the lease to an Asian company with strong ties to Communist China; the knee-jerk reaction was to demand ‘No Deal!’, thus damaging relations with a key ally, souring the credibility of American integrity in business contracts, and allowing the People’s Republic of China a coup all in the name of ego. So, when the emotionally-volatile issues of Border Control, Illegal Entry into the U.S., and Immigration Reform came up all in the same package, the chances for cool and civil discussion were all but nil. And some who were already angry at the President went over the cliff to complete madness, taking up the weapons of the Left which until so recently they themselves had mocked. I noted Friday that it said something, something less than noble, when people were already attacking the President for a speech which had not yet been written, much less delivered. But as important as these issues are, for this column they must be set aside except that they served as forces in the environment which led, however undesired, to a show-down of sorts.

I saw what was coming, from the tone and verbiage Poli used in his attacks, to say nothing of his myopic topic selection. In short order I was attacked by readers who wanted to disrupt my threads, rather than let readers discuss the issue; I elected to remove certain useless and derogatory posts, and so “bootlicker” was joined by “fascist” in the names I was called. Yet I made a point of remaining at Polipundit, because silencing one side of an issue, especially when it has its own validity, does nothing to resolve the matter or advance the discussion. I don’t think Poli and his mob ever quite grasped that I too support the priority of building the wall first, of enacting substantive penalties for hiring illegals, and of establish reciprocity in our terms with Mexico – I simply do not think we can expect the White House to take us seriously, when we accuse our President of deliberate deception or outright treason; in fact I maintain that it works strongly against us. Poli’s response was hardly honorable; he quoted some of my posts, but out of context, and openly mocked my position, without offering a functional alternative, or acknowledging the cost of his proposals. This led to some sharp reaction from the other writers, as recent posts showed.

Ironically, if I had been allowed my posting at Polipundit.com, I should have taken some issue with Alexander’s last post; while the speech was good it ducked certain points and was flat wrong on others. But I never got that chance. Midway through the evening, I tried to pull up Polipundit.com to see what Poli’s take on the speech was, and found I could not reach the site. I later learned through e-mails that Poli had taken down the site himself, apparently angry with Alexander’s post. I also read through those e-mails, that Polipundit had decided to try his hand at Autocracy.

He requested that we not discuss the content of our e-mail discussions while we sorted out our differences, and out of respect for the man, I will not cite any specifics from those exchanges. However, when I read the site this morning, I not only saw Poli’s and Alexander’s threads about last night’s speech, but also Lorie’s “Goodbye” post and Poli’s reaction to it. That last post by Poli was, at best, unfortunate. What bothered me the most, was a false inference or two left by Poli about the character of the debate and disagreement; he was sadly disingenuous on the matter, which further damages any chance for repair. And I do not know a single person whose mind and mood are improved by an ultimatum, especially one which amounts to “Surrender Or Else”. Of course, Poli made the matter moot by locking out everyone early this morning. And that was that.

Moving on, the first steps are obvious. I will continue to blog here at ‘Stolen Thunder’, and more regularly for politics. Lorie will continue to blog at ‘Byrd Droppings’, which is always worth your attention, I promise. As for Alexander and Jayson, I would hope we can lure them into a group blog, for all kinds of reasons. Somehow, it has not yet occurred to many bloggers that a group blog can work in much the same way as a magazine, with different writers for separate issues and perspectives, but that’s fine with me – I believe that our new blog would skyrocket to success, or at least be successful to my standards. Also, I love the community aspect to the multi-writer blog, especially with the reader comments.

Well, I see I have topped a thousand words, so even I think I have said enough for now.

A Good Speech, A Good Man, A Real President

o

I don't have the time to do it up right just now, so for the moment I would just say that President Bush's speech on Immigration Reform was pretty darn good.

Of course, the muttering mob from the Left and Right determined to lynch him paid no attention, even if they claim they watched the speech. And for my opinion, if you did not bother to actually watch the speech yourself, you blew an important responsibility.

He didn't duck the challenge, the problems, the scale, or the opportunity. I wonder if anyone will give him the chance to lead, because where he wants to go would be really good for the nation and the party.

It Does Not Matter What The President Says Tonight ...

.

... the goons in both parties trying to tear him down have long ago condemned him for it anyway.

For those who have already castigated the President for a policy he never embraced or even proposed, words he never used and actions he never directed, nothing will be good enough.

If George W. Bush were to make a public appearance led by a vanguard of angels sent from God Himself, this crowd would declare that evidence that Dubya was already replacing his advisors with undocumented aliens.

The ‘West Wing’ Fantasy Finally Dies

[]

Well, the guys in Hollywood finally took the hint and killed off President Bartlett’s Mythic Adventures. Naturally, they had to polish up the lie as much as possible, to such a degree that it would be difficult to explain in one column just how far from reality that show really was.

Maybe one good example is the scenario they finished up with, two-term President Bartlet being succeeded by newly-elected President Sanchez. When, think about this, was the last time a two-term Democrat was succeeded by way of election, by another Democrat? Let’s roll back and see:

President Clinton followed the first President Bush, and was followed by Dubya, so GOP-Donk-GOP, no match;

President Carter was a one-term President, but anyway he also was preceded and followed by Republicans, so no match there;

President Johnson followed JFK, but by way of Kennedy’s death, and in any case Kennedy was only elected once;

President Truman followed multi-term FDR, but again by way of the former President’s death, so again no match;

President Franklin Roosevelt got elected four times, but he followed a Republican;

President Wilson was elected twice, but he followed a Republican, and his successor was a Republican;

President Cleveland was elected twice, though not sequentially, and in any case he followed a Republican, and was also succeeded by a Republican;

President Buchanan was elected once, and he followed another Democrat, but both men served one term each. He was succeeded by a Republican;

President Pierce was followed by another Democrat, but he only served one term. He followed a Whig in office;

President Polk served only one term, and he both followed and was succeeded by a Whig;

President Van Buren succeeded President Jackson in 1836. Jackson served two terms. So ‘West Wing’ was true to life, except that they were 170 years off. Of course, it should be noted that the two-term Republican followed by another Republican has happened two times before; when Hayes followed Grant, and when GHW Bush followed Reagan. A bit closer to modern times, and it may be observed that the 2008 election, if people are sane at that time, may be another such situation.

Politics 101

-m-

In 1775, most of the world's nations were ruled either by an absolute monarch, an elitist class, or through the practical application of brute force.

Then a bunch of middle-class colonists kicked the British off their land, and set up an experiment, which is still ongoing.

From the first days of the Washington Administration, competition and rivalry between factions and parties has been the standard fare of American politics. Lying, near-seditious gossip, and significant financial backing of preferred programs (Pork) has been the way of things. Reform has been attempted from time to time, but the devil always fights back.

When it seems like things are worse than ever, in actual fact they are just getting back to normal.

God Save The United States of America!

Telephone Tyranny

-*-


Like a kid with a new toy, the MainPain Media has gone gonzo over discovery that the National Security Agency has gained access to phone number lists. You can hear the cries of the (permanently) outraged Blue-State Liberal demanding investigations into possible 4th-Amendment violations, and naturally the immediate halt to the NSA doing its job. It actually is a serious issue, but not for the reasons the Liberals and Democrats think.

We are at war. This is a pretty obvious fact for a lot of people, yet Democrats and the Media just seem to keep forgetting that, when they attack the Bush Administration for acting like we should be concerned about the intentions of terrorists and their supporting regimes (paging Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. "boom boom' Ahmadinejad ...). When the facts of the NSA's actions are revealed, it turns out that the hysteria is just that, unsupported bilge being pushed by people who know better, but are playing for political points at the cost of national security. Let's not forget that 'Able Danger' used the same sort of data mining as the NSA is doing now, and if it had been supported instead of suppressed during the Clinton years, there might never have been a 9/11 attack.

But to the facts. Does the NSA listen in on Americans making phone calls? Actually, no, these are just records from phone companies. Aha, well then they have transcripts of the calls, right? Again, no, since this is not surveillance the NSA does not know what's being said. OK, well at least they have the names and addresses of the people talking, right? Ummm, no. All the NSA has is a list of phone numbers, dates and times. As in 222-222-2222 called 333-333-3333 at 12:45 PM last Thursday.

Let's put that in perspective. Your bank already sells your private information to outside companies, like telemarketers. Things like your legal name, address, annual income, things like that.

Then there's your ISP, who may be directing ads and junk email to you based on your "preferences", and they too have some details on you from your account information. You get the idea.

And then there's your employer, who in many cases not only did a background check on you when you applied, but also mnoitors your calls and mail to and from work.

And let's not forget the IRS, who take a very active interest in all sorts of details.

All of those guys are legal, and every one of them is already pulling information on you, and selling it or giving it to someone else without your knowledge or consent. It's all legal, and every one of them is doing more to intrude on your privacy than the NSA is in checking to see if you're in contact with terrorists.

It's simple, when you really think about it. The police have the right to follow you around when you drive, to see if you aer following the law, and the NSA has the right to make sure that terrorists are not operating inside the United States, and if they are, to find out who they talk to and what they are doing. Those telephone companies which cooperate with the NSA, therefore, are not violating anyone's rights, but are helping protect against terrorism. Which means if you are using Qwest, you are paying money to a company which tracks your information and sees nothing wrong with selling it to a foreign company for unknown purposes, but who will not cooperate to protect against terrorism.

Just something to think about, the next time you're choosing a phone company.

The Fall Campaign

*****

The President of the United States straightened his tie, smoothed his lapel, and at the signal strode smoothly down the aisle to the podium to face the assembled houses of Congress, to deliver the State of the Union Address. Polls showed President Bush's approval rating at an all-time high between 92 and 93 percent approval, and the packed chamber roared with applause and cheers as the various Senators and Representatives vied to prove that they were among the closest to the nation's champion.

But a year and a half later, President G.H.W. Bush barely cleared 37% of the Popular Vote, losing his bid for re-election to a dishonest con man from Arkansas. If there is any doubt about the sheer foolishness of connecting Job Approval of a moment to election results, that piece of history should slap you awake. Job Approval numbers are nothing more than a barometer of the moment, and not of the man. Anyone who believes that low Job Approval numbers, polled from people who in many cases are not even asked if they are registered to vote, are somehow indicative of the President's qualifications and credibility, is either someone who has been lied to or who wants to perpetuate that fraud. George Walker Bush is not running for another term anyway, so whatever you think of the Job Approval numbers, you are wrong to pay them any more attention than you do a single day's hockey scores.

The MSM is playing up the story of the low numbers, of course. Not much else they can really use against the President, actually. If a reporter was honest, they'd have to let go of trying to paint President Bush with every blunder by a local or state official, or the continuing soap opera which is Congress. And on the most important issues - Iraq, Terrorism, Taxes, Judges - Bush has done very well indeed, something no MSM reporter wants to have anyone notice. This is because, no surprise, the MSM is still working hard to get the Democrats back in power, and the Democrats know the secret to that is to get the President cut off from his party. This was one of the secrets to FDR's success; he argued with Congress on many issues, but never deserted his party, and he made sure his party never deserted him. This created the sense of the Democratic Party as the governing party during his terms, and left the Republican Party as the outside. When Harry Truman became President, the Democrats no longer felt bound to support him, and he nearly lost in 1948, and did lose support to such a degree that he chose not to run in 1952. The defection of Democrats from Truman took a little while to have their effect, but it led to the loss of the White House and Congress to the Republicans. Only because the Republicans also failed to stand with President Eisenhower, did the door open for the Democrats to reclaim both prizes.

But the Democrats did not learn the lesson at that time. By 1968, the Democratic Party was a fractious mess, with no allegiance by leading Donks to anyone but themselves. A bold opportunity through the Civil Rights Act, had instead set North Democrat against South Democrat, and Vietnam set East against West, Old against Young. Richard Nixon was able to claim the White House in 1968 with just 43% of the Popular Vote, in some part because the Democrats refused to unify at any cost. Nixon won a thorough landslide in 1972, yet by 1973 his party had already cast him aside, some for being too conservative, others for being not conservative enough, and when the Democrats laid Watergate at his door, no defense was made for him. We may argue in another place whether he should have been defended, but it should be understood that many abandoned him not on principle, but on politics.

Having found themselves content to build little fiefdoms instead of a national party, the Republicans were hopelessly divided by 1976, and many refused to support President Ford's campaign, preferring to see the Democrat win than a Republican they could not dictate terms to. Then as now, when the Carter Administration began to erode the military, make a mockery of our international doctrines, and corrode the foundation of our economic functions, these stalwarts refused to accept the responsibility their defection had caused, and instead tried to place the blame on those in the Republican Party who had tried to do the right thing; cowardice is the hallmark of the fanatic. And these same self-pronounced rulers of the Republican Party tried to do the same thing to Reagan in 1986, when they became unhappy with practical proposals and decided they'd rather derail the President and get no loaf but keep their own bitter pride, than get half a loaf and have to live in the real world. This not only weakened the Republican power in government, but diluted confidence in the Republican Party, which made Democrats look more attractive to most Americans.

A clear example of how My-Way-Only Republicans could poison their own well was the Administration of G.H.W. Bush. Elected in 1988, he chose to press forward with policies very much like those of Reagan. But because they were not 100% hard-line, certain leaders and spokesman for the Right refused to support him, and the party fractured. Good governance was abandoned, because the President attempted to build agreement rather than play personal destruction. By the spring of 1992, Republicans had allowed a good economy to be falsely portrayed as a weak one, a mild recession to be compared to the Great Depression, and no major Republican stood with the President at any time on any issue, even though a good number of them had depended on G.H.W. Bush for their own political success in years before. Even Ronald Reagan could not sway the rabid radicals to do the right thing, and in the fall they preferred insolence to meeting their responsibility to vote. The result was eight years of Clintons, with military, moral, and judicial decay on a scale which should have been anticipated, but which again the radicals refused to acknowledge as the bitter harvest of their own spite.

Here in 2006, the utter stupidity of the Rabies wing of the Republican Party is more pronounced than ever. The repeated tactics of the Left are no different than before, yet again these fools prefer to blame their leader instead of the enemy. They again refuse to point out the success which Republican leadership has brought, because it might cast some honor on a man who deserves it, but they will not abide by their duty. They refuse to highlight the scale of our victories in the Middle East, preferring to let the enemy's lies stand than make Dubya look good. They refuse to work on functional solutions, preferring to do nothing and blame the President for their own failure. Nothing, to them, is the fault of Congress; nothing is the fault of their deliberate insult of a man two-thirds of a hundred million people chose as the leader of the party and the nation; nothing is their responsibility. They openly talk about how giving power to the Democrats might somehow be desirable. A little strychnine for the country, a bullet in the head, no problem they say. Such talk is treasonous, but all too common.

I used to wonder why the Republican Party was not the majority party in America. We are the party of reform, or cutting taxes, of defending Americans and our doctrines of liberty. We are the party which stands for all races, both sexes, all ages and places, and we do not need token spokesmen to cast a fake image for us. But I see that whenever a Republican President accomplishes something and the party gains from his work, many in the party are made jealous and covetous, and they would rather diminish the party and sully the nation itself than give up the chance to steal away power for their own right. We see, all too often, men like Trent Lott and John McCain, men capable of doing the right thing only when they see a large bonus for themselves in it, but who cannot find it within themselves to support a leader, no matter how right he may be on a matter. We see men like Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist, well-meaning as they seem, who will run from a fight rather than stand by a bold leader, no matter how true his voice. Until the majority of us make plain to Congressmen and Senators that our President speaks with authority, and that the GOP must follow their leaders instead of aiming knives for his back; we will not countenance mutiny, especially on such puerile inspiration as we see in the most recent examples.

The most recent fools on the Right are fools indeed. George W. Bush is not running for office again; I suspect he is already looking forward to his retirement in Crawford with some enthusiasm. He is working to finish what he started and for the good of America, as he always has, but if his own party refuses to back him up when he asks, they are only putting the knife to their own throat. As biased as the current polls are, those which examine the matter in broad context always, without exception, show that the public's approval of President Bush is far greater than their approval of Congress, especially the Senate. And the last three elections should remind these narcissists, that they need the help of the President a great deal; indeed, many of them would not be in office at all except for the efforts of George W. Bush. Strange how poor their memory is on that point, to say nothing of how they repay that debt. President Bush, distinctly better in character and honor than his enemies can hope to claim, wants the Republican Party to make gains in this fall's elections, because he loves the GOP and he knows that Democrats as they are presently composed, would not serve the nation's interests well at all. But in the end, it all depends on those fools who claim to speak for the Conservative cause but who will not back the leader who has done the most for them, to wake up and stop attacking their own Commander.

Desertion

Over on Polipundit.com, one of the readers, an active-duty soldier, took great offense when I told him he was “deserting” the President at a time when President Bush was under fire. Looking back at it later, I agreed that the word was badly chosen, and apologized. But I apologized for using ‘desertion’ in connection to an active-duty soldier, not because his actions and capricious lack of loyalty were tolerable. In fact, while ‘desertion’ is a word too loaded with emotion to be properly used in a debate about Politics, it is difficult to find a more appropriate word to describe the so-called Conservatives and Republicans who find it so easy to forget everything which President George W. Bush has done for them in his time as President, all because they are not getting everything they want on a secondary issue. It really seems to me to be dishonorable, this loyalty which only lasts as long as they feel like standing with the President.

As an official, I have seen this happen in sports. Players stop listening to their coach, and the whole team falls into a slump, while the team which sticks by their coach often exceeds expectations. As terrible a leader as Howard Dean is, and as bad for the nation as their platform is, the Democrats certainly can take over control of Congress, if the Republicans give up and let it happen. And the stakes in the Capitol are much, much higher than any sports competition. It’s no better than dishonest to pretend that if the Democrats control either chamber, that they won’t be worse than ever at obstructing reform or the appointment of any competent judges. And they will protect their advantage the way they did in the 1970s and 1980s, by changing rules to make it harder for the Republicans to throw them out. It’s no better than stupid to assume that a loss in 2006 will be made up in 2008, or 2010, or any time in particular. Especially since the MSM can be counted on to spin things all the more in the Democrat’s favor.

This also brings up the behavior of Republicans. Hard-head Conservatives wrongly believe that if they “sacrifice” a few Republicans, the rest will understand they need to be more Conservative and move to the Right. But in the actual historical record, whenever the number of Republicans in a chamber goes down, the remaining members tend to move AWAY from the “extreme”, which is to say they tend to play along with the Liberals. The ONLY conditions under which Republicans become more Conservative as a whole, are when they are increasing their representation and control. Therefore, RINO or not, the only Conservative position in a General Election is to make sure every Republican candidate wins.

I have not mentioned what will happen in the event the Democrats take both the House and Senate. If that happens, President Bush will certainly be impeached, never mind that there is no valid basis for it, and he may well be convicted; remember what I said about weaker Republicans making nice with the Liberals. The best case scenario in such a circumstance may be described as a disaster,and there is no silver lining.

So why does it matter if Bush has support nor not? After all, he’s not running for anything, right? The thing is, people tend to see a political party by its leader, which is why John Kerry has been hidden by the Democrats ever since November 2004, and Al Gore only shows up at Democrat gatherings like a grotesque caricature of a gothic clown. If Republicans do not support the President, the twice-elected leader of the United States of America, then by extension the entire GOP appears broken and in chaos. And that only helps the Democrats. After all, think about it and you will realize that people form memories of political ages by the President of the day. The ‘90s were the Clinton Era, the ‘80s were the Reagan Age, and so on. Republicans who will not stand by President Bush are screaming “DO NOT ELECT ME”, no matter what they intend to say. And Republicans who blame the President without giving him his due, are simply playing ‘Hail to the Chief’ in the key of Donkey.

No, they are not "deserting" the President. They're simply forgetting their debts of honor, and refusing to support him when their nation and party will be damaged by such a course. Call it what you will, it's not honorable.

Stating The Obvious

...

George W. Bush is honest and consistent. Every Conservative knows it. I said before that the same man who thought Harriet Miers would be good as a SCOTUS Justice, was the same guy who picked Alito and Roberts. In each case he picked who he thought was best. If that sounds gonzo to you, Reagan was honest and consistent too, and he thought Sandra Day O’Connor would be good for the Supreme Court. And it’s the same in every other decision Bush has made. No, he hasn’t always been perfect, but frankly no one is. It sounds easy to be wise and make the right choice every time, when there’s no pressure on you and you only see the information that the public sees. I’m not apologizing for Dubya, but I’m also pointing out that the same things about him which drive people crazy sometimes, are the same things he does and says which make all the difference. When 9/11 happened, Bush was the best possible man to have in the White House at that time, and when people cool down they will remember that. When he stared down China in April 2001 without any Americans getting killed, it was the same determination that he showed in facing down the Taliban and Saddam. And again, it’s not as if we would have gotten rid of Saddam and changed two Middle East regimes to democratic republics under anyone else.

McCain?

Kerry?

Frist?

Gore?

Perot?

Hatch?

Clinton?

Please.

Again, people will remember this later on, but for now they get worked up and forget all the good. they forget the tax cuts, they forget Dubya tried to fix Social Security, they forget his work against child slavery in Africa and Asia, they ignore his work to reform the bureaucracy at the CIA and to take effective steps to protect both the nation and our rights. Later people might remember, but for Dubya, he’s just doing the job. Just as he always has.

Do yourself a favor. Re-look at the issues with the understanding that whether or not he has it all figured right, the President is serious, competent, and honest on his position, and that should help you see a clearer picture.

Blog Edits

[]

Back in the 1990s, I was a Football official and Baseball umpire for Texas high school sports. I also officiated in Wrestling and some Volleyball, but mostly it was Football and Baseball. And the events of this week remind me a bit of my time wearing the Blue.

It can be intimidating, working as an umpire, especially behind the plate. You make a lot of calls, and often the fans, to say nothing of the coaches and players, get the idea that you aren’t getting the calls right, even though you are usually the only person on the field who fully understands the strike zone and who watches the pitch all the way into the glove without bias. And then there are the judgment calls, especially when your partner did not get a good look from his position, and points for you to make the safe/out call.

Coaches can often spot a new official, and they tend to give new umps a hard time to see if they can get inside their skin to influence calls. This is actually a pretty stupid thing to do, because once the umpire understands what the coach is trying to do, this sort of stunt is more likely to prejudice the umpire against that coach instead of for him, but it happens anyway. This leads to some confrontations, which the umpire needs to learn about and prepare for, anyway, since it’s the nature of the job to have arguments.

Anyway, during my rookie season, one of the veteran umps I was working a JV game with took the time to mention a very important observation to me. He reminded me that no matter what a coach or player or fan said, ultimately it was my call, and what I decided would stand, popular or not.

That applies to blogging, as well . I appreciate comments, and the emails are often well-written and thoughtful. Those which are not, get all the attention due them. But when I write my columns, I do so with a sense of responsibility and for a purpose. There are literally millions of blogs out there, and if somehow that doesn’t find one to suit you, you are always welcome to start your own up. But I laugh at the people who waste time thinking I am going to change one word of my posts to suit them. If I was doing it for money or for some notion of fame, some people might persuade me. But I am my own voice, and speak my own mind. Whatever you think of me, what I post is the real deal, and that will never change.

What The President REALLY Said About Immigration Reform

---

You know what really bugs me the most about all the attacks on President Bush? It’s the way every vicious rumor trotted out by a Democrat, RINO, or fluffy-haired overpaid yakking piehole gets treated as if it’s what the President supports or said, when in fact nothing of the kind is true. For over a decade now, George W. Bush has been saying what he means and following through on his promises to the best of his ability. Strange how so very little of that gets remembered, even by the vipers attacking him from behind, while assuring their audience that they, though unelected, have a better right to lead this country than the man twice elected to do so. ‘Contempt’ is hardly a strong enough word for my opinion of such cowards and thugs.

To properly discuss the President’s actual plan for Immigration Reform, you first have to get away from all the gossip and rumors and sort out what he actually proposed, and how he means to make it work. It’s hardly kept secret. The President’s words and plans on the matter of Immigration have been posted on the White House site all along, for anyone honest enough to bother checking out the facts for themselves.

Let’s understand right away, that this is a multi-dimensional problem. Congress has to pass laws for the reform, but we know from history that some very solid laws just are not being enforced. That means that we need to make the existing laws viable, with enough enforcement power to do more than make speeches. Critics do not mention that Bush has budgeted more money for border security than any other President in history, and has increased the staffing for Border Patrol significantly.

The Bush Plan has three major parts: Border Security, Enforcement Inside Our Borders, and Addressing the Existing Illegal Population. This is not new, it’s just been ignored for months by people more interested in bitching than making the plan work. This was discussed in detail back in March for instance, long before the illegals started marching and the hissy level of the panty-waist Right was at an almost human standard.

President Bush was also talking about Immigration Reform last November when he spoke with ranchers in Arizona. And in actual fact, the work during Bush’s time in office has shown better results than anyone seems willing to acknowledge; more than six million people intercepted trying to enter the country illegally, increased use of detention facilities and significant increase in border enforcement resources, cooperative focus on finding and apprehending violent illegals like the MS-13 gang (prior to Bush, there was no program whatsoever which addressed gangs of illegal aliens committing crime in the United States), and greatly improved enforcement of document forgery laws. It’s one thing that the MSM has paid no attention to this work, but shameful that so many false CINOs (Conservatives In Name Only) refuse to acknowledge it either.

The heart of the controversy is Bush’s proposed plan to create a Temporary Worker Program. Note before anything else is mentioned, that this has always been proposed as a temporary program, not a “path to citizenship” or even permanent residency, not a way to cut in line ahead of legal immigrants. What it is, when people calm down enough to pay attention, is a practical plan for dealing with millions of people who are here now illegally, and who would be difficult to locate and remove under the existing conditions. It should also be recognized, that Bush’s proposal was always meant to be the starting point for Congressional discussions and debate, as is obvious by the broad and general nature of the proposal.

Which brings me to the difference between pie in the sky fantasies and the hard reality. The cruel fact is that up to now enforcement of the existing laws has not worked. We can bicker all we want about why that is, but anyone who is not a moron understands that creating new laws will be very unlikely to work until we understand the cause of why the existing laws are not enforced. That means that while we all understand that a major cause of the problem is the employment of illegals by businesses breaking the law, many people do not accept that the DHS cannot be the principal law enforcement agency on that front; the people aware that this is happening are the local and county law enforcement agencies, and while they regularly round up illegal workers, they do not pursue the owners and contractors who hire them. This is not something President Bush can fix, much as we or he would like. I have ideas about how Congress could address this problem (like a severe tax penalty for hiring illegals, say $20,000 per offense), but in spite of the notion that President Bush could wave a magic wand and just sign an Executive Order, the actual fact is that Congress is where the reform has stalled, over and over again. Blaming Bush for Congress’ failure not only wrongly attacks the President for an action he does not control, but lets the con artists on Capitol Hill shirk their duty.

Which brings me to the Fence. One of the more stupid lies tossed around against President Bush, is that he does not want a fence on the border. This is wrong for several reasons, not the least because there is already a physical fence in many places along the border. And while it makes good sense to improve the length, size, and difficulty of the fence, again it needs to be said that this is a responsibility which Congress has failed miserably to address – has anyone even heard of a proposed committee hearing in the House or Senate to address building a reinforced, contiguous wall? Also, any physical barrier can be penetrated or surmounted, which means you need something else to make it functional. This is why President Bush also noted last November that while there was already “a fence here in the border. You're going to have a virtual fence in the border when we bring technology to bear - infrared, cameras, drones”. Additional resources to detect and apprehend border violations. Not instead of a physical barrier, as some have so dishonestly claimed, but in addition to it. This is very, very different than the image some folks have painted.

So, if President Bush does not actually want an amnesty and citizenship for illegals, and if he actually does support a physical fence, further enhanced with multiple modes of surveillance, then why are so many people claiming the opposite? Confusion for some, but rank dishonesty for others. People find this issue very uncomfortable, as they should when the security of our borders is concerned, but not everyone is prepared to address the crisis rationally, and the President of the United States has often been the favored target of the press and political demagogues, especially when he is a Conservative and from Texas. The plain fact is, that like Reagan before him Bush was the Governor of a border state before he became President, and he knows the issue far better than many of the Johnny-come-lately’s who think the matter through only to a point, then presume that their knowledge and experience somehow trumps the President’s. Like Reagan, George W. Bush takes on the whole issue, not just what’s on the surface, and he is pursuing a permanent solution, not some temporary paint job to win poll points. And just as Republicans began deserting Reagan in 1986, when their self-serving egos found Reagan’s attention on difficult issues unpalatable to their personal desires, so again politicians and stuffed-shirts are leaving President Bush, specifically because he is talking about the heavy lifting. And because they do not want to be seen for the deserters they are, they go so far as to blame the President for their own cowardice. With the MSM and Democrats already hungry for anything which makes the most prominent Conservative in the world look bad, Dubya is simply an easy target, especially since he is not the sort to return fire with similar lies and slander.

President George W. Bush is a man of his word. That fact was established long ago, and it used to be a common point of pride among Conservatives, that we had a man who did not lie or mislead, a refreshing change after eight years of the Clintons. And the fact of Bush’s honesty was known to his enemies, which is why “Bush Lied” became the ridiculous mantra of the Left; they knew that only if they could tear down his reputation as an upright man, could they hope to destroy him. But Bush has repeatedly shown that he does what he says he will do, even if Saddam Hussein and the vermin of Al Qaeda had hoped otherwise, and on every measure he has been consistent to his word and statement. So it matters to pay attention, not to what somebody else wants to claim he said or some deceitful interpretation which twists his words to claim something he never actually said at all, but to the President himself. He is specific, consistent, and trustworthy. And more than a few people owe him a humble apology. Again.

The Mahdi Wanna-Be Ploy Of The Month

--

Say you’re the psychotic leader of a nation chock full of psychotic fanatics. I mean, your mentor was the Ayatollah Khomeini, a man who looked like he’d want to have people stoned for not praying fervently enough, and the standard lackey in your government is a fedayeen washout. Just shouting “Death to America!” is not going to be enough; you got three year olds doing that already on their way to daycare. And if you want to turn that ‘Mahdi’ jones you have into anything more than a Muslim wet dream, you need to deal with the US. Sure you’re nuts, but you are not stupid enough to think that President George W. Bush is going to let you start beating down other Middle East nations, to say nothing of attacking Israel, so you have to figure out what you’re going to do about the POTUS. Unlike Democrats and more than a few pansy-style Republicans, you understand he’s serious about securing the Middle East from loons like you. So you write a letter. Say, about 18 pages, which ignores the issues between you and the United States but goes on and on about how you see the world situation.

From Ahmadinejad’s point of view, it’s a no-lose situation. Most people see things from a culture-centric perspective, and so they fail to see the attendant objectives to the actions of the Jihadist leader. Dar-al-Islam is the game for these guys, and that focuses on the Middle East. While Ahmadinejad would love to see the world dominated by Islam, he knows he has to first build a regional hegemony, and that means getting ahead of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan on the street. For all its trite hyperbole, the Arab “street” is real and a valid barometer for their political course. Iran, formally called ‘Persia’, has a real Superiority Complex working as a nation historically, and most Middle East nations have a bone or four to pick with Iran, which works against following the lead of Ahmadinejad in a Jihad. For all the hype from Al-Jazeera, most of the Middle East couldn’t give a squirt about whether Israel exists, let along work up the anger to want to destroy the nation that provides a significant chunk of the world’s food, entertainment, and military protection. So Job One is making yourself ‘team captain’ of the Jihad Squad.

So then, what is Mad Mad Mahmoud up to? It’s like this: He sends a letter to President Bush, which could be quite literally anything – for all I know he sent 18 pages of doodles from the last time he had a vision from God – and Mahdi boy says he’s asked for discussions with President Bush. If Bush laughs in his face, Mahdi Wanna can claim that he was trying to make peace, and claim a moral advantage. If Bush sends envoys to take up Mahdi Manic on his proposal, even just to present a make-nice image, then Ahmadinejad will present himself as a man that the Americans treat as an equal, something uncommon for your average unstable maniac. It also feeds that capacious ego Ahmadinejad has. We’re talking here about a man who not only believes he’s on a mission from God, he’s clearly been studying Mein Kampf and applying it liberally to his own plans. Blame everything on Israel when he speaks to his own people, and promise its obliteration, check. Tell America all he wants is to be reasonable, check. Prepare ghastly weapons while loudly protesting his innocence, check. He’s even starting to look like the little Corporal when he gives speeches, although even Herr Schicklegruber never went so far as to claim that when he spoke, he had a glowing aura and no one could blink, much less fail to pay attention to his every word.

The question here is what response to the United States should make to this guy? If I were the President , I would immediately release the text of that letter to the public; let them know exactly what is being said. I would respond publicly to Ahmadinejad by way of a televised address to the American people, asking Congress for a policy of regime change on the basis of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, the brutal nature of the Iranian police state and its suppression of protest, and the subsidy by Iran of terrorists entering and operating in Iraq. Like the Regime Change in Iraq declaration passed in 1998, I would leave out specifics at this time, but it would lay the groundwork for whatever future action is necessary, and send a clear shot across the bow to Iran. As for the original letter itself, I would make use of it the next time I needed a toilet, and then send that letter back to Ahmadinejad.

More About Business Schools

===*===

Last Saturday, I published my list of the Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the US. I noted at the time, that I was using some pretty general definitions and only one salient criteria. It might make sense for me to explain that criteria in more detail and context.

The nominal lists of top business schools, such as one sees published in Business Week, US News & World Report, or The Wall Street Journal, are based on the expectations of the standard graduate from full-time programs and on the assumption that the student fits into a narrow demographic; essentially the 24-to-28 year old with a Bachelor’s in Business plus an appropriate employment background, a documented success in Undergraduate results by GPA, major, and school of recognized name, as well as a clear track indicating future success, as defined by an exceptional GMAT score, resume, recommendation from employers, or some combination of the three. The assumption further presumes that the student intends to pursue executive positions at high-profile financial firms, or else to pursue a high-capital opening in such venues as Entreprenuership. Frankly, the assumption seems to me to suggest that the top schools are suited to students who wish to work in major cities on the East or West Coast, in Investment Banking, High-Margin Marketing, or similar high-profile positions. The problems include determining what is best for those who wish to live and work in less urban conditions, who prefer operational responsibilities, and those whose personal demographic is less suited to the extrovert and the volatile. Also, it occurs to me that as often happens in high-demand degrees, many of these would-be CEOs are going to find that there are far less openings in their desired niche than graduates with such degrees. So, I find it better to weigh a school on the basis of its overall education, specifically making the student capable to address a range of responsibilities and positions. This not only provides the student with many more choices for his applications following school, but makes him more attractive to companies seeking a broader skill set. This redirection makes the magazine rankings a bit suspect, therefore, since they tend to key on only one aspect of the school as a primary quality. Of course, it is true that the preference of recruiters is valuable when picking a school; knowing your school attracts a lot of companies and job offers is certainly an incentive for selecting that school.

But this all makes clear to me how different the distance MBA is from the nominal full-time school. Ironically, the self-selected ‘experts’ on ranking Business schools tend to think down on distance MBAs these days, but I am convinced that will change over time, if for no other reason than the fact that individuals, not groups, achieve greatness, and the only reason that no top CEO/CFO has come from a distance MBA, is that the distance MBA is too new to have shown its results in great measure; as more and more students earn their MBA through distance programs, more and more of them will succeed at higher levels, the present bias notwithstanding. It will take time, but it will happen.

But with regard to distance MBAs, I do not accept, at all, the notion that distance students are in any way inferior to full-time students. In fact, a case can be made to claim superior credentials for the distance student, since they must address the same material in most schools that the full-time student does, but in addition to a full time job and additional responsibilities which prevent these students from being able to pursue full-time study. In addition, the distance study student tends to be older than the full-time student, so the amount of real-world experience is greater. While full-time purists may prefer the high-gloss resume of a student who has never known floor level employment, such experience adds significant depth to the student of business practices, as he knows directly what works, what has failed, and why. A Ken Lay or Bernard Ebbers comes from a class which has only known silk ties and personal privilege, and while I do not mean to indict all elitist executives with that brush, I do maintain that direct work experience, face to face with customers and the floor staff of a company, is the best foundation for a successful executive. To be blunt, I expect greater results from MBA holders who held a real job for a decade or more before tackling the Masters program; they have a better sense for the bona fides of a company, or they should.

This brings me back to determining the best Online MBA schools. I have to admit that not all online schools are really as good as the traditional ‘brick and mortar’ schools, so as a standard placement I am only considering Business schools which offer an Online MBA, and which are accredited members of the AACSB. When I say they offer an Online MBA, I mean that a regular person with no more than 2 weeks of vacation could plan to meet the requirements of the course; there are a number of schools with unreasonable residency requirements, such as in-state distance courses, work-hours classes only, or excessive residence visits to a campus. So my list began with AACSB-member schools which offer a truly online MBA, either through proctored exams, capstone courses, or some combination which insures effective standards and genuine convenience of schedule and degree planning. After that, the only significant differences would be name recognition and tuition. I admit to an arbitrary screening in terms of name recognition, though I would claim that my entrants are valid. As to price, the information from GetEducated.com was very useful, though I would remind the reader, again, that in-state tuition may make some schools a better choice than other schools; I ranked the schools on the basis of out-of-state tuition. Also, the reader should be aware that the state where you wish to work is very important; one reason I am inclined to Texas schools, is not only price but my intention to continue working in Texas, where the Texas schools will enjoy an advantage.

Pride Before The Fall

[-]

I remember how I felt in 1979, as the Democrat-controlled Congress, following the course of their Democrat President, allowed the United States to fall further and further into crisis. Oil prices, national defense, respect for Americans, and the future of the Western World through American leadership were all put into grave peril, and I was shocked to see how casually the Left accepted these conditions. One reason so many people came to love Ronald Reagan, was that he not only set a different course, he did so when all seemed on a course to failure. Reagan never accepted doomsayers of course, though he had a few and more to stare down in his time. Certainly he had a rough road to the White House, as so many Republicans feared to support a strong conservative, labeling his policies and programs all sorts of things. But he prevailed, and only failed to succeed more because of the capricious Congress.

The same thing is happening now with George W. Bush. Yes, he allegedly enjoys the backing of a Republican Congress, though you'd have a hard time knowing it from some of their actions. And yes, like Reagan he has a few ideas which have been ridiculed as much by Republicans as by Democrats, though now as then these panty-waists insist that they support the President; their spittle only shows their devotion, somehow, to America. Then as now unelected sorts with bloated egos demand that the twice-elected President kowtow to their wishes, and submit that the Chief Executive has no right to exercise his own discretion or judgment. Then as now these false Conservatives lay land mines against their own party, and when their snares destroy Conservative opportunities and values, these villains will be quick to assure us they are only doing what is best; a bullet in the patient is the best medicine, say these sorts, even though History abundantly proves them wrong again and again.

I remember wondering why Republicans in 1991 would not back President G.H. Bush, forcing him into a situation where he would lose no matter his decision. I wondered why the GOP would abandon a President in favor of a clearly inferior offering like Perot. I remember worrying that allowing a Democrat back in the White House would be like bringing back Carter. The emerging details of the Clinton Administration are proving that such fears were well-founded, yet Republicans are whistling at the risk that they may be, through their petulance, handing the keys to our nation's welfare to the very people least worthy of that trust.

God help us.

The Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the United States, 2006

-/\-

The Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree is one of the most discussed degrees awarded, and every year a number of magazines rank the schools according to their qualities. These rankings make interesting reading, and give folks a good sense of what makes a good MBA program, but the rankings are usually only concerned with full-time MBA programs, which does not strike me as a proper review of the options.

Certainly, it should be understood that there is a bias among academics and certain businesses, that the ‘part-time’ MBA earned by a person who must work for a living while they pursue their degree, is somehow not a “real” MBA. And worse, there is a genuine stigma attached to “distance” MBAs among the “elite” businesses, even though some of the very best business schools have a distance MBA program, and offer the same courses to online students that they do to those attending in person, taught by the same professors using the same materials, and grading by the same high standard. I certainly believe that in time, a proper comprehension of the high standards of certain schools will remove the approbation so falsely applied to the online degree, but for now it means that the major publications simply do not bother to rank the online schools.

Just as there are thousands of ‘brick & mortar’ schools which offer MBAs, there are literally thousands of online schools promising an MBA degree. For the purposes of these rankings, I began by pulling the available data from GetEducated.com, then counting only schools which offered an MBA online, which are regionally accredited by the nominal boards, and which are AACSB accredited and members. I then weeded out those schools which, forgive me, are unlikely to be known by name outside of a close geographic region. This establishes a level of degree which will be truly available online, yet meet the demanding standards of the best-respected business school accrediting association. I then noted the total advertised cost of an MBA for a student from out-of-state and in-state, and ranked them according to those standards. I am only ranking the top 25 schools on that general measure, and in my opinion, so I recommend you examine your options closely. Note that in-state residents often enjoy better tuition rates, for example.

The Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the United States, 2006:

1. Cal State Dominguez Hills - $10,500 (may require prerequisite business courses)
2. Mississippi State University - $13,776
3. University of Nebraska - $14,212
4. Dallas Baptist University - $16,524 (3.2 undergrad GPA)
5. Colorado State University - $18,828
6. University of Colorado – Colorado Springs - $19,032
7. University of Wisconsin Whitewater - $19,800
8. University of Houston – Victoria - $20,544 [$10,696 Tx residents]
9. Duquesne University - $21,132
10. Auburn University - $22,932 (MBA) $42,840 (EMBA), 3-day intensive, EMBA requires 5 “short residencies”, plus 1 week international travel.
11. Oklahoma State University - $23,280 [$13,368 Ok residents]
12. University of Tulsa - $24,264
13. University of Massachusetts - $25,000
14. West Virginia University - $27,036 [$9,288 WV residents]
15. University of Texas Telecampus - $27,200 [$12,400 Tx residents]
16. Marist College - $28,662
17. University of Wyoming - $29,160
18. Texas A&M – Commerce - $29,976 [$16,728 Tx residents]
19. University of Tennessee - $30,500
20. University of North Texas - $30,782.33
21. University of Florida - $32,600 (up to 8 campus weekend visits required)
22. Arizona State University - $38,022 (5 days orientation required first year)
23. Indiana University - $40,800
24. East Carolina University - $42,300 [$11,940 N Car residents]
25. University of Texas – Dallas – $42,500 ($45,408 Global MBA)

Free Speech And National Security

[][][]

As usual, the New York Times remains the epitome of duplicity. Readers will remember how the NYT thought it only fitting, indeed an absolute requirement, that the government should appoint a Special Prosecutor to find out who “outed” Valerie Plame and to punish them forthwith. Unfortunately for the NYT, that prosecutor could not find an actual violation of Plame’s rights, and chose to expand his search to nail anybody he could, just to show some kind of results. That led to “Scooter” Libby, and the less-than-solid claim that Libby broke the law in what he said to the press. The hitch there begins with the obvious possibility that a person may honestly recall details differently when a long time has passed, and continues with the obvious possibility that a prosecutor who cannot find a target within the scope of his stated authority, might feel pressured to “make” a case for the sake of face. But this also brings the guns back around, this time to track the New York Times itself. Turns out the NYT may well have violated the Espionage Act by disclosing details of the NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda communications, especially phone calls to and from the United States.

For here, I will simply say that from where I stand, Libby is innocent of the charges leveled against him, while if charged the NYT would be guilty as hell. The question of whether the government will proceed with charging the NYT remains to be seen. For this article however, the question raised by this situation bears on the terms of the First Amendment, specifically the station of the Press. For many years the Mainstream Media has claimed an inviolate right to do as it pleases, up to and including violating laws protecting the nation’s secrets. This was the case during World War Two, when the Chicago Tribune published that the United States has broken the Japanese codes, a fact which could have disastrously changed the course of the war had the Japanese read and believed the reports. This was the case when Daniel Ellsworth published the Pentagon Papers in 1971. This was the case when CNN presented the false allegations of ‘Tailwind’. And of course, it has been revealed since the fall of Saddam that while he was in power, CNN toadied up to the dictator and covered up information confirming the evils of his regime, in order to maintain coveted access to key sources. The history of the MSM in terms of its responsibility is shoddy indeed. And now it appears that the New York Times, along with other Old Media enterprises, has put the lives of many intelligence and military personnel in danger. Further, in an age where it is commonly understood that the enemy not only can monitor media transmissions and publications, but is known to do so as a part of its operational reconnaissance, such hostile actions against our military are even more egregious.

Yet for all of that, I must agree that the Press, even the enemies of reason such as the New York Times and LA Times, must be afforded the liberties promised in the First Amendment. I note however, that with the advent of the Blogosphere that individuals have demonstrated equal, indeed superior, responsibility and veracity in handling the issues of common concern for the nation. It is the New Media, not the Old, which has best addressed the needs of the nation as an effective Press. This is not to deny the Old Media its place, but to demonstrate that like all of the Rights specified in the Bill of Rights, the rights of Man belong to individuals and when held in corporation, held by the collective rights of the individuals in that body. So, it is untrue to claim that the Firs Amendment grants a special right to the estate of the Press, separate and superior to any right of the individual, as it would be untrue to claim that only certain people should enjoy the right to practice their religion, or to freely assemble. The advent of blogging only demonstrates that individuals also enjoy the right of the press, as was indeed the common condition when the Constitution was first enacted.

But we should be careful in such matters, to accept responsibility along with rights. Some have said that the press should be able to print anything, that daylight is always the best disinfectant and warning that a government which can hide something in secrecy will certainly choose to hide its crimes. But we know that information is not only the moment, but changes the world, and there is some information which should not, indeed must not, be made known to our enemies. If it is prudent to lock our doors to keep out potential burglars, how much more vital is it to protect information which, if know to our foes, would lead to the deaths of countless innocents. So there is a need for secrecy, and a terrible price for neglecting its security.

I am of a mind therefore, to commit again to the standards of good journalism, which to my mind begin not with allegiance to a party or an employer, nor even to the truth, but to the people whose lives and welfare may be affected, for good or ill, by my actions and words. Like the policeman who must take care to be judicious with his weapon, like the judge who must rule with care for precedent and impact, like the governor who understands his words will be taken as the official intention of a state, I am committed to the enterprise of understanding, with the caveat that I will do nothing which damages the commonwealth of our nation, nor which compromises the safety of its defenders. I challenge all writers, whether Old Media or New, to say the same.

The Dog That Didn’t Bark

---

We hear it wailing every day like the Liberal version of the muezzin calling the Muslims to prayer: “Bush poll numbers lowest ever! Bush still sinking! Bush is done for!”


Well, you all know what I think about that crap. I have mentioned that Bush is unlikely to work on his poll numbers, because he doesn’t need to get elected to anything again, and the Congress is not doing diddly to respect his work and office, so he sees no reason to pretty up his façade just to get these deserters another term through his efforts, as he did in 2002. I have observed that the polls are not only skewed in their demographics, but also do not even bother to find out if their respondents are regular voters or even if they voted in the last election. The poll numbers, therefore, are completely bunk, especially since so many of the polling groups have a lot more interest in creating a story by hinting Bush is in trouble, than in honestly reporting how America really thinks of him.

But I also noticed something else. The RCP average for Bush pegs his JA at 35.2%, taking data from almost two dozen polls. But if you take the latest results from each of the 21 polling groups cited, his average climbs to 37.3%, meaning that not all polls are weighed the same way in that balance. And it’s interesting, to me at least, to examine the latest poll results by the date ended. CBS, NBC/WSJ, Rasmussen, Cook, and USA Today/Gallup all ran polls which ended the last week of April. CNN, FOX, and Pew ran polls which ended the week before that. The other 13 polls cited in that average are using responses which are more than half a month old. Also, it’s worth noting that Rasmussen, Cook, Pew, and NBC/WSJ are showing numbers which are significantly better than the claims from CNN, CBS, and even FOX (remember that FOX polls were inconsistent during the 2004 campaign).

In total, well, it’s just more of what I warned you about. There are a number of qualities that you find in a worthwhile poll; demographics consistent with the population, internally consistent methodology, transparent internal data, and timely indicators all come to mind. To be blunt, none of the polls being presented right now have all of those qualities, and several have none at all. This won’t stop Liberals from cackling their lies, but it does mean you don’t have to believe them.

Killing The Hydra

-**-

It is a sad truism that the enemies of America rely on our collective impatience. We like fast food, sound bytes, and are willing to support only short wars. At least, that’s the conventional wisdom, which is popular enough to have become policy for many vicious demagogues. I have written before on the fact that the United States has fought long fights before, and more than once has settled matters by obliterating the regime they fought. But it should also be understood that the death of a tyrannic order is often a slow process, and takes more than one stroke.

Fascism, for instance, continued to exist long after the end of World War 2, and still has its devotees even today. So it should surprise no one that Communism is still doing the best it can to overthrow the world. And don’t laugh, it could still happen. Just as the distinctions between the Soviets and Chinese Communists demonstrated, Communism takes a variety of forms, suited to the conditions of its terrain and culture. Accordingly, the Communist movement in Central and South America is still making strides, even where it seems to be dormant or in retreat. Nowhere is this more evident than Mexico. In the rush to consider Mexico a friend of the United States, many people forget that Mexico fought a revolution to free itself from Spain, and not a revolution of ideals nearly so much as a simple rebellion to destroy the existing order; even today the strongest political party is called the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which is a member of the “Socialist International”. Vicente Fox, the present President of Mexico, rose through the ranks of the National Action Party and represents effectively the conservative and reform wing of Mexican politics, but he is fighting against a system dominated with PRI veterans and a thoroughly corrupt culture. In addition to political pressure, Fox is fighting a bloody insurgency in the rural parts of Mexico from the Zapatistas,
further diluting his power to address the threat. It's not say he sees eye to eye with the U.S> Government, but he is actually better than his predecessors, which means he is targeted by the Left.

The ‘Reconquistas’ have let their mask slip a bit during their marches, showing pictures of Communists like Che Guevara and chanting slogans reminiscent of Ho Chi Minh. It’s important to understand what’s going on here. A lot of people have no interest in Communism; it really is a simple case that they want a better life for their family and themselves. Unfortunately, as is the historical model, the Communists latch on to large groups and use them for their own purposes, and while many of the marchers on Monday may not have understood the significance of marching on May 1, the significance of such manipulation needs to be recognized.

The 2006 ‘Prove Your Stupidity’ Rally Results

ccc

Well, it’s over. That big international series of rallies and protests to show America just how much it needs illegals had it’s day in the sun, sponsored by more than a few major Socialist and Communist organizations, just in case the selection of “May Day”, long favored for 5-year-plans and parades with the same missiles on trailers rounding the block a few times while speeches extolling the virtues of the proletariat droned on, seemed a coincidence to you. Of course, the speeches had to be re-tooled to promote the virtues of people who flout laws, equal responsibility, and any sense of obligation to the people who built the hoems and businesses they seek, but at least the speeches have the usual enemy: America. Like the anarchists and domestic insurgents of old, the mobs of ‘La Raza’ pretend they love America, and just want to be accepted as ‘immigrants’, a claim made clearly false by the arrogance which demands they should not be made to obey the rules which built this nation, or respect the generations of immigrants who sacrificed and assimilated into the American culture for their children’s sakes. They have no respect for the Irish, the Jews, the Russians, the Chinese, the Blacks, or even the earlier Hispanics who held their culture but learned English and became part of the community as contributors. Today’s “undocumented immigrant” demands access to every sort of public service and convenience, but refuses to pay his way. I had to laugh when a LULAC representative assured the crowd in Houston that the undocumented alien somehow is cheated, even though he pays no income tax, no property tax, and does not follow common obligations like carrying liability insurance for his car. Permit me to doubt you, Johnny Mata.

But to today. A great day, actually. I had no trouble getting to work or doing my job. I found plenty of stores with staff and stock to sell me what I wanted and needed, none of it made in or produced by anywhere or anyone in South America. In a strange irony, I got my gas at the station I always do, which is run by an Indian immigrant, who saw no reason not to work today, and who is legal in every sense. I bought a colander from an asian store, whose owner is either an immigrant or the son of an immigrant, and again someone who obeyed the law and made his way here by the rules. I talked about politics over lunch with an immigrant from Kenya, and when I rode the bus home, I exchanged pleasantries with the native-born driver, whose family came here legally from Venezuela.

The lessons for the illegals? Three of them:

1. We do not need you nearly as much as you think. A lot of us want to give folks a reasonable opportunity, but if you refuse to work with us, we will get rid of you.

2. You need to pay better attention to your own best interests. Racist groups and chants in a foreign language come across as attacks and hostility. The geniuses who thought that was a good tactic had better remember that we have a lot more guns, and threatening us only makes us more determined to defend ourselves. Demanding a “right” to steal public resources, to excuse the flood of drugs, violent criminals and gangs, or to have a special set of conditions just for your race is not going to fly, and will only set you against the hundreds of millions of real Americans who will judge you by the standards your own conduct sets.

3. A lot of things can be discussed or negotiated. Equal rights come with equal responsibility. Right about now, you guys are not showing any sense of responsibility, and all that does is work against Latinos.


So thanks for Monday, amigo.

The President In Context

---*

Depending on which fiction you believe, the President has Approval numbers at varying degrees of disappointment. RINOs, overpaid columnists and media hairpieces, as well as fair-weather pansies of all stripes are fleeing all contact with George W. Bush, in the moronic belief that this will advance their careers or show them as some sort of reasonable mind, when in fact it merely confirms their cowardice in the face of the fight, or at least their personal hypocrisy when it comes to remembering debts of honor and responsibility.

It is therefore no surprise to see Liberals already replaying one of their fave lies; that George W. Bush is somehow the ‘worst’ U.S. President ever. The most recent example can be found in the pages of Rolling Stone, where formerly sober-minded Sean Wilentz panders to his own psychosis. Jay Cost has already addressed the faults and blunders in Mr. Wilentz’s article effectively, but he does not address the question of Bush’s deserved ranking. So, having the sort of mind I do, and with reckless disregard for the dangers of discussing the merits of a President while he is still in office, I believe the case can be made not only to defend Dubya against the inane charge that he is some kind of failure, but more, has laid the foundation and indeed additional work of substance towards a legacy to which persons named Clinton or Carter can only envy.

When historians grade a President, they do not, despite the pretense, actually agree on the criteria. This is not only because the context of an Administration is important to understanding its worth, but it also allows such academics as Wilentz to pretend to objectivity, where an apples-to-apples comparison would flatly prove the bias or outright prevarication which commands the mind of Liberal Academia, which is to say the mainstream of professional Historians. Those who do cite a qualification often fall onto subjective opinion, such as 'Was the President Good or Bad for the Nation?'. After all, we already see Liberals trying to somehow spin Bill Clinton as a good President, even though it is impossible to find a major initiative introduced or supported by Clinton which substantively improved the nation. So to my mind, rather than toss out phrases which can and will be spun to mean whatever the writer pleases, I submit we should base grades on comparable work, and on pertinent issues. That is, to properly regard President Washington, we have to be focused on the context of his Administration coming so soon after the Revolution, and the precedents it set. Lincoln, on the other hand, must be seen in the context of the Civil War, its causes, and his effective range of choices. In that light, the proper evaluation of the Presidency of George W. Bush rests in the main on his work in one contest; National Security.

On September 11, 2001, terrorists seized four U.S. airliners and killed thousands of innocent people. As many have observed, that day changed everything for everyone. Therefore, it is unreasonable to judge President George W. Bush on any criteria which does not first and in the main address the War against Global Terrorism. Liberals won’t like this fact, because on that question the only distinction to be considered, is whether Bush has done a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ job. First, in spite of all the attempts to cast it as a failure, we have been and are winning in Iraq, and this victory is not only demoralizing terrorist groups across the board, it is spurring hope for the growth of democratic republics, as evidenced by changes in Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia. It should be noted that hostilities with states have decreased markedly since the Bush Doctrine was stated and put into effect. Iran makes noise about nukes, but has made no direct attack against the United States. North Korea is still unstable and Kim Jong Il still deranged, yet the Kor-coms have been distinctly careful not to provoke U.S. forces. The reason is simple; the United States can and will make examples of nations whcih step beyond certain lines, and knowing this, the Axis of Evil these days limits itself to rhetoric. And most of all, people need to be reminded, again and again, that it is no coincidence, no mercy from Al Qaeda, that the United States has not suffered a terrorist attack on its homeland since 9/11. As much as Liberals, Democrats, and Talk Show Hosts try to play it otherwise, that fact is directly credited to the work and vigilance of President George W. Bush.

But let’s go further. No President since FDR has done more than Bush to secure the nation and consolidate its defense. And for all the complaints about the PATRIOT Act, not one legal action has yet demonstrated that a single innocent American has had his rights infringed in any way, a claim which no other President could trump, especially given the needs of the nation. Put simply, George W. Bush has improved the security of the United States against terrorist attack, but has done so without diluting any constitutional rights. That’s a passing grade and then some, folks.

But don’t stop there. Presidents, rightly or wrongly, are also judged on the economy they affect. Take a look at GDP since he took office, the rate of inflation, or Unemployment. Overall and as a trend, GW Bush is doing a darn fine job, and we all know why - income tax cuts. Yes, Liberals will try to discount it, but the effects are there for anyone honest enough to check them out.

What else? How about getting Social Security reform on the table? Sure the Congress weaseled out, but when’s the last time you heard a President bring up the topic? How about Justices Roberts and Alito, and countless federal court appointments which have corrected the slide into Judicial overthrow of the people’s will and Constitutional limits. How about having the courage to discard obsolete or downright dangerous agreements, like Kyoto or the ABM fiction?

Take a look at the policies and doctrines of Clinton, GHW Bush, Carter, or even Reagan, and you will see that Dubya does quite nicely on the counts which matter. Especially when we stretch the record to see how Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, and Eisenhower did. Especially when we see where Truman and even FDR feared to tread. That, as if you did not already know, is why the Liberals have already begun the campaign to mock Dubya’s legacy. They know Bush was so effective and successful, that they would do anything, anything at all, to prevent someone from continuing his work.

Amnesty - Why Not?

?--?

As the arguments about illegal entrants (for clarity, I only call someone an ‘immigrant’ who intends to join the community, not steal from it) continue, the word ‘amnesty’ is bandied about, usually by people who have no sense of the word’s real meaning, especially in an historical context. Simply put, in times past, various rulers and governments have promised an amnesty to certain individuals and groups, in return for certain conditions. This was because those groups could create a condition of great difficulty and expense, so an amnesty was the most productive means for solving such problems. The United States is no stranger to such agreements, as our amnesty to the pirate Jean Lafitte bears witness, or the recent revision of terms between the United States and Pakistan. We do not negotiate with terrorists, but we do make deals with all sorts of people. The question then, is whether a deal should be made, can be made, and if both questions can be answered affirmative, then what sort of deal should be pursued.

Despite the hot polarity of the debate, there is actually a range of possible actions the U.S. government might take, anywhere from the draconian measure of shooting anyone crossing the border in between checkpoints, to the collapse of any resistance and awarding citizenship to anyone already here, which would turn the flow into an absolute flash-flood. Neither of those extremes has any real chance, but they do represent the theoretical ends of the choice. To my mind, the issue has four fronts, which must all be addressed. There is no reasonable argument against building a barrier to border crossings, call it a wall, fence, or whatever. The only argument against such a barrier amounts to deliberately ignoring the security of the nation, and everyone knows it, which is why the Left always casts such discussions as ‘racist hatred’ against ‘immigrants’, rather than a measure taken to protect against invasion by people deliberately breaking the law to enter here.

The second front is to enforce the laws already on the books. The people arguing against the President all too often ignore that this problem has been growing for more than a generation, and would be far less severe if only the laws already passed were enforced. There are pragmatic reasons, of course, why the law is not properly enforced, but the most common problem seems to be the assumption that the responsibility always lies with someone else.

The third front is to arrange agreements with Mexico and other nations to stop encouraging or anabling illegal entry. Time for some of those “frank discussions” we used to hear about Reagan having with the Soviets.

The fourth front is to decide what to do with the twelve-to-twenty million illegal aliens already here in the United States, and this is where Amnesty comes in.

Here’s the thing. If law enforcement wants to go after the illegals in a significant way, they basically have three choices:

1. Take men away from other duties to seek out and detain illegals.

2. Spend money and resources for a “task force”.

3. Spend money and resources on a long-term Fugitive Capture program.

Any of the three is feasible only with significant cooperation between local, county, state, and federal authorities, with significant investment of resources across the board. All would involve a degree of performance degradation in nominal operations, and significant friction with minorities and special interest groups must be anticipated, including possible deliberate obstruction and interference. All would require party discipline on an order not known in modern times to have any hope of success, and any of the three would require considerable political capital. In short, as things stand now none of the three options is operable.

The question then, is how to break the strength of such numbers down to manageable size, and in so doing demonstrate the sort of success which attracts bandwagons, and with them creates the support for stronger measures. The answer to me seems to be a graduated amnesty program. First, let me be very clear that an amnesty is unacceptable if it includes automatic citizenship, or which treats the illegal in a manner superior to the persons who obey the law. To some degree, this would mean improving the opportunity for legal immigrants, but also by clearly naming the limit for an amnesty.

If citizenship is not on the table then, what good is the amnesty? Plenty, actually. It seems to me that now would be a good time for Congress to consider that a resident does not, and should not, enjoy anything like the status of the citizen. A higher income tax rate for residents, no voting privilege of course, automatically stiffer penalties for any criminal conviction on American soil, and additional fees for the use of educational or medical facilities, would create a significant and reasonable advantage for someone to pursue citizenship, which should be strictly enforced on a code advancing American national interests. The resident would still enjoy advantages over the non-resident, such as a right to work and the government should create a sort of Social Security/Medicare program, where the resident could pay a tax just as citizens do (albeit at a higher rate), and have a system for his own return down the road if he stays permanently, and again there is a strong incentive to become a full citizen. Such a program would also allow for the resident to have a number by which he might be tracked and identified; anonymity becomes less and less acceptable, as an excuse or a legal defense.

When the United States offered amnesty to Jean Lafitte, there were specific conditions. Lafitte had to leave American ships alone, he had to promise to work for American interests, and in exchange he was granted his life and freedom. The average American did not need such promises, so the offer can be called reasonable. Letting foreign people know and making sure they understand, that we will be glad to take in immigrants for citizenship and residency, and that we are open to giving everyone a fair chance, takes away the political edge from the people co-opting border security in a vulgar attempt to rebuild their political fortune. It also separates the sheep from the goats, so to speak. If people here illegally are given a reasonable means by which they can elect to leave the United States without difficulty and submit their application for residency or citizenship through the appropriate options, then the only aliens remaining here illegally will define themselves as deliberate criminals or worse, and as such will lose the pretense to any moral right to evade capture and incarceration. Something on the order of Guantanamo without kid-gloves focus on protecting a militant religion would do nicely, I think.

So in summary, this is my idea of amnesty. Sharpen the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘resident’, make clear that we welcome all sorts of legal immigrants but must protect our borders and enforce our laws, and offer the chance to start over for people who leave politely and immediately. And make very, very clear that anyone who remains here against the law after than point may expect a stronger and more determined, coordinated response at all levels. But first we have to agree to pick one plan and pursue it. Maybe that means the first ‘amnesty’ must be extended to fellow Conservatives.