[H]
A lot of people are getting ready to go driving this Memorial Day weekend. And that means a lot of people will be tanking up their cars, and probably complaining about the price of gas. It seems appropriate to me, to remind those folks of something I wrote back in August 2004:
“The next time you tank up, you might think better about the men who work hard to bring you gasoline for your car, your heating fuel, or any number of petroleum by-products. Some just work their butts off to do that, some risk their butts to get the job done.”
Please click the link and read it. The man deserves to not be forgotten.
Friday, May 26, 2006
The Power Of Money
$
Judith Apter Klinghoffer has written a thought-provoking piece on the threat posed by Islamic Banking. The article briefly considers the threat posed when companies and nations are unaware of the possibility that subversive interests may be influencing, even controlling the company with which they deal.
For me, however, it’s actually a bit of good news. You see, Islamic Law is called “Sharia”, and whatever its technical definition from place to place, in actual practice it generally amounts to whatever the regime in place wants to do. For example, even before the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, Shah Rezi Pahlavi was in the habit of having friendly mullahs issue fatwas supporting his actions, be it Land Reform or additional Police forces. One of the ironies of Islam, is that if you are powerful enough, you can get the backing of a mullah or five, and it is not at all uncommon to find fatwas in contradiction of one another. So I am not inordinately worried about someone getting a fatwa in order to enable a finance deal.
What intrigues me about the finance fatwas, however, is that they risk severe consequences. What I mean is, traditional Sharia does not allow Muslims to charge interest – at all. I think the way they get around it now, is the notion that Muslims would be charging interest from non-Muslims, a sort of way to enforce the Jizya on non-Muslim companies and countries. But what really got me thinking, is something I noticed while researching the political transition of countries in the region; the Middle East, with a few notable exceptions, is about 50 years away from being bankrupt.
It works like this; the Middle East first became important to the known world, because trade routes between Africa, Asia, and Europe had to run through it. This created two economic classes; the merchant and the bureaucrat, each benefiting from the traffic of goods through their countries. This led to the development of roads and a network of market towns and the precursors of consulates, as nations found it useful to put emissaries and representatives in places where they could gain an advantage for their nation’s goods ahead of another nation. When Islam came to power, shortly after seizing towns which made fortified and defensible positions, the Jihadists in short order took over trade towns, specifically for the economic strength of such possessions. A major reason why the Islamist invasion of Europe began through Portugal and Spain, rather than the other way around the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, was the lure of claiming the Western ports. The nations of the Middle East have always sought to gain a sound economic base through control of shipping by land and sea. This was based on the acknowledgment that the Middle East produced little in the way of finished goods, and could barely subsist on its raw resources. For this reason, the Middle East was of little concern to the Ottoman Empire, save that the roads and ports should be secure.
Then came oil. Oil was a critical element in the advance of the Industrial Revolution, and both Europe and America grew on the nourishment of petroleum. Discovery of Oil in Arabia in 1859 began a rush for exploration, as this coincided neatly with strong growth in the use of oil for engines and factories. By the start of World War One the Middle East was a catalyst for contention and bargaining. This condition only grew in strength and priority through the 1970s, at which time the Middle East played its trump card, the OPEC Embargo. Unfortunately for OPEC, the card was badly played, and instead of its desired effect, only changed world conditions to counter Middle East aspirations for power – the Soviet Union in particular took a hard-line approach to ensuring the continued flow of oil.
Oil, at least as it is traded today, is running out, and especially the “light sweet” crude from the Gulf. That is to say, the oil reserves known to exist in the Middle East have about 40-50 years before their production will drop off precipitously. The problem is simple geography; there is only so much oil which can exist in one place, especially where exploration and new drilling development has been curtailed for a variety of reasons. The West, especially the United States, has the advantage that they have large regions of probable fields which are as yet untouched; at the moment they are financially unprofitable for drilling, but in a few decades that may well change, depending on both economic and technological conditions. Therefore, the U.S. has long-term options unavailable in the Middle East.
And given the massive expenditures of Middle East nations in the past 50 years, the drop in production around 2050-2060 will effectively cause an immediate collapse in both GDP and government revenue for countries in the region. This will destabilize all of the extant governments in oil-based economy countries, leading to revolt regardless of the character of the regime in place, unless a replacement source of revenue is developed and stabilized.
So here we are in 2006. On the surface, first-world nations are far too dependent on the Middle East for their energy needs, but in context they are in far better shape than the Middle East. The Middle East still offers little more than oil, and that oil is running out. There is development in the West of alternative energy sources, albeit not fast enough, but in four decades there is reason to expect demand for oil to be reduced as functional alternatives to be developed. This claim can be and should be considered and critically weighed, but in another place. For now, the significant point is that Middle Eastern nations are beginning to see the end of the road on the revenue from oil, and it is approaching faster than they have expected, or for which they are in any way prepared. The question to be considered is what, precisely, the region will do when the oil money is gone.
For the Islamic nations, this explains the interest in banking. Historically, many nations with poor resources and little marketable material have turned to banking to make their living. The legacy of “swiss banks” and such have long fed the imagination of fiduciary minds, the fantasy of people paying you a fee to hold their money for them. While they have monies in their vaults to invest, setting up banking arrangements seems a wise long-term pursuit for these nations. International Banking today is in many ways the modern version of merchant shipping in the past.
There are, however, significant problems for the Islamic Bankers. As Ms. Klinghoffer has mentioned, there is and should be serious concern about the security of deals brokered through nations hostile to Occidental customs and policies. And on the flip side, one can hardly imagine the radical Jihadists approving the procurement of interest-bearing investments, however they are carefully worded. Banking is inherently a secular pursuit, and as such must find itself continually in opposition to Sharia.
Judith Apter Klinghoffer has written a thought-provoking piece on the threat posed by Islamic Banking. The article briefly considers the threat posed when companies and nations are unaware of the possibility that subversive interests may be influencing, even controlling the company with which they deal.
For me, however, it’s actually a bit of good news. You see, Islamic Law is called “Sharia”, and whatever its technical definition from place to place, in actual practice it generally amounts to whatever the regime in place wants to do. For example, even before the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, Shah Rezi Pahlavi was in the habit of having friendly mullahs issue fatwas supporting his actions, be it Land Reform or additional Police forces. One of the ironies of Islam, is that if you are powerful enough, you can get the backing of a mullah or five, and it is not at all uncommon to find fatwas in contradiction of one another. So I am not inordinately worried about someone getting a fatwa in order to enable a finance deal.
What intrigues me about the finance fatwas, however, is that they risk severe consequences. What I mean is, traditional Sharia does not allow Muslims to charge interest – at all. I think the way they get around it now, is the notion that Muslims would be charging interest from non-Muslims, a sort of way to enforce the Jizya on non-Muslim companies and countries. But what really got me thinking, is something I noticed while researching the political transition of countries in the region; the Middle East, with a few notable exceptions, is about 50 years away from being bankrupt.
It works like this; the Middle East first became important to the known world, because trade routes between Africa, Asia, and Europe had to run through it. This created two economic classes; the merchant and the bureaucrat, each benefiting from the traffic of goods through their countries. This led to the development of roads and a network of market towns and the precursors of consulates, as nations found it useful to put emissaries and representatives in places where they could gain an advantage for their nation’s goods ahead of another nation. When Islam came to power, shortly after seizing towns which made fortified and defensible positions, the Jihadists in short order took over trade towns, specifically for the economic strength of such possessions. A major reason why the Islamist invasion of Europe began through Portugal and Spain, rather than the other way around the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, was the lure of claiming the Western ports. The nations of the Middle East have always sought to gain a sound economic base through control of shipping by land and sea. This was based on the acknowledgment that the Middle East produced little in the way of finished goods, and could barely subsist on its raw resources. For this reason, the Middle East was of little concern to the Ottoman Empire, save that the roads and ports should be secure.
Then came oil. Oil was a critical element in the advance of the Industrial Revolution, and both Europe and America grew on the nourishment of petroleum. Discovery of Oil in Arabia in 1859 began a rush for exploration, as this coincided neatly with strong growth in the use of oil for engines and factories. By the start of World War One the Middle East was a catalyst for contention and bargaining. This condition only grew in strength and priority through the 1970s, at which time the Middle East played its trump card, the OPEC Embargo. Unfortunately for OPEC, the card was badly played, and instead of its desired effect, only changed world conditions to counter Middle East aspirations for power – the Soviet Union in particular took a hard-line approach to ensuring the continued flow of oil.
Oil, at least as it is traded today, is running out, and especially the “light sweet” crude from the Gulf. That is to say, the oil reserves known to exist in the Middle East have about 40-50 years before their production will drop off precipitously. The problem is simple geography; there is only so much oil which can exist in one place, especially where exploration and new drilling development has been curtailed for a variety of reasons. The West, especially the United States, has the advantage that they have large regions of probable fields which are as yet untouched; at the moment they are financially unprofitable for drilling, but in a few decades that may well change, depending on both economic and technological conditions. Therefore, the U.S. has long-term options unavailable in the Middle East.
And given the massive expenditures of Middle East nations in the past 50 years, the drop in production around 2050-2060 will effectively cause an immediate collapse in both GDP and government revenue for countries in the region. This will destabilize all of the extant governments in oil-based economy countries, leading to revolt regardless of the character of the regime in place, unless a replacement source of revenue is developed and stabilized.
So here we are in 2006. On the surface, first-world nations are far too dependent on the Middle East for their energy needs, but in context they are in far better shape than the Middle East. The Middle East still offers little more than oil, and that oil is running out. There is development in the West of alternative energy sources, albeit not fast enough, but in four decades there is reason to expect demand for oil to be reduced as functional alternatives to be developed. This claim can be and should be considered and critically weighed, but in another place. For now, the significant point is that Middle Eastern nations are beginning to see the end of the road on the revenue from oil, and it is approaching faster than they have expected, or for which they are in any way prepared. The question to be considered is what, precisely, the region will do when the oil money is gone.
For the Islamic nations, this explains the interest in banking. Historically, many nations with poor resources and little marketable material have turned to banking to make their living. The legacy of “swiss banks” and such have long fed the imagination of fiduciary minds, the fantasy of people paying you a fee to hold their money for them. While they have monies in their vaults to invest, setting up banking arrangements seems a wise long-term pursuit for these nations. International Banking today is in many ways the modern version of merchant shipping in the past.
There are, however, significant problems for the Islamic Bankers. As Ms. Klinghoffer has mentioned, there is and should be serious concern about the security of deals brokered through nations hostile to Occidental customs and policies. And on the flip side, one can hardly imagine the radical Jihadists approving the procurement of interest-bearing investments, however they are carefully worded. Banking is inherently a secular pursuit, and as such must find itself continually in opposition to Sharia.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
A Tale Of Two Felons
0ooo0
The jury in Houston returned its verdict today in the “Enron Trial”; basically no surprise, as founder Ken Lay and CEO Jeff Skilling were found guilty on most counts against them. In addition, a judge ruled against Lay in a Bank Fraud case which was tried before his bench, waiting for the jury’s decision before releasing his own.
There is a lot of information on the case, testimony as well as documents, but my gut call on the trial is this; one man was a cold-blooded villain, and the other a well-meaning fool who let his priorities get way out of line. I say this because of the financial fates of the men when Enron collapsed; Skilling sold short, obviously aware of what was happening and trying to save his own fortune, while Lay lost millions by hanging on to Enron stock – yes, he sold some stock right before the crash, but he appears, from what I have seen, to have put that money into the company in a desperate move to avoid the collapse. Skilling didn’t give a fig about anyone but himself, while Lay was trying to save his company.
Don’t think I am saying Lay is not accountable for his actions. Lay is responsible for what happened, in the same way that a drunk driver, though he doesn’t mean to harm anyone, is still responsible for the wreck. And in the matter of this trial, it means that Lay and Skilling are both looking at a lot of time in federal prison.
The lesson, unfortunately, will be missed by most of the people who should get it. In the case of Skilling, it means that sometimes crooks get caught, but we know from history that greedy people are always looking for a way to get around the rules. And in the case of Lay, a lot of people need to learn that good intentions don’t mean you don’t have to pay for your mistakes, especially when they destroy the fortunes and work of so many people.
The jury in Houston returned its verdict today in the “Enron Trial”; basically no surprise, as founder Ken Lay and CEO Jeff Skilling were found guilty on most counts against them. In addition, a judge ruled against Lay in a Bank Fraud case which was tried before his bench, waiting for the jury’s decision before releasing his own.
There is a lot of information on the case, testimony as well as documents, but my gut call on the trial is this; one man was a cold-blooded villain, and the other a well-meaning fool who let his priorities get way out of line. I say this because of the financial fates of the men when Enron collapsed; Skilling sold short, obviously aware of what was happening and trying to save his own fortune, while Lay lost millions by hanging on to Enron stock – yes, he sold some stock right before the crash, but he appears, from what I have seen, to have put that money into the company in a desperate move to avoid the collapse. Skilling didn’t give a fig about anyone but himself, while Lay was trying to save his company.
Don’t think I am saying Lay is not accountable for his actions. Lay is responsible for what happened, in the same way that a drunk driver, though he doesn’t mean to harm anyone, is still responsible for the wreck. And in the matter of this trial, it means that Lay and Skilling are both looking at a lot of time in federal prison.
The lesson, unfortunately, will be missed by most of the people who should get it. In the case of Skilling, it means that sometimes crooks get caught, but we know from history that greedy people are always looking for a way to get around the rules. And in the case of Lay, a lot of people need to learn that good intentions don’t mean you don’t have to pay for your mistakes, especially when they destroy the fortunes and work of so many people.
Blogrolls and Honor
.<>.
Readers will note that I have made some changes in the Blogroll. I have added some blogs to my roll, some which were way overdue for mention, and frankly there are still a few more I need to add. There is one blog I keep trying to add, but every time I do, it totally screws up the layout, and I have no idea why that happens.
One thing about my blogroll, is that I am picky. Maybe too picky. The thing about my blogroll, as opposed to everyone else’s, is that I regularly read every blog which is on my roll. Maybe not every day, but I try to get to them all. So while some blogs have a roll listing everything short of Democraptic Underground, I am more selective.
Also, I generally find something I agree with in every blog on my roll. I may not jibe 100% with everything they say, but in large measure if a blog is on my roll, I am recommending it. I mention this, because of the Blogosphere habit many people have of playing ‘you put me on your roll, and I’ll put you on mine’. Sure, it drives up traffic, but I have to say I shake my head when I see a blog with literally a hundred links or more; they cannot possibly say they are aligned with all of them. I am considering a tiered system, where I would note the blogs I always read, and the ones which are usually worth a visit if I have time and the inclination. This would help separate, for example, Democracy Project, with which I agree a lot, from Polipundit, which I keep on the roll out of respect for past and some degree of curiosity, but with whom I have little in common these days. There are also some blogs on my roll which do not post everyday; I may have to call them the Inactive Reserve or something.
I have also removed some blogs from the roll, because they have stepped over a line I consider unacceptable. Early in my blogging career, I wrote an article on the difference between how the Mainstream Media was treating the War in Iraq, and how things were really going. To my surprise, I received emails from a couple active-duty Marines serving in Iraq, who appreciated the support – this was in early 2004, when the media was going all out to slander the military as incompetent and vicious. I realized that my words were reaching a much broader audience than I had expected, and this reminded me that I have a solemn responsibility to keep in mind the effects of my articles. I don’t pretend that I reach the same sorts of numbers as the A-listers, or even the B-listers or C-listers. Yet it remains a fact that words have meaning, and if someone takes the time to read your stuff, then what you say matters. I mention this, because of the unfortunate poison in the tone used by some Conservatives. In some cases the blogger has chosen to regularly address the President and his supporters in a way which is deliberately deceitful and disrespectful, of the man and of his office. And in one case, the blogger posted an article so defamatory and false, that despite a great respect for work on many other areas, and for the blogger’s talent as a writer and unique perspective, that I cannot in good conscience recommend that site.
So, the work on the site layout continues. And if you know of a good blog which I have not seen (or which I continue to forget to add), please let me know. I love finding good minds.
Thanks.
Readers will note that I have made some changes in the Blogroll. I have added some blogs to my roll, some which were way overdue for mention, and frankly there are still a few more I need to add. There is one blog I keep trying to add, but every time I do, it totally screws up the layout, and I have no idea why that happens.
One thing about my blogroll, is that I am picky. Maybe too picky. The thing about my blogroll, as opposed to everyone else’s, is that I regularly read every blog which is on my roll. Maybe not every day, but I try to get to them all. So while some blogs have a roll listing everything short of Democraptic Underground, I am more selective.
Also, I generally find something I agree with in every blog on my roll. I may not jibe 100% with everything they say, but in large measure if a blog is on my roll, I am recommending it. I mention this, because of the Blogosphere habit many people have of playing ‘you put me on your roll, and I’ll put you on mine’. Sure, it drives up traffic, but I have to say I shake my head when I see a blog with literally a hundred links or more; they cannot possibly say they are aligned with all of them. I am considering a tiered system, where I would note the blogs I always read, and the ones which are usually worth a visit if I have time and the inclination. This would help separate, for example, Democracy Project, with which I agree a lot, from Polipundit, which I keep on the roll out of respect for past and some degree of curiosity, but with whom I have little in common these days. There are also some blogs on my roll which do not post everyday; I may have to call them the Inactive Reserve or something.
I have also removed some blogs from the roll, because they have stepped over a line I consider unacceptable. Early in my blogging career, I wrote an article on the difference between how the Mainstream Media was treating the War in Iraq, and how things were really going. To my surprise, I received emails from a couple active-duty Marines serving in Iraq, who appreciated the support – this was in early 2004, when the media was going all out to slander the military as incompetent and vicious. I realized that my words were reaching a much broader audience than I had expected, and this reminded me that I have a solemn responsibility to keep in mind the effects of my articles. I don’t pretend that I reach the same sorts of numbers as the A-listers, or even the B-listers or C-listers. Yet it remains a fact that words have meaning, and if someone takes the time to read your stuff, then what you say matters. I mention this, because of the unfortunate poison in the tone used by some Conservatives. In some cases the blogger has chosen to regularly address the President and his supporters in a way which is deliberately deceitful and disrespectful, of the man and of his office. And in one case, the blogger posted an article so defamatory and false, that despite a great respect for work on many other areas, and for the blogger’s talent as a writer and unique perspective, that I cannot in good conscience recommend that site.
So, the work on the site layout continues. And if you know of a good blog which I have not seen (or which I continue to forget to add), please let me know. I love finding good minds.
Thanks.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Thought For The Evening
" "
Nothing says “Term Limits” like both parties demanding elected people not be held to the same standards as regular folks.
“What’s in YOUR freezer?”
Nothing says “Term Limits” like both parties demanding elected people not be held to the same standards as regular folks.
“What’s in YOUR freezer?”
Hang Right Politics
[+]
The Blogosphere got a little bigger today, and a little better, with the opening of 'Hang Right Politics'.
HRP will discuss elections, politics, and national issues from the right-handed perspective. I should also mention that there is a Texas flavor to the place, which is always a plus.
Please give them a visit!
The Blogosphere got a little bigger today, and a little better, with the opening of 'Hang Right Politics'.
HRP will discuss elections, politics, and national issues from the right-handed perspective. I should also mention that there is a Texas flavor to the place, which is always a plus.
Please give them a visit!
The Speech, Part 4 – It Costs HOW Much?!
$$$
The Rabies Wing of the Republican Party has really been going full-tilt after President Bush. There’s no sense, really, in trying to sort out why – why does a dog chase cars, or Al Gore believe he will win the White House in 2008? Madness is its own explanation. But the dishonesty of these hypocrites is demonstrated by the fact, beside the known examples, that none among them discusses the cost of their demands. Instead, they try to ‘low-ball’ the estimate by only discussing the immediate and material costs of the actions they say must be undertaken before anything else. This sort of behavior is dishonest on its face, especially since the public has a right to know the scale of the commitment they are being asked to fund.
The Federal Budget 2007 is running at 2.77 Trillion dollars. That is not only a huge number, it’s important to understand that the only ways new expenditures on controlling the border and apprehending illegals can be done, would be to either increase taxes, increase deficit spending, or cut other programs. And judging from the last several budgets passed by Congress, that third option is not a real strong contender. So the questions are:
1. What is really needed, in cost, to secure the border?
2. What will it cost to apprehend illegals in-country, and deport them?
3. How will the Federal Government pay for these as-yet unknown costs?
Frankly, no one has really even discussed these points yet. Anyone who thinks that the total cost of the fence/wall is only in buildng it, and who fails to consider the cost of its maintenance and repair, the surveillance of perimeters, the staffing of response teams, and of course the equipment needed by the support and interception teams, is not serious about the issue.
As to catching people already here in the country, the only way to find them and deport them begins with good old-fashioned police work. Now, does anyone want to guess how difficult it is to find people who keep a low profile, who are not violent or conspicuously flagrant in their behavior, who to all outward appearances are simply working and raising their families? No, I am not saying we should not try to catch people who are here illegally; I am saying that the physical difficulties in doing so are far tougher than the Rabies crowd is willing to admit. The manpower necessary to find illegal families, locate them and remove them, is significantly greater per-capita than any other type of law enforcement operation. And given the scale demanded, the cost quickly moves beyond the practicable scope of any known agency.
That's why President Bush is intent on a temporary worker program - it not only reduces the number of targets for law enforcement to pursue, it also lowers the incentive to try crossing the border illegally. Also, if pursuit should become necessary, the additional identification measures make it easier for law enforcement (ICE, etc) to find the offenders. Unlike the Rabies demands, the President's plan works on making the numbers more manageable, so that the most dangerous and violent illegals will not find it so easy to hide in a crowd.
Next: Part 5 – Race Issues
The Rabies Wing of the Republican Party has really been going full-tilt after President Bush. There’s no sense, really, in trying to sort out why – why does a dog chase cars, or Al Gore believe he will win the White House in 2008? Madness is its own explanation. But the dishonesty of these hypocrites is demonstrated by the fact, beside the known examples, that none among them discusses the cost of their demands. Instead, they try to ‘low-ball’ the estimate by only discussing the immediate and material costs of the actions they say must be undertaken before anything else. This sort of behavior is dishonest on its face, especially since the public has a right to know the scale of the commitment they are being asked to fund.
The Federal Budget 2007 is running at 2.77 Trillion dollars. That is not only a huge number, it’s important to understand that the only ways new expenditures on controlling the border and apprehending illegals can be done, would be to either increase taxes, increase deficit spending, or cut other programs. And judging from the last several budgets passed by Congress, that third option is not a real strong contender. So the questions are:
1. What is really needed, in cost, to secure the border?
2. What will it cost to apprehend illegals in-country, and deport them?
3. How will the Federal Government pay for these as-yet unknown costs?
Frankly, no one has really even discussed these points yet. Anyone who thinks that the total cost of the fence/wall is only in buildng it, and who fails to consider the cost of its maintenance and repair, the surveillance of perimeters, the staffing of response teams, and of course the equipment needed by the support and interception teams, is not serious about the issue.
As to catching people already here in the country, the only way to find them and deport them begins with good old-fashioned police work. Now, does anyone want to guess how difficult it is to find people who keep a low profile, who are not violent or conspicuously flagrant in their behavior, who to all outward appearances are simply working and raising their families? No, I am not saying we should not try to catch people who are here illegally; I am saying that the physical difficulties in doing so are far tougher than the Rabies crowd is willing to admit. The manpower necessary to find illegal families, locate them and remove them, is significantly greater per-capita than any other type of law enforcement operation. And given the scale demanded, the cost quickly moves beyond the practicable scope of any known agency.
That's why President Bush is intent on a temporary worker program - it not only reduces the number of targets for law enforcement to pursue, it also lowers the incentive to try crossing the border illegally. Also, if pursuit should become necessary, the additional identification measures make it easier for law enforcement (ICE, etc) to find the offenders. Unlike the Rabies demands, the President's plan works on making the numbers more manageable, so that the most dangerous and violent illegals will not find it so easy to hide in a crowd.
Next: Part 5 – Race Issues
My Disagreements With President George W. Bush
(!)
Many times at the old place, and a few times over here, some spittle-flecked assassin of the President’s reputation has noted that I sometimes say that I do not agree completely with the President on all issues, that indeed there are some points on which I differ with him sharply. This observation is always followed by a demand that I confess, in detail, where and how I differ with President George W. Bush, a demand which I have always ignored. These rhetorical hyenas take this as a tacit admission that I do not actually differ with the President on anything, and they further take my claim of difference as an example of dishonesty. Since this has come up again, I choose to defend my position and honor, explain why I refuse to play the ‘mock the President’ game, and why any reasonable person would do the same.
Let us say you have a friend. You differ, as people do, on certain opinions, sometimes strongly. You might even think that you need to set your friend straight on a couple areas where you think he’s way off base. But let’s say some bad news comes along for your friend. Whatever your differences, now is not the time to harass him on where you disagree, but to support him as his friend; it’s what real friends do. Also, if it happens that the places where you think he’s wrong are less important than the places where he is right, you keep that in mind. Those people who claim to have ever been a Bush supporter, but who think now is any time to attack and malign the man, are just like those false friends who claim to be noble but just do as they please, painting it as an ideal because they don’t like to face the reality of their scurrilous perfidy.
I choose not to discuss the specifics of where I differ from the President, for three specific reasons. First, the President has gotten the largest issues right. He has handled the War on Terrorism well, and has listened to the right people on Iraq and Afghanistan. Time was, people used to realize those were the big issues and nothing else, nothing, came close. Bush has also named two significant Justices to the United States Supreme Court, and a slew of solid picks for other federal posts. Frankly, no President in memory, Reagan included, has done as well on that count, and given the Liberal strategy to ignore the will of the people by governing through courts, the significance of those choices cannot be overstated. The other issues, even where they are important and timely, are very small indeed next to these major issues. Those who now attack and mock the President after such accomplishments show a petty and disgraceful lack of honor, indeed.
Second, those who malign and attack the President do so in pursuit of a course which must inevitably damage the Republican Party and the Conservative Cause. While Republicans of late have been less than diligent in performance of their duties, only the greatest of fools could be persuaded that reducing Republican numbers in Congress or lessening the influence of President Bush could do anything but increase the power and influence of the Democrats, whose character and sinister intentions are well known. The whole example of History stands to warn against reducing the number of members who, if they do not wholly support the will of constituents, at the least do not do the damage that the Socialists of the Left would commit. Further, President Bush has plainly been a good and effective President, when he has the support of the electorate behind him. Where he has been steadfast and honest, for his support to dissipate because spokesmen and individuals of popular influence prefer their own whimsy to his leadership, then those narcissists who attack the President do also attack the nation, and their pride wounds the soul of America. There is no way to avoid this diagnosis.
And third, I should be willing to discuss my in-depth opinion of the President only in an environment where both sides move away from extremes. That is, there is no reason why I should admit to any disagreement with the President, where the other side would simply take that admission and use it as ammunition for yet another spiteful attack on the President. Also, there has been no sense of reciprocity; those within the Conservative Movement know full well, that President Bush has done a great deal of good, for the nation, the Republican Party, and for the Conservative Movement. America is clearly a better nation for his time in the Oval Office. Yet when they speak of him, it is always in complete derision and insult, with no measure of respect for what he has done. The man plainly has earned better, and I will not countenance the behavior which does not admit to the honors he has garnered through hard work, perseverance, and steadfast faith in God, his ideals, and his commitment. If you would find from me where I differ with George W. Bush, you must first reaffirm where you would commend him. Put away the hypocrisy of using the Left’s own weapons of slander and gossip, and return to those values which have identified Conservatives, if you wish me to regard you as a Conservative.
Many times at the old place, and a few times over here, some spittle-flecked assassin of the President’s reputation has noted that I sometimes say that I do not agree completely with the President on all issues, that indeed there are some points on which I differ with him sharply. This observation is always followed by a demand that I confess, in detail, where and how I differ with President George W. Bush, a demand which I have always ignored. These rhetorical hyenas take this as a tacit admission that I do not actually differ with the President on anything, and they further take my claim of difference as an example of dishonesty. Since this has come up again, I choose to defend my position and honor, explain why I refuse to play the ‘mock the President’ game, and why any reasonable person would do the same.
Let us say you have a friend. You differ, as people do, on certain opinions, sometimes strongly. You might even think that you need to set your friend straight on a couple areas where you think he’s way off base. But let’s say some bad news comes along for your friend. Whatever your differences, now is not the time to harass him on where you disagree, but to support him as his friend; it’s what real friends do. Also, if it happens that the places where you think he’s wrong are less important than the places where he is right, you keep that in mind. Those people who claim to have ever been a Bush supporter, but who think now is any time to attack and malign the man, are just like those false friends who claim to be noble but just do as they please, painting it as an ideal because they don’t like to face the reality of their scurrilous perfidy.
I choose not to discuss the specifics of where I differ from the President, for three specific reasons. First, the President has gotten the largest issues right. He has handled the War on Terrorism well, and has listened to the right people on Iraq and Afghanistan. Time was, people used to realize those were the big issues and nothing else, nothing, came close. Bush has also named two significant Justices to the United States Supreme Court, and a slew of solid picks for other federal posts. Frankly, no President in memory, Reagan included, has done as well on that count, and given the Liberal strategy to ignore the will of the people by governing through courts, the significance of those choices cannot be overstated. The other issues, even where they are important and timely, are very small indeed next to these major issues. Those who now attack and mock the President after such accomplishments show a petty and disgraceful lack of honor, indeed.
Second, those who malign and attack the President do so in pursuit of a course which must inevitably damage the Republican Party and the Conservative Cause. While Republicans of late have been less than diligent in performance of their duties, only the greatest of fools could be persuaded that reducing Republican numbers in Congress or lessening the influence of President Bush could do anything but increase the power and influence of the Democrats, whose character and sinister intentions are well known. The whole example of History stands to warn against reducing the number of members who, if they do not wholly support the will of constituents, at the least do not do the damage that the Socialists of the Left would commit. Further, President Bush has plainly been a good and effective President, when he has the support of the electorate behind him. Where he has been steadfast and honest, for his support to dissipate because spokesmen and individuals of popular influence prefer their own whimsy to his leadership, then those narcissists who attack the President do also attack the nation, and their pride wounds the soul of America. There is no way to avoid this diagnosis.
And third, I should be willing to discuss my in-depth opinion of the President only in an environment where both sides move away from extremes. That is, there is no reason why I should admit to any disagreement with the President, where the other side would simply take that admission and use it as ammunition for yet another spiteful attack on the President. Also, there has been no sense of reciprocity; those within the Conservative Movement know full well, that President Bush has done a great deal of good, for the nation, the Republican Party, and for the Conservative Movement. America is clearly a better nation for his time in the Oval Office. Yet when they speak of him, it is always in complete derision and insult, with no measure of respect for what he has done. The man plainly has earned better, and I will not countenance the behavior which does not admit to the honors he has garnered through hard work, perseverance, and steadfast faith in God, his ideals, and his commitment. If you would find from me where I differ with George W. Bush, you must first reaffirm where you would commend him. Put away the hypocrisy of using the Left’s own weapons of slander and gossip, and return to those values which have identified Conservatives, if you wish me to regard you as a Conservative.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Late "24" Update
.
This Just In;
We have just received a strange message from a Chinese Shipping Boat somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.
The message, in it’s entirety, was :
“oh 胡扯, Bauer 逃脫了".
This Just In;
We have just received a strange message from a Chinese Shipping Boat somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.
The message, in it’s entirety, was :
“oh 胡扯, Bauer 逃脫了".
The Enemy Speaks
[[]]
One good thing about an Al Qaeda press release, is that you can analyze it to see what the enemy is thinking. These days, the same logic applies to the domestic enemy. In this case, I am writing about the Boston Globe, which published an interview with purported historian Morris Berman, along the now-familiar argument that when 9/11 happened, it was somehow not an atrocity committed by fanatical madmen, but actually a desperate response to American aggression. Utterly false and so offensive as to strain belief that it should be given credence by any national publication, this lie nonetheless has been pressed so often that it needs refutation once again.
To examine Berman’s screed in the full light of daylight, it seems to me best to begin by summarizing his main points from the interview. They are as follows (all cited claims are direct quotes from Berman):
• "Bush is essentially Wilsonianism or Trumanism with the sleeves rolled up."
1. Comparing sitting Presidents to past leaders is a common parlor game. And you may note that Berman does not bother to define his terms, when he speaks of ‘Wilsonianism’ and ‘Trumanism’. Instead, he simply throws them out together as implicit examples of evil American greed. Real Historians however, the kind who actually know about such individuals, would remind Berman, rather strongly, that the extant world environment each of those three men inherited is quite different from each other, and so comparing them so casually is not merely invalid, but so false as to be either deliberately deceitful or incredibly stupid. Wilson, for example, desperately wanted to keep the United States out of World War I, but events forced the issue, and a reluctant Woodrow Wilson submitted to an outraged public and Congress. As for Truman, he inherited a full-blown war in its final phases, and had to resolve the conflict to the best of his ability, in a job he neither wanted nor for which he had been properly briefed. The way in which George W. Bush is like those men, is that he, as they, did not desire war, but had the matter forced upon him, and he was compelled to address the crisis to the best of his ability. The fact that all three of these men were seeking peace but took up war only because there was no other sane recourse, rather proves the lie to Berman’s ‘Empire’ fantasy.
• "We feel that the world is at our disposal. And when other nations move to protect their resources, for example, we get enraged and interpret it as anti-Americanism."
2. Berman’s ‘other people’s resources’ shot is just a thinly veiled reference to the old ‘War for Oil’ fable, which is as false now as it ever was. Again, Berman makes no attempt at all to support his charge, but lets it hang as if it were a universally-accepted truth. The beauty of the lie is that it takes a lot to explain the true situation in the Middle East, but for here, I would remind the reader that in every contract or negotiation, the United States has always paid a fair market price, by mutual agreement, for everything purchased from any company or country with which we do business. The record shows the United States has a better track record for fair prices and compliance with contractual terms than any of its rivals on any continent.
• "By the late 1790s, virtue here was defined as success for yourself and your family in a competitive market."
3. Berman slanders every decent person in the United States, by his claim that ‘virtue’ here is defined in material terms. The millions of Americans who served in the military took real material losses to do so, but chose country and duty over profit. The thousands of charity workers who continually send out more food, clothing, medicine than the rest of the world combined do so for ideals better than anything Mr. Berman understands. Millions more Americans regularly participate in community and social projects which improve living conditions for the poor and homeless, provide hope for the unemployed and the disabled, and comfort for the lonely and sick in measures which Berman has managed to overlook only through deliberate blindness. That Berman could toss out such a blatantly false charge demonstrates only the meanness of his own cold hard soul.
• "We undertook, after all, to annex half of Mexico in the middle of the 19th century. That was hardly foisted on us; it was part of Manifest Destiny and a religious vision."
4. Berman, like many Socialists (for that is how his perspective reads to me), hopes to play on the poor knowledge of History by Americans, and so to place guilt where a better understanding would lead to Berman’s immediate rebuke. Mexico, to speak bluntly, wanted to become an empire in much the same fashion as the Spanish Empire they threw out. Corruption, Militarism, and a cruel Aristocracy were not only defining characteristics of Mexico under Santa Anna, but in large part continued in Mexico through the 20th Century. Berman makes the false submission that American foreign policy in the 19th Century must be judged in the light of 21st Century Nirvanism – the mythical presumption that America must be blamed for all ills, and that the solution is always American defeat. The concept of Manifest Destiny was not so much a government initiative, as a phrase used to describe the national mood of the day, and Berman ignores the clear advances which expanding the union brought; improved social order and services, a standardized education program and the closest thing to a universal standard of human rights known to the 19th Century. America circa 1890 compares well indeed to the rest of the world, if one considers the conditions found in 1890 Mexico, Canada, or any other country.
• "[F]rom the time of Truman until the present -- with one exception, Jimmy Carter -- nobody could become president unless they indicated that they were going to serve and expand the national security state."
5. The ‘National Security State’ canard plays on the fears of Liberals, especially Socialists. Berman is again deceitful, in that he ignores the very real threat from the Soviet Union, as if the KGB was not in fact pursuing ways to learn our secrets – Berman hopes that his readers have forgotten that the first Soviet atom bomb was developed early, because Soviet spies stole U.S. plans – and find holes in our defense. And now Berman hopes to deceive people into forgetting that there are governments firmly resolved to destroy the United States of America, if they can find a means to do so. Berman ignores the very careful balance used by President Bush, protecting civil rights while vigorously pursuing the defense of the nation.
• "Americans have trouble getting their minds around the fact that what happened on 9/11 was reactive rather than offensive. We had been doing certain things to the Arab and Islamic worlds for decades, and finally they decided they weren't going to take it anymore."
6. The notion that the 'Arab World' was just striking back on 9/11 is grossly insulting, especially to the Arab World. Berman is lying, front to back, to pretend so. The last 40 years, at the least, of American actions in the Middle East have been those of a nation which keeps its promises, which filled the security void brought about when Britain abrogated its agreements, especially with the Littoral States (look it up). Unlike many European and African powers, the U.S. has been constant in its positions and has honored its commitments. Berman, like many Socialists, hopes to sell the lie in order to hide the actual record of countries like Russia, France, and China in the region.
• "I say that there are two possible paths: One is that we decline rapidly; the other is that we decline gradually… By 2030, maybe a bit later, we'll be pretty much a second-rate power in the world."
7. Berman finally lets his mask slip a bit, when he admits that his view of the future is only loss and despair. Again he proves himself quite a fool by such a notion. Many men before have claimed that America’s best days were behind her; they have been and continue to be pathetically wrong. The strength of America is not her material wealth, though she owns that. The strength of America has not been her force of arms, though thank God for the men who take up the weapons when we are at need. The strength of America has always been the continuing blessing from God, made manifest in her leaders and armies in every aspect where we are challenged. Berman only shows his weakness, by pretending the challenge we face now is anything but of the moment.
• "What have we become, finally? A civilization dedicated to turning everything into a market."
8. The final point by Berman is no more than a feeble repeat of his failed claim, the braying of a despondent mule. I only need mention this, because too many people have taken to listening to mules for their advice and counsel. America needs better than mules and barking dogs for its information, which is why the Blogosphere is not merely a convenience, but an essential component of the century to come.
UPDATE: I edited the piece, moving claims and responses together point-by-point, because even I thought the first version was hard to read!
One good thing about an Al Qaeda press release, is that you can analyze it to see what the enemy is thinking. These days, the same logic applies to the domestic enemy. In this case, I am writing about the Boston Globe, which published an interview with purported historian Morris Berman, along the now-familiar argument that when 9/11 happened, it was somehow not an atrocity committed by fanatical madmen, but actually a desperate response to American aggression. Utterly false and so offensive as to strain belief that it should be given credence by any national publication, this lie nonetheless has been pressed so often that it needs refutation once again.
To examine Berman’s screed in the full light of daylight, it seems to me best to begin by summarizing his main points from the interview. They are as follows (all cited claims are direct quotes from Berman):
• "Bush is essentially Wilsonianism or Trumanism with the sleeves rolled up."
1. Comparing sitting Presidents to past leaders is a common parlor game. And you may note that Berman does not bother to define his terms, when he speaks of ‘Wilsonianism’ and ‘Trumanism’. Instead, he simply throws them out together as implicit examples of evil American greed. Real Historians however, the kind who actually know about such individuals, would remind Berman, rather strongly, that the extant world environment each of those three men inherited is quite different from each other, and so comparing them so casually is not merely invalid, but so false as to be either deliberately deceitful or incredibly stupid. Wilson, for example, desperately wanted to keep the United States out of World War I, but events forced the issue, and a reluctant Woodrow Wilson submitted to an outraged public and Congress. As for Truman, he inherited a full-blown war in its final phases, and had to resolve the conflict to the best of his ability, in a job he neither wanted nor for which he had been properly briefed. The way in which George W. Bush is like those men, is that he, as they, did not desire war, but had the matter forced upon him, and he was compelled to address the crisis to the best of his ability. The fact that all three of these men were seeking peace but took up war only because there was no other sane recourse, rather proves the lie to Berman’s ‘Empire’ fantasy.
• "We feel that the world is at our disposal. And when other nations move to protect their resources, for example, we get enraged and interpret it as anti-Americanism."
2. Berman’s ‘other people’s resources’ shot is just a thinly veiled reference to the old ‘War for Oil’ fable, which is as false now as it ever was. Again, Berman makes no attempt at all to support his charge, but lets it hang as if it were a universally-accepted truth. The beauty of the lie is that it takes a lot to explain the true situation in the Middle East, but for here, I would remind the reader that in every contract or negotiation, the United States has always paid a fair market price, by mutual agreement, for everything purchased from any company or country with which we do business. The record shows the United States has a better track record for fair prices and compliance with contractual terms than any of its rivals on any continent.
• "By the late 1790s, virtue here was defined as success for yourself and your family in a competitive market."
3. Berman slanders every decent person in the United States, by his claim that ‘virtue’ here is defined in material terms. The millions of Americans who served in the military took real material losses to do so, but chose country and duty over profit. The thousands of charity workers who continually send out more food, clothing, medicine than the rest of the world combined do so for ideals better than anything Mr. Berman understands. Millions more Americans regularly participate in community and social projects which improve living conditions for the poor and homeless, provide hope for the unemployed and the disabled, and comfort for the lonely and sick in measures which Berman has managed to overlook only through deliberate blindness. That Berman could toss out such a blatantly false charge demonstrates only the meanness of his own cold hard soul.
• "We undertook, after all, to annex half of Mexico in the middle of the 19th century. That was hardly foisted on us; it was part of Manifest Destiny and a religious vision."
4. Berman, like many Socialists (for that is how his perspective reads to me), hopes to play on the poor knowledge of History by Americans, and so to place guilt where a better understanding would lead to Berman’s immediate rebuke. Mexico, to speak bluntly, wanted to become an empire in much the same fashion as the Spanish Empire they threw out. Corruption, Militarism, and a cruel Aristocracy were not only defining characteristics of Mexico under Santa Anna, but in large part continued in Mexico through the 20th Century. Berman makes the false submission that American foreign policy in the 19th Century must be judged in the light of 21st Century Nirvanism – the mythical presumption that America must be blamed for all ills, and that the solution is always American defeat. The concept of Manifest Destiny was not so much a government initiative, as a phrase used to describe the national mood of the day, and Berman ignores the clear advances which expanding the union brought; improved social order and services, a standardized education program and the closest thing to a universal standard of human rights known to the 19th Century. America circa 1890 compares well indeed to the rest of the world, if one considers the conditions found in 1890 Mexico, Canada, or any other country.
• "[F]rom the time of Truman until the present -- with one exception, Jimmy Carter -- nobody could become president unless they indicated that they were going to serve and expand the national security state."
5. The ‘National Security State’ canard plays on the fears of Liberals, especially Socialists. Berman is again deceitful, in that he ignores the very real threat from the Soviet Union, as if the KGB was not in fact pursuing ways to learn our secrets – Berman hopes that his readers have forgotten that the first Soviet atom bomb was developed early, because Soviet spies stole U.S. plans – and find holes in our defense. And now Berman hopes to deceive people into forgetting that there are governments firmly resolved to destroy the United States of America, if they can find a means to do so. Berman ignores the very careful balance used by President Bush, protecting civil rights while vigorously pursuing the defense of the nation.
• "Americans have trouble getting their minds around the fact that what happened on 9/11 was reactive rather than offensive. We had been doing certain things to the Arab and Islamic worlds for decades, and finally they decided they weren't going to take it anymore."
6. The notion that the 'Arab World' was just striking back on 9/11 is grossly insulting, especially to the Arab World. Berman is lying, front to back, to pretend so. The last 40 years, at the least, of American actions in the Middle East have been those of a nation which keeps its promises, which filled the security void brought about when Britain abrogated its agreements, especially with the Littoral States (look it up). Unlike many European and African powers, the U.S. has been constant in its positions and has honored its commitments. Berman, like many Socialists, hopes to sell the lie in order to hide the actual record of countries like Russia, France, and China in the region.
• "I say that there are two possible paths: One is that we decline rapidly; the other is that we decline gradually… By 2030, maybe a bit later, we'll be pretty much a second-rate power in the world."
7. Berman finally lets his mask slip a bit, when he admits that his view of the future is only loss and despair. Again he proves himself quite a fool by such a notion. Many men before have claimed that America’s best days were behind her; they have been and continue to be pathetically wrong. The strength of America is not her material wealth, though she owns that. The strength of America has not been her force of arms, though thank God for the men who take up the weapons when we are at need. The strength of America has always been the continuing blessing from God, made manifest in her leaders and armies in every aspect where we are challenged. Berman only shows his weakness, by pretending the challenge we face now is anything but of the moment.
• "What have we become, finally? A civilization dedicated to turning everything into a market."
8. The final point by Berman is no more than a feeble repeat of his failed claim, the braying of a despondent mule. I only need mention this, because too many people have taken to listening to mules for their advice and counsel. America needs better than mules and barking dogs for its information, which is why the Blogosphere is not merely a convenience, but an essential component of the century to come.
UPDATE: I edited the piece, moving claims and responses together point-by-point, because even I thought the first version was hard to read!
Blogs I Read Every Day
.[].
I am in the process of updating my Blogroll. But in addition to that, people have asked me what blogs I read, and what I find interesting. I read quite a bit, and so I visit probably 30-40 blogs in a day, sometimes flitting through like a bee on its way to somewhere else, but other times I find an article compelling, and I read it with all the dedication I give to Scripture.
My first stop of the day varies a bit, but most of the time I head to Chris Muir’s cartoon, ‘Day By Day’. If Muir is not rich and famous for his work, it just proves the world is not just. We kind of already know that, but even so, Muir is amazingly witty and talented.
After that, I set my barometer by taking a look at Real Clear Politics. RCP is a good overview of the media, although I have to say it’s been less than impressive of late. Something about the recent Op-Eds just seems stale and dull, but hopefully that’s just because the MSM harps about the same old garbage.
After that, I am ready for a blog of the more regular sort, and for that I usually start at Betsy’s Page. Betsy Newmark does not write long pieces, but she’s very good at picking the significant articles of the day, and so she provides a guide for where to look in the Blogosphere.
After that, these days I check out something if Betsy’s Page points out something, but after that I head to Lorie Byrd, not only to see how she’s doing, but also because Lorie is simply fun to read. Makes my coffee taste better, to not grind my teeth while I’m sipping my caffeine.
Now, I have heard a lot about how people are never going back to Polipundit again. But I do, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I still consider the site owner a friend of mine, and I wish blessings on all my friends. Second, I admit to a certain morbid curiosity as to how the site is doing. And third, I have a more than sneaking suspicion that two of the regular commentors will start writing articles. It’s sort of happening now, with Poli posting articles sent by the commentors to him by e-mail. Hey, whatever works.
Obviously, I check in on A.K. McClure over at Redstate, and I will be visiting Wizbang! more often since Lorie will be there, though I have to say that something about that blog always bugged me, so for now they won’t be on the blogroll. That could change, if Lorie has the effect I hope.
I also like to visit Michael Yon’s site, “Micheal Yon: Online Magazine”, for the obvious reason that I prefer first-hand reports about the War in Iraq, to anything the overpaid nominal media has to offer.
For the same reason, I also regularly visit Bill Roggio’s “Fourth Rail”; Bill has done an amazing job on several levels, and his understanding of the strategic context of the region is required reading for anyone who wants to understand American Foreign Policy.
More later, but that’s how I start my mornings, and I recommend these sites to everyone.
I am in the process of updating my Blogroll. But in addition to that, people have asked me what blogs I read, and what I find interesting. I read quite a bit, and so I visit probably 30-40 blogs in a day, sometimes flitting through like a bee on its way to somewhere else, but other times I find an article compelling, and I read it with all the dedication I give to Scripture.
My first stop of the day varies a bit, but most of the time I head to Chris Muir’s cartoon, ‘Day By Day’. If Muir is not rich and famous for his work, it just proves the world is not just. We kind of already know that, but even so, Muir is amazingly witty and talented.
After that, I set my barometer by taking a look at Real Clear Politics. RCP is a good overview of the media, although I have to say it’s been less than impressive of late. Something about the recent Op-Eds just seems stale and dull, but hopefully that’s just because the MSM harps about the same old garbage.
After that, I am ready for a blog of the more regular sort, and for that I usually start at Betsy’s Page. Betsy Newmark does not write long pieces, but she’s very good at picking the significant articles of the day, and so she provides a guide for where to look in the Blogosphere.
After that, these days I check out something if Betsy’s Page points out something, but after that I head to Lorie Byrd, not only to see how she’s doing, but also because Lorie is simply fun to read. Makes my coffee taste better, to not grind my teeth while I’m sipping my caffeine.
Now, I have heard a lot about how people are never going back to Polipundit again. But I do, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I still consider the site owner a friend of mine, and I wish blessings on all my friends. Second, I admit to a certain morbid curiosity as to how the site is doing. And third, I have a more than sneaking suspicion that two of the regular commentors will start writing articles. It’s sort of happening now, with Poli posting articles sent by the commentors to him by e-mail. Hey, whatever works.
Obviously, I check in on A.K. McClure over at Redstate, and I will be visiting Wizbang! more often since Lorie will be there, though I have to say that something about that blog always bugged me, so for now they won’t be on the blogroll. That could change, if Lorie has the effect I hope.
I also like to visit Michael Yon’s site, “Micheal Yon: Online Magazine”, for the obvious reason that I prefer first-hand reports about the War in Iraq, to anything the overpaid nominal media has to offer.
For the same reason, I also regularly visit Bill Roggio’s “Fourth Rail”; Bill has done an amazing job on several levels, and his understanding of the strategic context of the region is required reading for anyone who wants to understand American Foreign Policy.
More later, but that’s how I start my mornings, and I recommend these sites to everyone.
I Chose My School
.~.
Readers who have read my work before, are aware that I am pursuing my Master of Business Administration degree. The question had always been, which school?
I have written at length on the importance of choosing a school which meets your individual needs, specifically here, here, and here. I also rated the best values for an Online, AACSB-accredited MBA school in the United States. The AACSB, for those unfamiliar with the AACSB, this stands for 'the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business', which is internationally recognized as the top tier for business schools.
So, after a long process of evaluating options and weighing the likely result of choices, I have elected to pursue my MBA at the University of Houston at Victoria.
Now, all I have to do is let Rice, Tulane, Gonzaga, and all the other schools which have swamped me with brochures and mailers know that I have made my choice.
Then I can start figuring out the specifics of what I will spend my first semester!
Readers who have read my work before, are aware that I am pursuing my Master of Business Administration degree. The question had always been, which school?
I have written at length on the importance of choosing a school which meets your individual needs, specifically here, here, and here. I also rated the best values for an Online, AACSB-accredited MBA school in the United States. The AACSB, for those unfamiliar with the AACSB, this stands for 'the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business', which is internationally recognized as the top tier for business schools.
So, after a long process of evaluating options and weighing the likely result of choices, I have elected to pursue my MBA at the University of Houston at Victoria.
Now, all I have to do is let Rice, Tulane, Gonzaga, and all the other schools which have swamped me with brochures and mailers know that I have made my choice.
Then I can start figuring out the specifics of what I will spend my first semester!
Monday, May 22, 2006
Thoughts On The Future
???
For those interested in how the five writers from Polipundit are doing as the first week since the PoliNova blew, a brief rundown:
Jayson Javitz: Closed his personal blog, “Political Vice Squad”, several months ago, and has no plans to re-open anytime soon. Jayson is teaching as well as running his own legal practice. He might be lured out to do a guest piece once in a while, but cannot say if and when that might happen.
Alexander McClure: Does not have a personal blog. Alexander joined Redstate last week, which pulls between 15,000 and 30,000 hits a day.
Polipundit: Has turned his group blog into a personal blog. Polipundit was pulling just over 15,000 hits a day when things got ugly; his pace since the 17th has been dropping a bit, and now averages around 8,000 a day.
Lorie Byrd: Her personal blog, “Lorie Byrd”, was pulling around 350 hits a day before the blow-up, but is now cruising at a steady 2,000 hits. Lorie has just announced she is joining Wizbang!, which presently averages a very nice 48,000 hits a day, but which will be likely to do even better with Lorie’s addition.
As for me, I am presently at a pace to average 600 hits a day, but that’s started to slow a bit, and may drop down to under 500 for a steady pace. Even so, it’s significantly better than I saw before the Big Boom, and I thank you all very much for that.
I do not know what my plans are, in terms of joining another blog. To be honest, I had hoped to talk the other writers into a new group blog, but that is not going to happen now.
One thing I will have to keep in mind, is to make sure it’s a good fit if I join up with someone else. One obvious need is compatibility with anyone I share space with, and in addition, since I will be starting my MBA studies this fall, that will also be likely to impact my blogging, if only in that I would be doing a lot more business-related articles. I have four priorities where blogging is concerned:
• It has to be authentic for me, not packaged because someone thinks ‘x’ is the flavor of the month;
• It has to be fun sometimes, and change the mood from time to time
• It cannot get in the way of my family
• It has to be good for blogging, good for Conservatives, and good for America
One thing you can count on – whatever I decide, I will be sure to let you know, and as always I respect and appreciate your comments.
For those interested in how the five writers from Polipundit are doing as the first week since the PoliNova blew, a brief rundown:
Jayson Javitz: Closed his personal blog, “Political Vice Squad”, several months ago, and has no plans to re-open anytime soon. Jayson is teaching as well as running his own legal practice. He might be lured out to do a guest piece once in a while, but cannot say if and when that might happen.
Alexander McClure: Does not have a personal blog. Alexander joined Redstate last week, which pulls between 15,000 and 30,000 hits a day.
Polipundit: Has turned his group blog into a personal blog. Polipundit was pulling just over 15,000 hits a day when things got ugly; his pace since the 17th has been dropping a bit, and now averages around 8,000 a day.
Lorie Byrd: Her personal blog, “Lorie Byrd”, was pulling around 350 hits a day before the blow-up, but is now cruising at a steady 2,000 hits. Lorie has just announced she is joining Wizbang!, which presently averages a very nice 48,000 hits a day, but which will be likely to do even better with Lorie’s addition.
As for me, I am presently at a pace to average 600 hits a day, but that’s started to slow a bit, and may drop down to under 500 for a steady pace. Even so, it’s significantly better than I saw before the Big Boom, and I thank you all very much for that.
I do not know what my plans are, in terms of joining another blog. To be honest, I had hoped to talk the other writers into a new group blog, but that is not going to happen now.
One thing I will have to keep in mind, is to make sure it’s a good fit if I join up with someone else. One obvious need is compatibility with anyone I share space with, and in addition, since I will be starting my MBA studies this fall, that will also be likely to impact my blogging, if only in that I would be doing a lot more business-related articles. I have four priorities where blogging is concerned:
• It has to be authentic for me, not packaged because someone thinks ‘x’ is the flavor of the month;
• It has to be fun sometimes, and change the mood from time to time
• It cannot get in the way of my family
• It has to be good for blogging, good for Conservatives, and good for America
One thing you can count on – whatever I decide, I will be sure to let you know, and as always I respect and appreciate your comments.
Template Weirdness
[]
One thing I have to admit right away; I am not real good in technical issues, which means that as I try to improve the layout of my blog and increase my blogroll to include everyone who deserves to be there, that the appearance of the place may look a bit strange at times.
Hopefully, i will get the hang of things in a bit. Until then, please excuse the decor.
One thing I have to admit right away; I am not real good in technical issues, which means that as I try to improve the layout of my blog and increase my blogroll to include everyone who deserves to be there, that the appearance of the place may look a bit strange at times.
Hopefully, i will get the hang of things in a bit. Until then, please excuse the decor.
Terra Firma
*******
******
The people who hate Dubya have really been noisy of late. One thing which has followed me over here from my old blogplace, is the habit of some who dwell on only one issue, who now find it impossible to reconcile my support for the President with some common-sense statements I have made on their pet issue.
Now I have mentioned before, that my perspective on George W. Bush is colored by the fact that I know the man, and his family; he simply does not lie, nor does he make promises unless he does his level best to keep them. Anyone who knows his mother Barbara, frankly, would expect no less. But even if you just judge the man by his public record, his positions on major issues have been long known, and he has been faithful to his promise for a very long time.
This is not to say that a Republican or Conservative may not disagree on a given issue or plan of action. I certainly differ from President Bush on certain items. That said, I have no taste for those whose difference on an issue is taken as license to defame the man. On the issue which has taken the extremists’ attention the most over the past month, the President’s policies and initiatives have been consistent and reasonable, yet many have claimed he was somehow “lying”. Presented with evidence that the President has not lied but has been consistent all along, they react by calling their opponents names. And this is the problem which plagues the condition for the Fall elections.
The facts are these; throughout the history of the Republican Party, the GOP has always represented reform, relative to the Democrats. And from time to time, parts of the GOP have chosen to “punish” the party for not falling in line with extremist demands, ‘extremist’ being defined not as a position with which I disagree, but single issues on which those persons demand complete control and obedience, threatening boycott or defection if their terms are not met. The technical term is ‘extortion’, and it has no place in Conservative politics. In historical context, such behavior has, without exception, resulted in weaker Republican control and influence, and since the Democrats in no way support Conservative interests, such actions inevitably worsen conditions from the perspective of any rational Conservative. Or to put it bluntly, if anyone is lying, it is the person who tries to claim that refusing to support Republicans is anything but supporting the possibility of Democrat control of Congress – after all, refusing to support Republicans increases the chances of Democrats winning, and increasing the chances of Democrats winning this fall can only increase their chance of taking over control of one or both chambers of Congress. The extremists have tried to deny this, but it’s really simple math.
The extremists also ignore a critical point in the nature of national politics; no one measures a political party by support for a Senator or Congressmen. We do not think of the 1990s as the “Foley Era”, or the 1980s as the “Tip O’Neill Years”. No, history always treats time segments by the President in office at the time, and again without exception, things work when the party in power supports the President, and they fall apart whenever the party refuses to support the elected leader of the Free World. As someone has mentioned, elections have consequences, and this is never more true than when we discuss the President of the United States. Liberals would love to pretend that George W. Bush does not have a mandate because he was elected, but the truth is, he does in fact have just such a mandate. This is why the people who have succeeded in trashing his Job Approval ratings by refusing to stand with him, have poisoned their own numbers even more so. And people who make the choice to publicly attack the President when he is from their own party, do not generally do well in their re-election bids.
And finally, if the man’s proven character, the need for Republicans to support the President in order to advance Conservative agenda, and the desirability of simply being honest about him are not enough, I would remind the audience that President George W. Bush is personally and directly responsible for policies which resulted in the end of Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq, replete as it was with prisons and torture rooms, even for children. It was President George W. Bush who ignored the pee-their-pants posturing of the media and sent troops in to remove the Taliban from control of Afghanistan. It was President George W. Bush who calmed the nation after 9/11, and who reminded the world that America was in a war against Terrorism, not Islam. And yes, it was President George W. Bush, who proposed tax cuts long overdue for Americans, which effect spurred the economy back into motion, and who had the courage to propose reform for Social Security. And yes, it was George W. Bush whose judicial nominations have been solidly founded on a philosophy opposed to Judicial Activism, and in support of Constitutional compliance.
I know where I stand, and why. And my ideals require me to support the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
******
The people who hate Dubya have really been noisy of late. One thing which has followed me over here from my old blogplace, is the habit of some who dwell on only one issue, who now find it impossible to reconcile my support for the President with some common-sense statements I have made on their pet issue.
Now I have mentioned before, that my perspective on George W. Bush is colored by the fact that I know the man, and his family; he simply does not lie, nor does he make promises unless he does his level best to keep them. Anyone who knows his mother Barbara, frankly, would expect no less. But even if you just judge the man by his public record, his positions on major issues have been long known, and he has been faithful to his promise for a very long time.
This is not to say that a Republican or Conservative may not disagree on a given issue or plan of action. I certainly differ from President Bush on certain items. That said, I have no taste for those whose difference on an issue is taken as license to defame the man. On the issue which has taken the extremists’ attention the most over the past month, the President’s policies and initiatives have been consistent and reasonable, yet many have claimed he was somehow “lying”. Presented with evidence that the President has not lied but has been consistent all along, they react by calling their opponents names. And this is the problem which plagues the condition for the Fall elections.
The facts are these; throughout the history of the Republican Party, the GOP has always represented reform, relative to the Democrats. And from time to time, parts of the GOP have chosen to “punish” the party for not falling in line with extremist demands, ‘extremist’ being defined not as a position with which I disagree, but single issues on which those persons demand complete control and obedience, threatening boycott or defection if their terms are not met. The technical term is ‘extortion’, and it has no place in Conservative politics. In historical context, such behavior has, without exception, resulted in weaker Republican control and influence, and since the Democrats in no way support Conservative interests, such actions inevitably worsen conditions from the perspective of any rational Conservative. Or to put it bluntly, if anyone is lying, it is the person who tries to claim that refusing to support Republicans is anything but supporting the possibility of Democrat control of Congress – after all, refusing to support Republicans increases the chances of Democrats winning, and increasing the chances of Democrats winning this fall can only increase their chance of taking over control of one or both chambers of Congress. The extremists have tried to deny this, but it’s really simple math.
The extremists also ignore a critical point in the nature of national politics; no one measures a political party by support for a Senator or Congressmen. We do not think of the 1990s as the “Foley Era”, or the 1980s as the “Tip O’Neill Years”. No, history always treats time segments by the President in office at the time, and again without exception, things work when the party in power supports the President, and they fall apart whenever the party refuses to support the elected leader of the Free World. As someone has mentioned, elections have consequences, and this is never more true than when we discuss the President of the United States. Liberals would love to pretend that George W. Bush does not have a mandate because he was elected, but the truth is, he does in fact have just such a mandate. This is why the people who have succeeded in trashing his Job Approval ratings by refusing to stand with him, have poisoned their own numbers even more so. And people who make the choice to publicly attack the President when he is from their own party, do not generally do well in their re-election bids.
And finally, if the man’s proven character, the need for Republicans to support the President in order to advance Conservative agenda, and the desirability of simply being honest about him are not enough, I would remind the audience that President George W. Bush is personally and directly responsible for policies which resulted in the end of Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq, replete as it was with prisons and torture rooms, even for children. It was President George W. Bush who ignored the pee-their-pants posturing of the media and sent troops in to remove the Taliban from control of Afghanistan. It was President George W. Bush who calmed the nation after 9/11, and who reminded the world that America was in a war against Terrorism, not Islam. And yes, it was President George W. Bush, who proposed tax cuts long overdue for Americans, which effect spurred the economy back into motion, and who had the courage to propose reform for Social Security. And yes, it was George W. Bush whose judicial nominations have been solidly founded on a philosophy opposed to Judicial Activism, and in support of Constitutional compliance.
I know where I stand, and why. And my ideals require me to support the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
Axis Of Evil 2006 - Iran, North Korea, and ... Kroger?
--
I try to be a nice guy most of the time, but one thing I really do not like, and have frankly no patience for, is organized lying. Oh, I get it that a lot of people lie for a long range of reasons and habits, and sometimes it’s just a dumb thing people start doing for no good reason, like the guy who could tell a story about what happened to him one day, and he turns it into a grand adventure. I’m not talking about those kinds of untruths, especially when the speaker/writer makes it clear he is not presenting his tale as fact. I’m talking about people who make dishonesty an integral part of their way of doing things, whether one means the ‘nuclear material enrichment for peaceful purposes only’ excuse in Iran, the ‘we’re not really assisting terrorist groups, we just happen to be talking with a few men who happen to belong to such groups’ canard out of Pyongyang, or the ‘Sorry, we just happen to not that advertised item in stock ... again’ line from Kroger.
All right, all right, I am not seriously suggesting that the deceptive advertising practices at Kroger are really comparable to acts of state which endanger the lives of millions of innocents. But it gets under my skin, anyway. You see, one thing I love about America is the success of its businesses, but an amazing number of them are, well, very badly run. Just take a hard look sometime at the operations protocols at your own place of employment, and I bet many of you will notice a few illogical moves. And one strong example of near-ubiqutous moronics in practice would have to be grocery stores.
To my mind, and I admit that I may refine my opinion when I have the schooling to reconsider it from a deeper perspective, a business needs to have one or more of three things in order to succeed:
1. Low price, relative to other area merchants of the same or similar products;
2. Convenience, in terms of meeting a broad range of needs or desired items, fast service, or in some other way offering a time and effort savings relative to other area merchants;
3. Unique quality or product, the offer of something simply unavailable from other area merchants.
That really should be obvious. Looking at the flyers in any local newspaper or mail-outs, the attempt by so many grocery chains to claim low price is obvious, but the pursuit of elements 2 and 3 is all but ignored. Sure, the commercials make the stores look convenient and high-quality, but there’s not much real effort made to actually meet those standards in real life. Some years back, the Randalls’ chain here in Houston made a strong effort to do a great job at service, but they had higher prices than their competition, and the experiment was junked by new owners. Now, they still have notably higher prices, but distinctly poorer service. Other stores have had their heyday, but as a chain none really stands out. The HEB chain once seemed poised to grab significant market share, but they got spend-happy with building a bunch of SuperStores, which resulted only in more crowded parking lots, longer lines, and naturally, higher prices.
I could go on about the sector of retail grocery stores, but for this article, I wanted to make clear that in my choice for spending money, the wife and I simply pay attention to the ads, and buy what’s on sale. We are not impressed with ‘offer valid only with minimum purchase’, by the way - the idiot who thought that up is clueless about the priorities of the shoppers I know. There happens to be a Kroger store just down the street from where I live, so they would seem to own the ‘convenience’ trump card. They have, however, shredded that card, through the practice of advertising and inventory supply so shoddy as to seem to be deliberate lying.
Popsicles. My daughter loves popsicles. And the ad in the paper showed a 10 boxes for $10 offer for the red-white-blue “Firecracker” popsicles of the ‘Popsicle’ brand. Simple enough, eh? But they did not have them at the store which is down from my house. Nor was this the first time that has happened. Or the second. By my count, this is the fourth consecutive time that I have gone to that Kroger store to buy a specific advertsied item, only to find that it was not available. So, since I had promised my daughter we would get those popsicles for er, we went to another Kroger store, about 6 miles further away (so much for ‘convenience’). I should have known what to expect, as I had encountered the same failure to supply the advertised product three times in a row there, as well.
So, it was annoying but not surprising when I could not find the advertsied popsicles at that store, either. The closest red-white-blue popsicles availabe were ‘Bombpops’, at $2.99, basically three times the price, plus the gas for having to go to two stores.
When I went to checkout, I asked the clerk for the manager. She got what turned out to be another clerk, who heard me out and then went to get the real manager on duty - supervisory tip; if you are in a position where you are likely to have to deal with customer comments or complaints, it is simply poor customer service and bad tactics to have the customer speak to any extraneous level of interference. In retrospect, I find it telling that the manager was actually on the floor, passing the clerk’s aisle at the moment when I asked to speak to the manager - she turned and looked at me, then kept walking away - which tells me now that from the beginning, this manager was far mroe intent on ignoring the problem rather than in addressing it.
To shorten the story just a little bit, I got my $2.99 back for the ‘Bombpops’ and was charged $1.00 for a single pack of ‘Firecrackers’ the manager managed to send someone to find somewhere in the back freezer.
No apology not having an advertsied product on the shelves.
No apology for a pattern of such poor inventory.
No apology for her go-to-hell attitude, when a customer needed her to do her job.
You get the idea. I should mention that in the eight collected times where I found the advertsied product not to be on the shelves, I stopped asking after the fourth or fifth time for a clerk to look in the back - they never actually had any in the back (though I could be sure to get the requisite slacker eye-roll for getting them to look), so today was a first of sorts. I received four ‘rain checks’, two of which were honored when the product arrived weeks later, and two which expired before the product ever came in. And contrary to what Kroger will promise, trying to get a rain check renewed is a lost cause. The other four times I was refused a rain check. For the record, Kroger does not encourage customers to complain. It seems to me that the manager with whom I spoke is very much in line with the Kroger Philosophy - ignore complaints and they will go away. Actually, from the smaller share of customers I seem to see there, it would seem more like 'ignore your customers, and they will go away'. And I certainly shall be going to other stores. There is, after all, no sense in spending time and effort to go to a store which won’t bother to carry the items they advertise.
I am not saying anyone else should botcott Kroger; if you find the service and selection good at a Kroger’s near you, why should you punish that location? But it sure seems to me, that one problem we have here which should be addressed, whether at grocery stores or in politics, is that far too many people are willing to promise something they have no intention of providing. That is stupid and wrong, to put it bluntly, but it is a lesson which has yet to be learned.
I try to be a nice guy most of the time, but one thing I really do not like, and have frankly no patience for, is organized lying. Oh, I get it that a lot of people lie for a long range of reasons and habits, and sometimes it’s just a dumb thing people start doing for no good reason, like the guy who could tell a story about what happened to him one day, and he turns it into a grand adventure. I’m not talking about those kinds of untruths, especially when the speaker/writer makes it clear he is not presenting his tale as fact. I’m talking about people who make dishonesty an integral part of their way of doing things, whether one means the ‘nuclear material enrichment for peaceful purposes only’ excuse in Iran, the ‘we’re not really assisting terrorist groups, we just happen to be talking with a few men who happen to belong to such groups’ canard out of Pyongyang, or the ‘Sorry, we just happen to not that advertised item in stock ... again’ line from Kroger.
All right, all right, I am not seriously suggesting that the deceptive advertising practices at Kroger are really comparable to acts of state which endanger the lives of millions of innocents. But it gets under my skin, anyway. You see, one thing I love about America is the success of its businesses, but an amazing number of them are, well, very badly run. Just take a hard look sometime at the operations protocols at your own place of employment, and I bet many of you will notice a few illogical moves. And one strong example of near-ubiqutous moronics in practice would have to be grocery stores.
To my mind, and I admit that I may refine my opinion when I have the schooling to reconsider it from a deeper perspective, a business needs to have one or more of three things in order to succeed:
1. Low price, relative to other area merchants of the same or similar products;
2. Convenience, in terms of meeting a broad range of needs or desired items, fast service, or in some other way offering a time and effort savings relative to other area merchants;
3. Unique quality or product, the offer of something simply unavailable from other area merchants.
That really should be obvious. Looking at the flyers in any local newspaper or mail-outs, the attempt by so many grocery chains to claim low price is obvious, but the pursuit of elements 2 and 3 is all but ignored. Sure, the commercials make the stores look convenient and high-quality, but there’s not much real effort made to actually meet those standards in real life. Some years back, the Randalls’ chain here in Houston made a strong effort to do a great job at service, but they had higher prices than their competition, and the experiment was junked by new owners. Now, they still have notably higher prices, but distinctly poorer service. Other stores have had their heyday, but as a chain none really stands out. The HEB chain once seemed poised to grab significant market share, but they got spend-happy with building a bunch of SuperStores, which resulted only in more crowded parking lots, longer lines, and naturally, higher prices.
I could go on about the sector of retail grocery stores, but for this article, I wanted to make clear that in my choice for spending money, the wife and I simply pay attention to the ads, and buy what’s on sale. We are not impressed with ‘offer valid only with minimum purchase’, by the way - the idiot who thought that up is clueless about the priorities of the shoppers I know. There happens to be a Kroger store just down the street from where I live, so they would seem to own the ‘convenience’ trump card. They have, however, shredded that card, through the practice of advertising and inventory supply so shoddy as to seem to be deliberate lying.
Popsicles. My daughter loves popsicles. And the ad in the paper showed a 10 boxes for $10 offer for the red-white-blue “Firecracker” popsicles of the ‘Popsicle’ brand. Simple enough, eh? But they did not have them at the store which is down from my house. Nor was this the first time that has happened. Or the second. By my count, this is the fourth consecutive time that I have gone to that Kroger store to buy a specific advertsied item, only to find that it was not available. So, since I had promised my daughter we would get those popsicles for er, we went to another Kroger store, about 6 miles further away (so much for ‘convenience’). I should have known what to expect, as I had encountered the same failure to supply the advertised product three times in a row there, as well.
So, it was annoying but not surprising when I could not find the advertsied popsicles at that store, either. The closest red-white-blue popsicles availabe were ‘Bombpops’, at $2.99, basically three times the price, plus the gas for having to go to two stores.
When I went to checkout, I asked the clerk for the manager. She got what turned out to be another clerk, who heard me out and then went to get the real manager on duty - supervisory tip; if you are in a position where you are likely to have to deal with customer comments or complaints, it is simply poor customer service and bad tactics to have the customer speak to any extraneous level of interference. In retrospect, I find it telling that the manager was actually on the floor, passing the clerk’s aisle at the moment when I asked to speak to the manager - she turned and looked at me, then kept walking away - which tells me now that from the beginning, this manager was far mroe intent on ignoring the problem rather than in addressing it.
To shorten the story just a little bit, I got my $2.99 back for the ‘Bombpops’ and was charged $1.00 for a single pack of ‘Firecrackers’ the manager managed to send someone to find somewhere in the back freezer.
No apology not having an advertsied product on the shelves.
No apology for a pattern of such poor inventory.
No apology for her go-to-hell attitude, when a customer needed her to do her job.
You get the idea. I should mention that in the eight collected times where I found the advertsied product not to be on the shelves, I stopped asking after the fourth or fifth time for a clerk to look in the back - they never actually had any in the back (though I could be sure to get the requisite slacker eye-roll for getting them to look), so today was a first of sorts. I received four ‘rain checks’, two of which were honored when the product arrived weeks later, and two which expired before the product ever came in. And contrary to what Kroger will promise, trying to get a rain check renewed is a lost cause. The other four times I was refused a rain check. For the record, Kroger does not encourage customers to complain. It seems to me that the manager with whom I spoke is very much in line with the Kroger Philosophy - ignore complaints and they will go away. Actually, from the smaller share of customers I seem to see there, it would seem more like 'ignore your customers, and they will go away'. And I certainly shall be going to other stores. There is, after all, no sense in spending time and effort to go to a store which won’t bother to carry the items they advertise.
I am not saying anyone else should botcott Kroger; if you find the service and selection good at a Kroger’s near you, why should you punish that location? But it sure seems to me, that one problem we have here which should be addressed, whether at grocery stores or in politics, is that far too many people are willing to promise something they have no intention of providing. That is stupid and wrong, to put it bluntly, but it is a lesson which has yet to be learned.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Remembering, and Standing
[]-[]
Bruce Kessler wrote an article Friday over at Democracy Project, which mentioned the possibility, however slight, of the need to flee the country because of a repressive pogrom. Bruce wrote this because of two causes. First, his family’s heritage as survivors of the Nazi purge; the Kesslers were able to flee Europe before the madness cost them their lives. The other cause is the news out of Iran that non-Muslims might be required to wear special identification, for easy identification and possibly for special “attention” by the Jihadist regime.
Bruce’s article is poignant, in that it reminds us of a failure by America to respond to a threat until literally millions of innocents had been tortured, robbed, enslaved and finally murdered. It also reminds me of my own heritage, and the price my ancestors paid for my family’s freedom.
Centuries ago, my ancestors ran amok in the highlands of Scotland. Some of them went on to nobility, but most of us just muddled through as best we could, usually by way of raising sheep and farming whatever the sullen, sodden rockscape would give up.
Then for some blasted reason, the English decided that our moss-covered rockland would be a nice addition to their Empire, and they sent a large number of armed men to press their claim. I’m not sure on the details, about why we could defend ourselves against Roman legions but not British adventurers, but in sum we lost our sovereignty and our lands. After some time the British began to make different use of the land, finding it less to their liking to graze sheep and farm vegetables, and so we were forced off the lands we had worked for generations. Forced in the ‘leave or we will kill you’ manner. A great many of my ancestors fought the British, first when they stole our country, then again when they stole our homes and fields. This is one reason why my family tree became so thin – the bloody British were only too happy to kill a Scot with the temerity to demand his rights. Kind of explains why so many people still celebrate ‘Guy Fawkes Day’ …
So we made our way to take residence in the towns and villages which would have us, but the British managed to screw up the food supply so bad that they started what has become known as the Potato Famine. That forced many Scots to find places on ships to America, the only haven available; the rest of Europe sure did not want us. And so my ancestors came here, destitute and starving, and in serious debt to the men who brought us over. Most of us spent years paying for the trip, but never you mind, we were glad indeed to find a country where we could hope to live without a threat against our lives and family.
I understand where President Bush started on that ‘jobs Americans will not do’ line. Time was, when the Scots and the Irish did those jobs. Janitors, yardsmen, firemen and policemen of course – back in the 1800s, there was no pleasure in wearing a badge. The citizens didn’t trust you, the city cheated you, the gangs hunted you, and your own family asked why you couldn’t do better. And the firemen just died young; they had no protection against the heat, smoke, or collapsing buildings, and there was no pension to speak of for a fireman or for a policemen. We were just ‘Micks’ after all, and no one could even tell the difference between a Scot and an Irishman, anyway. We were just people to ignore.
Then came the Civil War, and my rebuilt family took it upon themselves to answer the call. Some people argue that the War Between the States was never so much about Slavery, but you’d never know it from the Drummonds’ response. As good Anabaptists, they hated Slavery with every fiber of their being, and they regarded the United States as a nation brought up by the very will of God, and so to secede was to commit an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
So all the young men of my family went and enlisted. Most of them died, and the ones which did not came back to a family destitute all over again; the war was not kind to a common man’s family. And that brings me almost current, enough to speak of my own perspective on a people, on the right to come to a nation and hope for security, and the community of honor which a person joins not by birth, but by the decision to hold ideals above convenience, truth above sound bites, and hope above politics. Be you what race, what sex, what culture you may know, if you come to join us and do your part you are welcome and we are glad to see you. If you come to steal, we will protect against you. If you come to kill us or ours, we will strike you down. We are a nation of laws, not men.
I am not a Jew, but I will defend them. I am not a Muslim, yet I shall defend them also. I am not a Catholic, but again I will defend them against anyone who thinks that freedom is a thing which only belongs to some, or that shouts and demands will cow us into becoming as petty and small as those nations which have yet to come into the light. Britain, that nation which once thought it good to destroy its inconvenient subjects, is now our closest friend, and other nations have done the same. The world changes, and so there is hope. But old evils are still to be fought, and for the sake of the Kesslers, the Drummonds, and a thousand thousand other families which have paid so dearly for their own rights already, I will remain vigilant, and commend my children do the same in their turn. For I am, by the grace of God, American, and that is no small thing.
Bruce Kessler wrote an article Friday over at Democracy Project, which mentioned the possibility, however slight, of the need to flee the country because of a repressive pogrom. Bruce wrote this because of two causes. First, his family’s heritage as survivors of the Nazi purge; the Kesslers were able to flee Europe before the madness cost them their lives. The other cause is the news out of Iran that non-Muslims might be required to wear special identification, for easy identification and possibly for special “attention” by the Jihadist regime.
Bruce’s article is poignant, in that it reminds us of a failure by America to respond to a threat until literally millions of innocents had been tortured, robbed, enslaved and finally murdered. It also reminds me of my own heritage, and the price my ancestors paid for my family’s freedom.
Centuries ago, my ancestors ran amok in the highlands of Scotland. Some of them went on to nobility, but most of us just muddled through as best we could, usually by way of raising sheep and farming whatever the sullen, sodden rockscape would give up.
Then for some blasted reason, the English decided that our moss-covered rockland would be a nice addition to their Empire, and they sent a large number of armed men to press their claim. I’m not sure on the details, about why we could defend ourselves against Roman legions but not British adventurers, but in sum we lost our sovereignty and our lands. After some time the British began to make different use of the land, finding it less to their liking to graze sheep and farm vegetables, and so we were forced off the lands we had worked for generations. Forced in the ‘leave or we will kill you’ manner. A great many of my ancestors fought the British, first when they stole our country, then again when they stole our homes and fields. This is one reason why my family tree became so thin – the bloody British were only too happy to kill a Scot with the temerity to demand his rights. Kind of explains why so many people still celebrate ‘Guy Fawkes Day’ …
So we made our way to take residence in the towns and villages which would have us, but the British managed to screw up the food supply so bad that they started what has become known as the Potato Famine. That forced many Scots to find places on ships to America, the only haven available; the rest of Europe sure did not want us. And so my ancestors came here, destitute and starving, and in serious debt to the men who brought us over. Most of us spent years paying for the trip, but never you mind, we were glad indeed to find a country where we could hope to live without a threat against our lives and family.
I understand where President Bush started on that ‘jobs Americans will not do’ line. Time was, when the Scots and the Irish did those jobs. Janitors, yardsmen, firemen and policemen of course – back in the 1800s, there was no pleasure in wearing a badge. The citizens didn’t trust you, the city cheated you, the gangs hunted you, and your own family asked why you couldn’t do better. And the firemen just died young; they had no protection against the heat, smoke, or collapsing buildings, and there was no pension to speak of for a fireman or for a policemen. We were just ‘Micks’ after all, and no one could even tell the difference between a Scot and an Irishman, anyway. We were just people to ignore.
Then came the Civil War, and my rebuilt family took it upon themselves to answer the call. Some people argue that the War Between the States was never so much about Slavery, but you’d never know it from the Drummonds’ response. As good Anabaptists, they hated Slavery with every fiber of their being, and they regarded the United States as a nation brought up by the very will of God, and so to secede was to commit an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
So all the young men of my family went and enlisted. Most of them died, and the ones which did not came back to a family destitute all over again; the war was not kind to a common man’s family. And that brings me almost current, enough to speak of my own perspective on a people, on the right to come to a nation and hope for security, and the community of honor which a person joins not by birth, but by the decision to hold ideals above convenience, truth above sound bites, and hope above politics. Be you what race, what sex, what culture you may know, if you come to join us and do your part you are welcome and we are glad to see you. If you come to steal, we will protect against you. If you come to kill us or ours, we will strike you down. We are a nation of laws, not men.
I am not a Jew, but I will defend them. I am not a Muslim, yet I shall defend them also. I am not a Catholic, but again I will defend them against anyone who thinks that freedom is a thing which only belongs to some, or that shouts and demands will cow us into becoming as petty and small as those nations which have yet to come into the light. Britain, that nation which once thought it good to destroy its inconvenient subjects, is now our closest friend, and other nations have done the same. The world changes, and so there is hope. But old evils are still to be fought, and for the sake of the Kesslers, the Drummonds, and a thousand thousand other families which have paid so dearly for their own rights already, I will remain vigilant, and commend my children do the same in their turn. For I am, by the grace of God, American, and that is no small thing.
Greetings RWN Readers
. .
Well, it took me a couple days to remember, but I want to thank John Hawkins at Right Wing News (linked at ST since 2004) for the plug on the 19th.
I may be forgetful, but I'm slow ...
Well, it took me a couple days to remember, but I want to thank John Hawkins at Right Wing News (linked at ST since 2004) for the plug on the 19th.
I may be forgetful, but I'm slow ...
Another Difference Between Men and Women
...
I was getting coffee earlier this week, and on the TV some folks were watching this woman explain how she had been "abducted by aliens for several hours" one night.
And it occurred to me:
If a woman is gone all night, and when she returns she says to her husband or boyfriend that she was abducted by aliens, you can expect the man to be sympathetic, and at least to hear her out.
If a man is gone all night, and when he returns he says to his wife or girlfriend that he was abducted by aliens, you can expect the man to get physically attacked twice. Once for being gone all night, and the second time for not having a better excuse!
I was getting coffee earlier this week, and on the TV some folks were watching this woman explain how she had been "abducted by aliens for several hours" one night.
And it occurred to me:
If a woman is gone all night, and when she returns she says to her husband or boyfriend that she was abducted by aliens, you can expect the man to be sympathetic, and at least to hear her out.
If a man is gone all night, and when he returns he says to his wife or girlfriend that he was abducted by aliens, you can expect the man to get physically attacked twice. Once for being gone all night, and the second time for not having a better excuse!
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Madmen Compared
[CN]
Once upon a time, there was this crazy man, liked to say all sorts of outrageous things. Didn’t like Jews much, either. Problem is, this guy was the head of his country, and so his rants could be said to represent the national policy, and there was also the problem of a pretty big army he was getting together, although he assured everyone that he was a peace-loving guy, not a threat to anyone. Oh yes, there’s a lot of similarity between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler, though there are many people quick to say we shouldn’t make that connection. But as I am sometimes slow to take my cue from the elite, I continue in my comparison:
Both men came to power on a theory of returning their nation to power through a fascist policy regarding force and law. Both men found it convenient to blame everything on Western powers and on the Jewish minority in their country/region. Both had a real jones for getting a nuclear weapon. Both saw their own country in increasingly unrealistic terms, moving from a desire for regional respect, to a thirst for hegemony, to the notion that they counld influence the world, if not control a large chunk of it. And both men found the world in general amazingly compliant with their demands, as if timidity would bring something better than disaster.
There are also differences between the men and their countries, of course. For one thing, Hitler came to power at a time when the last great war told a warning against war without caution. And there was no one like Hitler in a long time, whose malice had been so clear as to warn against even talking to him; it must have seemed to England and France that there was no downside to simply talking with the man, and ample reason to believe in the strength of the Maginot Line and the victory from World War One. These days, we should have learned enough from the Nazis to watch out for their brood, and to judge a leader by his actions, and not just his assurances.
Further, Hitler realized too late the potential of the atom bomb, while Ahmadinejad has always considered nuclear weapons his trump card to regional hegemony. But again there is a similarity; when Hitler finally decided to pursue nuclear weapons, he had no specific idea as to how they would win the war for him; like Ahmadinejad now, he simply believed that having them would make all the difference.
Now, I have addressed the tactics of Mr. Ahmadinejad before, with a suggestion or two about what I might do if I were sitting in the Oval Office. I have also written about the character of national ambitions in the Middle East; Iran has long thought of itself as the rightful leader of the whole Middle East, whether one means Ahmadinejad today, the Ayatollah Khomeini a couple decades ago, or the Shah Rezi Pahlavi before him. So when we talk about Ahmadinejad, it’s important to understand that some of this is the usual Iranian bluster which has proceeded forth from ‘Persia’ ever since it began to regain the illusion of past glories (past, as in pre-Alexander the Great). When one considers the actual readiness of Iran’s military to fight a significant conflict against a first-world opponent, the math proves the comparison a clear mis-match, clear enough that no Iranian general would advocate such a war. The significance is that this means that Ahmadinejad is speaking from a religious and political stance. Such a position hardly makes the threat impotent, but it does mean that options in response would reasonably include interfering with choke points in Iran’s R&D development, quiet meetings with selected military officials to remind them of American capability and probable responses, and naturally the encouragement of insurrection by disenchanted Iranian youth; the same use of the “street” which helped to drive out the Shah, can be pursued to drive out the Jihad Junta in Teheran; it is not commonly understood in the West, that for a number of reasons, partly cultural but largely economic, Iran’s population is strongly pro-American, to such a degree that if a competent and charismatic leader could be found among the youth in Iran, the government would find itself ousted in short order, whether or not they agreed to a vote on the matter. More than a few people who have been to Iran during the period following the fall of Baghdad, report people in the street asking why the U.S. stopped with Iraq; the sentiment among Iranian citizens is eerily like the sentiment of many Iraqis in 1991, and so there is a unique opportunity there, though direct military conflict initiated by America represents an unreasonable risk. In 1938, it seemed a lot of Europeans were simply watching to see what Britain would do, and when Chamberlain chose appeasement, the rest of Europe lost hope. Now we see again, where the Middle East and the world wait to see, not what the U.N. or some regional country does, but what America does, and heavy stakes ride on the decision.
In conclusion, Iran is not much like Germany. Iran does not own the same military tradition as Germany, nor the same quality academies and theoreticians, nor the same quality armament developers and strategists, nor the same popualtion devoted to national pride. Make no mistake, Iranians love their country, but they are not naive about the character of their government, and there is no professional corps on which to build a first-rate Army. Iran has a navy, to the same degree that I could claims to be a personal friend of President Bush - it’s possible, but it would take a great stretch of definitions to make it true in any substantive sense. And all you need to know about Iran’s Air Force, is to understand that Iranian pilots average less than fifty hours in the air every year, and none have what we could call salient experience in ACM. This means that the most likely deployment of any WMD by Iran would be via a terorist cell, which explains the continued cultivation of contact between Iran and a number of international terrorist organizations. While the ramifications of such a possibility are chilling (as one example, all NW protocols include stringent permissive release requirements, which would have to be abrogated for a terrorist group to use them), it also suggests that the threshold conditions for a decision to give NW to a terrorist group must be high, and it is unlikely in the extreme that a single person would be allowed such authority by themselves. This means that if Intelligence can confirm the existence not only of enriched materials, but an actual weapon, then the West will have a minimum amount of time to decide on a functional response before that weapon is likely to be used. There is also the clear signal sent more than once by all ‘relevant parties’, that the use of a Nuclear Weapon on certain targets, be it Tel Aviv, Washington, London, or some other target which implies a Teheran connection, that the result would cost Iran far more than it gains. Given the locations of suspected nuclear sites, they would be difficult to attack, but ironically their position in relation to mountains, and being far from towns, would create a comparatively low risk of collateral casualties if a Western nation were to deliver a nuclear reprisal, and Iran has certainly been made aware of that fact.
Once upon a time, there was this crazy man, liked to say all sorts of outrageous things. Didn’t like Jews much, either. Problem is, this guy was the head of his country, and so his rants could be said to represent the national policy, and there was also the problem of a pretty big army he was getting together, although he assured everyone that he was a peace-loving guy, not a threat to anyone. Oh yes, there’s a lot of similarity between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler, though there are many people quick to say we shouldn’t make that connection. But as I am sometimes slow to take my cue from the elite, I continue in my comparison:
Both men came to power on a theory of returning their nation to power through a fascist policy regarding force and law. Both men found it convenient to blame everything on Western powers and on the Jewish minority in their country/region. Both had a real jones for getting a nuclear weapon. Both saw their own country in increasingly unrealistic terms, moving from a desire for regional respect, to a thirst for hegemony, to the notion that they counld influence the world, if not control a large chunk of it. And both men found the world in general amazingly compliant with their demands, as if timidity would bring something better than disaster.
There are also differences between the men and their countries, of course. For one thing, Hitler came to power at a time when the last great war told a warning against war without caution. And there was no one like Hitler in a long time, whose malice had been so clear as to warn against even talking to him; it must have seemed to England and France that there was no downside to simply talking with the man, and ample reason to believe in the strength of the Maginot Line and the victory from World War One. These days, we should have learned enough from the Nazis to watch out for their brood, and to judge a leader by his actions, and not just his assurances.
Further, Hitler realized too late the potential of the atom bomb, while Ahmadinejad has always considered nuclear weapons his trump card to regional hegemony. But again there is a similarity; when Hitler finally decided to pursue nuclear weapons, he had no specific idea as to how they would win the war for him; like Ahmadinejad now, he simply believed that having them would make all the difference.
Now, I have addressed the tactics of Mr. Ahmadinejad before, with a suggestion or two about what I might do if I were sitting in the Oval Office. I have also written about the character of national ambitions in the Middle East; Iran has long thought of itself as the rightful leader of the whole Middle East, whether one means Ahmadinejad today, the Ayatollah Khomeini a couple decades ago, or the Shah Rezi Pahlavi before him. So when we talk about Ahmadinejad, it’s important to understand that some of this is the usual Iranian bluster which has proceeded forth from ‘Persia’ ever since it began to regain the illusion of past glories (past, as in pre-Alexander the Great). When one considers the actual readiness of Iran’s military to fight a significant conflict against a first-world opponent, the math proves the comparison a clear mis-match, clear enough that no Iranian general would advocate such a war. The significance is that this means that Ahmadinejad is speaking from a religious and political stance. Such a position hardly makes the threat impotent, but it does mean that options in response would reasonably include interfering with choke points in Iran’s R&D development, quiet meetings with selected military officials to remind them of American capability and probable responses, and naturally the encouragement of insurrection by disenchanted Iranian youth; the same use of the “street” which helped to drive out the Shah, can be pursued to drive out the Jihad Junta in Teheran; it is not commonly understood in the West, that for a number of reasons, partly cultural but largely economic, Iran’s population is strongly pro-American, to such a degree that if a competent and charismatic leader could be found among the youth in Iran, the government would find itself ousted in short order, whether or not they agreed to a vote on the matter. More than a few people who have been to Iran during the period following the fall of Baghdad, report people in the street asking why the U.S. stopped with Iraq; the sentiment among Iranian citizens is eerily like the sentiment of many Iraqis in 1991, and so there is a unique opportunity there, though direct military conflict initiated by America represents an unreasonable risk. In 1938, it seemed a lot of Europeans were simply watching to see what Britain would do, and when Chamberlain chose appeasement, the rest of Europe lost hope. Now we see again, where the Middle East and the world wait to see, not what the U.N. or some regional country does, but what America does, and heavy stakes ride on the decision.
In conclusion, Iran is not much like Germany. Iran does not own the same military tradition as Germany, nor the same quality academies and theoreticians, nor the same quality armament developers and strategists, nor the same popualtion devoted to national pride. Make no mistake, Iranians love their country, but they are not naive about the character of their government, and there is no professional corps on which to build a first-rate Army. Iran has a navy, to the same degree that I could claims to be a personal friend of President Bush - it’s possible, but it would take a great stretch of definitions to make it true in any substantive sense. And all you need to know about Iran’s Air Force, is to understand that Iranian pilots average less than fifty hours in the air every year, and none have what we could call salient experience in ACM. This means that the most likely deployment of any WMD by Iran would be via a terorist cell, which explains the continued cultivation of contact between Iran and a number of international terrorist organizations. While the ramifications of such a possibility are chilling (as one example, all NW protocols include stringent permissive release requirements, which would have to be abrogated for a terrorist group to use them), it also suggests that the threshold conditions for a decision to give NW to a terrorist group must be high, and it is unlikely in the extreme that a single person would be allowed such authority by themselves. This means that if Intelligence can confirm the existence not only of enriched materials, but an actual weapon, then the West will have a minimum amount of time to decide on a functional response before that weapon is likely to be used. There is also the clear signal sent more than once by all ‘relevant parties’, that the use of a Nuclear Weapon on certain targets, be it Tel Aviv, Washington, London, or some other target which implies a Teheran connection, that the result would cost Iran far more than it gains. Given the locations of suspected nuclear sites, they would be difficult to attack, but ironically their position in relation to mountains, and being far from towns, would create a comparatively low risk of collateral casualties if a Western nation were to deliver a nuclear reprisal, and Iran has certainly been made aware of that fact.
The Speech, Part 3 – Alien Entry Protocols
++
Doesn’t that sound technical? Almost as if I were discussing a process for manufacturing a product, instead of the fate of millions of people, huh. And that’s the core problem in this crisis. Both sides, those angry mobs on either end demanding they get everything they want or else the nation will be ripped apart by their tantrum, need to stop, cool down, grow up, and consider the other end.
This is not to say, of course, that everything one’s opponent says or wants is reasonable, or that the just agreement must lie somewhere in the middle between the extremes. For instance, the recent protests by illegals and their advocates were in large part sponsored by Socialist and Communist organizations which have a clear interest in destabilizing the U.S. Government; we owe no consideration, at all, to such people.
However, I agree with the President’s contention that in the main, these illegals simply want what we all want – the chance for a better life and to provide hope for their families. That does not make it right to break the law of course, but it does mean we have to be aware of the distinction between someone choosing the wrong way to pursue a reasonable dream, and someone pursuing an unacceptable goal. The sine qua non of this situation is that the borders must be made much more secure, against those who would potentially smuggle in WMD or terrorists, gangs and drugs. The obvious priority from enforcement’s stand, is to improve the triage of attention, to reduce illicit border crossings by giving better options to people who want to add to the welfare of our nation, instead of harming it.
A lot of complaint has been aimed at President Bush, for things done and said, and for things undone and not said. Almost all of these charges are unwarranted, as the responsibility for these issues lies principally with Congress as the Legislative body of American government, and with certain foreign governments, most notably Mexico, in failing to honor agreements in principle on which these initiatives depend. The Senate has failed completely to address its responsibilities in this matter, and the House, while recently passing a forceful bill which takes at least some steps, is guilty of dragging its feet for a long time. The steps proposed by President Bush go back to his 2000 Presidential Campaign, and are consistent in theme and direction. Secure borders, serious enforcement, and a practical plan to address those who are already here. Those Conservatives who want to trash the President now, might do well to explain why they have been silent for so long, when the President has been honest and detailed about his intentions and programs.
Anyway, to the task. President Bush correctly pegged two essential qualities of our border entry system; difficult-to-forge documents and a tiered system of entry, more simple but also more effective. Basically, if you have normal border conditions, you should be able to process the following types of people coming in;
1. Citizens
2. Legal Residents
3. Work-Authorized Visitors
4. Education-Authorized Visitors
5. Temporary Visitors
What all these people have in common is a trail of documents which can prove they are valid. And by documents I don’t just mean a Passport or Driver’s License, but a document which can be matched online to a databank with corroborating details, such as a photo or fingerprint. Unlike previous Presidents, Bush has pressed for more interactive cooperation between forces addressing border crossings, and to create programs which offer desirable opportunities for aliens but only in exchange for compliance and verifiable identification. Also, as President Bush has emphasized, the condition requiring a willing employer means that the location and activity of an alien entering the United States can be known before they ever set foot inside our border.
No plan demanding perfection is viable, and the United States will remain a place of mythic opportunity in the eyes of many millions of people. The best plan of action, therefore, is to reduce illicit entry traffic through the plan which best offers opportunity and specific identification.
Next - Part 4, It Costs HOW Much?
Doesn’t that sound technical? Almost as if I were discussing a process for manufacturing a product, instead of the fate of millions of people, huh. And that’s the core problem in this crisis. Both sides, those angry mobs on either end demanding they get everything they want or else the nation will be ripped apart by their tantrum, need to stop, cool down, grow up, and consider the other end.
This is not to say, of course, that everything one’s opponent says or wants is reasonable, or that the just agreement must lie somewhere in the middle between the extremes. For instance, the recent protests by illegals and their advocates were in large part sponsored by Socialist and Communist organizations which have a clear interest in destabilizing the U.S. Government; we owe no consideration, at all, to such people.
However, I agree with the President’s contention that in the main, these illegals simply want what we all want – the chance for a better life and to provide hope for their families. That does not make it right to break the law of course, but it does mean we have to be aware of the distinction between someone choosing the wrong way to pursue a reasonable dream, and someone pursuing an unacceptable goal. The sine qua non of this situation is that the borders must be made much more secure, against those who would potentially smuggle in WMD or terrorists, gangs and drugs. The obvious priority from enforcement’s stand, is to improve the triage of attention, to reduce illicit border crossings by giving better options to people who want to add to the welfare of our nation, instead of harming it.
A lot of complaint has been aimed at President Bush, for things done and said, and for things undone and not said. Almost all of these charges are unwarranted, as the responsibility for these issues lies principally with Congress as the Legislative body of American government, and with certain foreign governments, most notably Mexico, in failing to honor agreements in principle on which these initiatives depend. The Senate has failed completely to address its responsibilities in this matter, and the House, while recently passing a forceful bill which takes at least some steps, is guilty of dragging its feet for a long time. The steps proposed by President Bush go back to his 2000 Presidential Campaign, and are consistent in theme and direction. Secure borders, serious enforcement, and a practical plan to address those who are already here. Those Conservatives who want to trash the President now, might do well to explain why they have been silent for so long, when the President has been honest and detailed about his intentions and programs.
Anyway, to the task. President Bush correctly pegged two essential qualities of our border entry system; difficult-to-forge documents and a tiered system of entry, more simple but also more effective. Basically, if you have normal border conditions, you should be able to process the following types of people coming in;
1. Citizens
2. Legal Residents
3. Work-Authorized Visitors
4. Education-Authorized Visitors
5. Temporary Visitors
What all these people have in common is a trail of documents which can prove they are valid. And by documents I don’t just mean a Passport or Driver’s License, but a document which can be matched online to a databank with corroborating details, such as a photo or fingerprint. Unlike previous Presidents, Bush has pressed for more interactive cooperation between forces addressing border crossings, and to create programs which offer desirable opportunities for aliens but only in exchange for compliance and verifiable identification. Also, as President Bush has emphasized, the condition requiring a willing employer means that the location and activity of an alien entering the United States can be known before they ever set foot inside our border.
No plan demanding perfection is viable, and the United States will remain a place of mythic opportunity in the eyes of many millions of people. The best plan of action, therefore, is to reduce illicit entry traffic through the plan which best offers opportunity and specific identification.
Next - Part 4, It Costs HOW Much?
Topic Discussion
[<<<]
"Waddayawanna do?"
"I dunno, waddayouwanna do?"
Thanks again to everyone for coming by. It occurs to me that one service I should offer at this time, is to pay attention to your interests. If you've read my stuff before, you know I like to fisk editorials, dissect polls, and review historical models. But what's on your mind?
Call it an open thread, with an ear listening for topics you'd like to read more about.
"Waddayawanna do?"
"I dunno, waddayouwanna do?"
Thanks again to everyone for coming by. It occurs to me that one service I should offer at this time, is to pay attention to your interests. If you've read my stuff before, you know I like to fisk editorials, dissect polls, and review historical models. But what's on your mind?
Call it an open thread, with an ear listening for topics you'd like to read more about.
Friday, May 19, 2006
A Prayer Request
.+.
The Anchoress’ brother-in-law is fighting cancer. It’s aggressive, and right now it looks like he’s losing. If you’ve ever had a family member fighting cancer, or if you’ve ever had to look Death full in the face, you can imagine what the Anchoress is going through. I know, not only because my father passed away just a few weeks ago, but also because my mother had to fight Breast Cancer some years back.
Please keep the Anchoress and her family in your prayers. Believe me, it means a lot. Thanks.
The Anchoress’ brother-in-law is fighting cancer. It’s aggressive, and right now it looks like he’s losing. If you’ve ever had a family member fighting cancer, or if you’ve ever had to look Death full in the face, you can imagine what the Anchoress is going through. I know, not only because my father passed away just a few weeks ago, but also because my mother had to fight Breast Cancer some years back.
Please keep the Anchoress and her family in your prayers. Believe me, it means a lot. Thanks.
General Hayden
****
From his comments to the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday, a few points on why we need this man, right now.
On why the CIA still holds a unique role in the Intelligence Community:
“CIA's role as the community leader in human intelligence and as an enabler for technical access, in all-source analysis, and in elements of research and development, not to mention its worldwide infrastructure, underscore the interdependency between CIA and the rest of the Community.”
On what the President and Congress may expect from the Director, CIA:
“when it comes to "speaking truth to power," I will lead CIA analysts by example. I will -- as I expect every analyst will -- always give our nation's leaders the best analytic judgment.”
On the politics of Intelligence:
“Respectfully, senators, I believe that the intelligence business has too much become the football in American political discourse. Over the past few years, the intelligence community and CIA have taken an inordinate number of hits, some of them fair, many of them not. Yes, there have been failures, but there have also been many great successes. We will do our lessons learned studies, and I will keep the committee fully informed on that. But I also believe that it is time to move past what seems to be an endless picking apart of the "archaeology" of every past intelligence "failure" and "success." CIA officers, dedicated as they are to serving their country honorably and well, deserve recognition of their efforts. And they also deserve not to have every action analyzed, second-guessed, and criticized on the front pages of the newspapers. Accountability is one thing -- and we will have it -- but true accountability is not served by inaccurate, harmful, and illegal public disclosures. I will draw a clear line between what we owe the American public by way of openness and what must remain secret in order for us to continue doing our jobs as charged. CIA needs to get out of the news -- as source or subject -- and focus on protecting the American people by acquiring secrets and providing high-quality all-source analysis.”
From his comments to the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday, a few points on why we need this man, right now.
On why the CIA still holds a unique role in the Intelligence Community:
“CIA's role as the community leader in human intelligence and as an enabler for technical access, in all-source analysis, and in elements of research and development, not to mention its worldwide infrastructure, underscore the interdependency between CIA and the rest of the Community.”
On what the President and Congress may expect from the Director, CIA:
“when it comes to "speaking truth to power," I will lead CIA analysts by example. I will -- as I expect every analyst will -- always give our nation's leaders the best analytic judgment.”
On the politics of Intelligence:
“Respectfully, senators, I believe that the intelligence business has too much become the football in American political discourse. Over the past few years, the intelligence community and CIA have taken an inordinate number of hits, some of them fair, many of them not. Yes, there have been failures, but there have also been many great successes. We will do our lessons learned studies, and I will keep the committee fully informed on that. But I also believe that it is time to move past what seems to be an endless picking apart of the "archaeology" of every past intelligence "failure" and "success." CIA officers, dedicated as they are to serving their country honorably and well, deserve recognition of their efforts. And they also deserve not to have every action analyzed, second-guessed, and criticized on the front pages of the newspapers. Accountability is one thing -- and we will have it -- but true accountability is not served by inaccurate, harmful, and illegal public disclosures. I will draw a clear line between what we owe the American public by way of openness and what must remain secret in order for us to continue doing our jobs as charged. CIA needs to get out of the news -- as source or subject -- and focus on protecting the American people by acquiring secrets and providing high-quality all-source analysis.”
The Picasso Code
..
Well, it’s finally here. And in just a few days, if you listen closely, you will hear the grinding of teeth from movie exhibitors and distribution companies everywhere, as this film fails to meet its expectations. This is not really surprising, when you think about it. Dan Brown wrote a hit book, and for some reason popular novels do not generally do well on the movie screen. But of course there’s more. Novels by their nature have a sense of the unreal; the reader gets caught up in the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ and enters a world created by the author, accepting the stated conditions. But movies present the story as if it really happens, and so the viewer must convince not only his sense of the narrative, but his eyes and ears must also concur to its validity. When something doesn’t jibe, it burrs against the rest of the story and distracts to the point that the viewer dislikes the story.
I am of course writing about 'The DaVinci Code', and no my column title is not a typo. The story by Dan Brown is hardly new, though I will grant that Brown was able to package the lie in an attractive way. You don’t sell millions of copies of a book unless the story is told well, and frankly if Brown, or Ron Howard for that matter, were honest enough to emphasis that this is a work of fiction there would be no issue to mention here. But Brown began with a popular lie, and an old one. Basically, as Christianity began to spread and grow, there was some confusion about the person and nature of Christ Jesus. Not that many people could read, and in those years before printing presses, authentic copies of the Gospel were hard to find. So teachers and preachers sometimes presented their own thoughts on the matters, and sometimes this led to some truly bizarre notions. But the fact remains that the basic tenets of the Church were established within a very short time after the years Christ walked among us, a fact which Brown discarded in order to sell his story.
Brown chose Da Vinci for his rebellious secret-holder, because of Da Vinci’s indisputable brilliance, habits of secrecy and hidden writings (such as his habit of writing backwards, right-to-left, which required a mirror or some ocular dexterity to read), and several noted arguments with the Church. Unfortunately, it was necessary to sell the story by misportraying DaVinci, having him say things he never said and be part of groups he never knew. I called this article the Picasso Code, because when you see a DaVinci painting, you see what the artist saw; in the case of a Picasso, you see things in an artificial construct, knowing it is not real. You accept what you know to be false, and this is the mind-set required to accept Dan Brown’s pretense.
Others have done better than I could at taking apart the claims made by Brown, but I am writing here about the film in specific, and the reasons why it, well, blows. First would be the effective way the Church has addressed the story’s claims. Rather than angrily denounce the story, the Church has made many efforts to discuss the claims and compare them with historical facts, which rather quickly proves Brown to be a poor historian and a bad liar. His claims regarding the Council of Nicea, the status of Arius, the dates of the canonical and heretical Gospel accounts and the character of the same, all quickly prove to be basest falsehoods. As to the claim of Jesus not dying on the cross, and so marrying Mary Magdelene and raising a family, Brown produces not a single piece of evidence to support that myth, except to attempt altering the extant Gospels. And Brown never does explain why anyone would care about a man who had claimed divinity and proved to be just a man; either Jesus was Whom He said He Was, or He was not. Brown makes the fundamental mistake of trying to play it both ways.
Such errors can be overlooked in a book, if one is willing to play along, but in the movie they fail to impress, and all the fevered posturing of Tom Hanks cannot change that.
Well, it’s finally here. And in just a few days, if you listen closely, you will hear the grinding of teeth from movie exhibitors and distribution companies everywhere, as this film fails to meet its expectations. This is not really surprising, when you think about it. Dan Brown wrote a hit book, and for some reason popular novels do not generally do well on the movie screen. But of course there’s more. Novels by their nature have a sense of the unreal; the reader gets caught up in the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ and enters a world created by the author, accepting the stated conditions. But movies present the story as if it really happens, and so the viewer must convince not only his sense of the narrative, but his eyes and ears must also concur to its validity. When something doesn’t jibe, it burrs against the rest of the story and distracts to the point that the viewer dislikes the story.
I am of course writing about 'The DaVinci Code', and no my column title is not a typo. The story by Dan Brown is hardly new, though I will grant that Brown was able to package the lie in an attractive way. You don’t sell millions of copies of a book unless the story is told well, and frankly if Brown, or Ron Howard for that matter, were honest enough to emphasis that this is a work of fiction there would be no issue to mention here. But Brown began with a popular lie, and an old one. Basically, as Christianity began to spread and grow, there was some confusion about the person and nature of Christ Jesus. Not that many people could read, and in those years before printing presses, authentic copies of the Gospel were hard to find. So teachers and preachers sometimes presented their own thoughts on the matters, and sometimes this led to some truly bizarre notions. But the fact remains that the basic tenets of the Church were established within a very short time after the years Christ walked among us, a fact which Brown discarded in order to sell his story.
Brown chose Da Vinci for his rebellious secret-holder, because of Da Vinci’s indisputable brilliance, habits of secrecy and hidden writings (such as his habit of writing backwards, right-to-left, which required a mirror or some ocular dexterity to read), and several noted arguments with the Church. Unfortunately, it was necessary to sell the story by misportraying DaVinci, having him say things he never said and be part of groups he never knew. I called this article the Picasso Code, because when you see a DaVinci painting, you see what the artist saw; in the case of a Picasso, you see things in an artificial construct, knowing it is not real. You accept what you know to be false, and this is the mind-set required to accept Dan Brown’s pretense.
Others have done better than I could at taking apart the claims made by Brown, but I am writing here about the film in specific, and the reasons why it, well, blows. First would be the effective way the Church has addressed the story’s claims. Rather than angrily denounce the story, the Church has made many efforts to discuss the claims and compare them with historical facts, which rather quickly proves Brown to be a poor historian and a bad liar. His claims regarding the Council of Nicea, the status of Arius, the dates of the canonical and heretical Gospel accounts and the character of the same, all quickly prove to be basest falsehoods. As to the claim of Jesus not dying on the cross, and so marrying Mary Magdelene and raising a family, Brown produces not a single piece of evidence to support that myth, except to attempt altering the extant Gospels. And Brown never does explain why anyone would care about a man who had claimed divinity and proved to be just a man; either Jesus was Whom He said He Was, or He was not. Brown makes the fundamental mistake of trying to play it both ways.
Such errors can be overlooked in a book, if one is willing to play along, but in the movie they fail to impress, and all the fevered posturing of Tom Hanks cannot change that.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Lessons From the Bogeyman
ooo
Well, it turns out I’m famous - sort of. Over at my old digs, my goodbye post got a lot of responses, including a lot of stories. Turns out I’m the Bogeyman. Huh, and I did not even like hiding in closets, what do you know about that!
What I mean is, I am getting all sorts of things pinned on me. Seems I was a hothead, held crazy ideas, and even days after losing my posting powers, I am still somehow blocking selected victims from being able to post comments on Polipundit. Maybe my next gig should be Freddy Kreuger?
But seriously, all this talk tells me I should probably lay out a few things, just for clarity. Believe them or not as you wish, but no one will be able to say I did not answer the questions. So here goes.
First, there were three significant issues which created some controversy at Polipundit; the nomination of Harriet Miers, the control of boorish behavior on comment threads, and of course the Illegals crisis.
When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to be a Supreme Court Justice, the resulting explosion from the Hard Right was regrettable. Some folks at Polipundit have claimed that I was a champion of Miers, and that I referred to anyone who opposed her as a “bastard”. Neither claim is accurate. What I wanted for Harriet Miers, is simply what Republicans and alleged Conservatives had said for years that they considered the base for Congressional behavior - a chance to be heard, and a right to a vote, up or down. But when Miers was nominated, the demands by extremists for her to be removed prior to even her first day before the Senate Judiciary Committee smacked of an intolerant special-interest group; when Liberal groups made the same attacks on prior nominees by Republican Presidents, Conservatives rightly castigated their litmus-test attitude, as well as the notion that a Presidential nominee was not entitled to a fair chance to have his or her qualifications considered. When the bullying finally succeeded in forcing Ms. Miers to withdraw her acceptance of the nomination, the extremists crowed with delight. The people I called “bastards” were not the Conservatives who were concerned about Miers’ qualifications, but those who had just found a tool to demand ideological conditions for appointments, and who had just demonstrated an ability to blackmail the Executive Branch. Such conduct is reprehensible, no matter what politics are involved. The process, the American people’s right to see nominees in public hearings, was badly abused, and so when I wrote “the bastards won”, I meant (and specifically said so) those persons who found thuggery acceptable when it serves their purpose. The fact that such tactics have only increased in number and venom, proves I was right, that the worst elements in politics are in the ascendancy, and far too few people find Reason before they look for Rage.
The second episode is not so clear-cut. It is the cornerstone to an effective debate, that contrary opinions should be allowed, even encouraged. However, there are limits to what should be tolerated, when the practice of one person’s free speech tramples another. Polipundit is a strong advocate of free speech, to such a degree that he allowed profanity, vulgarity, and all manner of rhetorical bullying. Frankly, I strongly disapproved of this, because it shut down the more civil posters, and all too often solid conversations devolved into shouting matches. To control this, I used three general types of response; I would remove part or all of an offensive post (including ones which were simply being disruptive), if a poster kept it up I would mock them in their own style - this was not well received by the bullies, as such people are never interested in receiving their own style, and in extreme cases I would ban the IP from that thread. I should mention here a unique aspect of Polipundit; writers did not have the power to permanently ban any IP or individual; that was never even a possibility. So while there are, even now, still a few people at Polipundit claiming I locked them out of the site, this is a ridiculous and completely false claim. Of course, it tracks with the sort of behavior I saw when I was an official - while you did not have the power or place to mock a player or coach, you did have the ability to address the various fouls and violations. And like the blogs, the guilty parties always made themselves out to be the victims, blaming the officials for their own misdeeds. I mention this, because while I fully believe in Free Speech, on a blog it’s a privilege, not a right, and I will not allow anyone to derail the discussion with excessive vulgarity or deliberate provocations. Treat the other side with respect, and avoid name-calling, and we should be fine. But if I find it necessary to take action, I will do so, and I will neither apologize nor explain unless I find it necessary.
Finally, there is the issue of illegal aliens coming into our country. This is, as I noted a couple days ago, actually several issues happening together to make a crisis. The complaint I had is actually pretty simple, common sense to my mind. You don’t change someone’s mind by yelling at them, so calling the President of the United States a ‘liar’ or similar tactics is not only rude and a false charge, it is a poor plan of debate. Same thing for yelling at the people who have another opinion; listening to them and offering evidence for your side is smart, but calling them names and writing insults in ‘ALL CAPS’ is immature and foolish.
And that brings you up to speed. I’m sure I will be accused of something else in coming days; legends of monsters and evil hosts tend to grow in size and number. What I ask from you here, is to read my work, respond as you see fit, and judge me by the results. And as always, thanks for your visit and comments.
Well, it turns out I’m famous - sort of. Over at my old digs, my goodbye post got a lot of responses, including a lot of stories. Turns out I’m the Bogeyman. Huh, and I did not even like hiding in closets, what do you know about that!
What I mean is, I am getting all sorts of things pinned on me. Seems I was a hothead, held crazy ideas, and even days after losing my posting powers, I am still somehow blocking selected victims from being able to post comments on Polipundit. Maybe my next gig should be Freddy Kreuger?
But seriously, all this talk tells me I should probably lay out a few things, just for clarity. Believe them or not as you wish, but no one will be able to say I did not answer the questions. So here goes.
First, there were three significant issues which created some controversy at Polipundit; the nomination of Harriet Miers, the control of boorish behavior on comment threads, and of course the Illegals crisis.
When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to be a Supreme Court Justice, the resulting explosion from the Hard Right was regrettable. Some folks at Polipundit have claimed that I was a champion of Miers, and that I referred to anyone who opposed her as a “bastard”. Neither claim is accurate. What I wanted for Harriet Miers, is simply what Republicans and alleged Conservatives had said for years that they considered the base for Congressional behavior - a chance to be heard, and a right to a vote, up or down. But when Miers was nominated, the demands by extremists for her to be removed prior to even her first day before the Senate Judiciary Committee smacked of an intolerant special-interest group; when Liberal groups made the same attacks on prior nominees by Republican Presidents, Conservatives rightly castigated their litmus-test attitude, as well as the notion that a Presidential nominee was not entitled to a fair chance to have his or her qualifications considered. When the bullying finally succeeded in forcing Ms. Miers to withdraw her acceptance of the nomination, the extremists crowed with delight. The people I called “bastards” were not the Conservatives who were concerned about Miers’ qualifications, but those who had just found a tool to demand ideological conditions for appointments, and who had just demonstrated an ability to blackmail the Executive Branch. Such conduct is reprehensible, no matter what politics are involved. The process, the American people’s right to see nominees in public hearings, was badly abused, and so when I wrote “the bastards won”, I meant (and specifically said so) those persons who found thuggery acceptable when it serves their purpose. The fact that such tactics have only increased in number and venom, proves I was right, that the worst elements in politics are in the ascendancy, and far too few people find Reason before they look for Rage.
The second episode is not so clear-cut. It is the cornerstone to an effective debate, that contrary opinions should be allowed, even encouraged. However, there are limits to what should be tolerated, when the practice of one person’s free speech tramples another. Polipundit is a strong advocate of free speech, to such a degree that he allowed profanity, vulgarity, and all manner of rhetorical bullying. Frankly, I strongly disapproved of this, because it shut down the more civil posters, and all too often solid conversations devolved into shouting matches. To control this, I used three general types of response; I would remove part or all of an offensive post (including ones which were simply being disruptive), if a poster kept it up I would mock them in their own style - this was not well received by the bullies, as such people are never interested in receiving their own style, and in extreme cases I would ban the IP from that thread. I should mention here a unique aspect of Polipundit; writers did not have the power to permanently ban any IP or individual; that was never even a possibility. So while there are, even now, still a few people at Polipundit claiming I locked them out of the site, this is a ridiculous and completely false claim. Of course, it tracks with the sort of behavior I saw when I was an official - while you did not have the power or place to mock a player or coach, you did have the ability to address the various fouls and violations. And like the blogs, the guilty parties always made themselves out to be the victims, blaming the officials for their own misdeeds. I mention this, because while I fully believe in Free Speech, on a blog it’s a privilege, not a right, and I will not allow anyone to derail the discussion with excessive vulgarity or deliberate provocations. Treat the other side with respect, and avoid name-calling, and we should be fine. But if I find it necessary to take action, I will do so, and I will neither apologize nor explain unless I find it necessary.
Finally, there is the issue of illegal aliens coming into our country. This is, as I noted a couple days ago, actually several issues happening together to make a crisis. The complaint I had is actually pretty simple, common sense to my mind. You don’t change someone’s mind by yelling at them, so calling the President of the United States a ‘liar’ or similar tactics is not only rude and a false charge, it is a poor plan of debate. Same thing for yelling at the people who have another opinion; listening to them and offering evidence for your side is smart, but calling them names and writing insults in ‘ALL CAPS’ is immature and foolish.
And that brings you up to speed. I’m sure I will be accused of something else in coming days; legends of monsters and evil hosts tend to grow in size and number. What I ask from you here, is to read my work, respond as you see fit, and judge me by the results. And as always, thanks for your visit and comments.
The Dragon In The Room
-/-
OK, I was going to save this until I had a bit more information to work with, but now seems a good time, and I always like a good teaser.
We're hearing a lot right now about illegals, and for most people the image that conjures up is a young, uneducated Hispanic. Right?
OK, just to poke the grey matter a little bit, do you know, do you have any idea at all, how many Asians are illegally here in the United States right now? What about just Chinese?
A fence from Texas to California is not nearly going to solve this, folks. And some of the people making the most noise, well, I don't see them doing all that much thinking.
OK, I was going to save this until I had a bit more information to work with, but now seems a good time, and I always like a good teaser.
We're hearing a lot right now about illegals, and for most people the image that conjures up is a young, uneducated Hispanic. Right?
OK, just to poke the grey matter a little bit, do you know, do you have any idea at all, how many Asians are illegally here in the United States right now? What about just Chinese?
A fence from Texas to California is not nearly going to solve this, folks. And some of the people making the most noise, well, I don't see them doing all that much thinking.
And Now What Course?
.$.
I see, looking back at the horizon whence lay the once-great vista of Polipundit.com, that the debris from Monday night’s blow-up has yet to completely descend. Bits and pieces of arguments, opinion, and emotion still charge the air, and visitors would be well-advised to find protection from the still-hostile atmosphere.
I would have thought that, however unfortunate, we had at least reached a resolution. It actually seemed pretty straight-forward; the site owner had decided his privacy took precedence to the opinions of the other bloggers, and we were summarily booted from his domain. I could speak to the manner and character of the events again, but the tone is well known already and there is no point to revisiting that drama.
Yet, that same site owner who in an instant of poor temper demoted the other writers from members of a 'group blog', to 'guest bloggers', to 'former writers no longer welcome', yesterday posted the following peculiar statement:
“I’m going to refrain from commenting on the whole guest-blogger situation until we’ve worked out a resolution.”
Say what?
Actually, some of his readers voiced similar thoughts. From the ‘comments’ section of that post:
BlackCon: “What resolution is there? If they don’t agree with you on immigration, then they don’t get to play. What’s left to resolve?”
Bender: “Resolution?? It seems to me that once you’ve put the gun in your mouth and pulled the trigger, you’ve got as much as a “resolution” as you are ever going to get.”
Others were less kind, either promising to leave Polipundit.com, or praising him for the evictions and basically telling the rest where they can go.
So, where to now? One thing to notice is the traffic. Despite predictions that the purge would cost him readership, the Sitemeter for Polipundit.com shows that his 20,000 a day readership jumped to 45,000 on Tuesday, but dropped back to its normal 20,000 on Wednesday. Lorie Byrd.com (formerly Byrd Droppings), used to track between 500 and 1,000 hits a day, but logged more than 7,500 on Tuesday and more than 6,000 on Wednesday. As of this writing, her site has already logged 1,188 (which would be a pace for about 3,000?), so Lorie’s traffic can be said to have permanently jumped by a geometric factor. As for me, my pace used to be a very modest 50 to 100 hits a day; Tuesday and Wednesday each pulled 800, not nearly in Lorie’s league or anything like Polipundit, but literally ten to twelve TIMES what I was getting before, so let me stop right here and say thanks for your visits (today has shown 180 hits so far, on a pace for a clean 400 maybe). Alexander and Jayson do not have personal blogs, so I cannot say what effect this is having on their name recognition, although I will say that Jayson reports he is focusing mainly on his law work, including some teaching; we may have to ask him for guest appearances in a very real sense. Alexander is still keen on political analysis, but is debating whether he wants to be part of a group blog or start up his own site. Given his intelligence and style, I do not doubt he will be a hit.
Alexander’s decision between single-and-group blogs is sort of the issue for all of us. It looks right now as if we have three general routes to choose from:
[] Single-person blogs
[] Join an existing group blog
[] Start up our own group blog
Now me, I’m a big advocate of the third option, not least because I liked the synergy between us in our group, and because if we co-start a blog, there won’t be any danger of that ‘I own the site and you will do as I say’ nonsense. If we had to choose one of us to be the ‘captain’ of the team, I would nominate Lorie, for two reasons:
1. Lorie has always been the best-tempered of us all; and
2. Lorie’s personal traffic shows that she is the best-known and most-respected of us all.
I don’t want to get too caught up in ifs and possibilities here, but I did want to say where I see the best option. To be crudely mercenary, I also see a group blog, if it’s set up well, as a tremendous possibility; people like big newspapers which can supply their thirst for news, opinion, culture, entertainment, and background. A good group blog should do the same but frankly, no one yet has done all of that. This suggests to me that a blog which is informative, thought-provoking, funny, entertaining, and which listens to its readers would be a gland slam, a first-stop-of-the-day which would lead to huge readership and significant revenue. Quite literally a win-win.
The obstacles, of course, are huge. First, no one can guarantee success – I recall the anecdote of the first development of the downloadable music player, back around 1989-90. It was ahead of its time, and so fifteen years before the iPod, this great idea got no traction. Also, we’d need to recruit advertisers, design a sharp-looking site with spiffy graphics and logos and such, and of course we’d have to bring aboard the right balance of writers, enough to cover all the bases but not so much that it became a crowd. Talk about ‘opportunity cost’!
And then there is the question of fairness. Most group blogs have to figure out how to pay out the money. The first part is simple – you have to make more than you’re spending on the site, but after that, who gets what? The most common answer I hear is that the writers split the money evenly, but I don’t know about that. The reason I say this, is because of what I noted earlier; if Lorie and I pooled our talents on a 2-person blog [I am not saying this as an option, but only for this example], we would get my 400-800 a day plus Lorie’s 3,000-8,000 a day, less anyone who was visiting both of our individual sites. Lorie would reasonably be said to be responsible for 90% of our traffic, and by rights should enjoy a similar portion of profits. The problem is this sort of thing is not a science. If, again as an example, Alexander came on board, we’d have no idea what his fan base measures, and so could not empirically determine a reasonable portion of the revenue. I know from history, that this is the sort of thing which should be worked out before the place gets going. The question for Lorie then, is to decide what works to her own best advantage. Obviously, I benefit from having a connection to someone of her talent and reputation, but unless she believes she receives a similar benefit, Lorie might find it more to her advantage to join forces with someone better able to advance her professional position.
So anyway, you have a sense of what’s going on, in my mind as least. The site owner of Polipundit, though I wish him well, pretty much slammed the door when he sent an ultimatum to us and locked us out. I want to thank everyone for their gracious offers of temporary or permanent blog homes, but as you can see there’s a lot to consider. I promise, if I’m going to continue to see this amount of traffic here at Stolen Thunder, to work on a more attractive background.
UPDATE: I see that Alexander has tentatively accepted a position joining the fine team at Redstate.com. I am happy for Alexander and wish him all the best, and hope you will all visit Redstate, if you are not doing so already.
I see, looking back at the horizon whence lay the once-great vista of Polipundit.com, that the debris from Monday night’s blow-up has yet to completely descend. Bits and pieces of arguments, opinion, and emotion still charge the air, and visitors would be well-advised to find protection from the still-hostile atmosphere.
I would have thought that, however unfortunate, we had at least reached a resolution. It actually seemed pretty straight-forward; the site owner had decided his privacy took precedence to the opinions of the other bloggers, and we were summarily booted from his domain. I could speak to the manner and character of the events again, but the tone is well known already and there is no point to revisiting that drama.
Yet, that same site owner who in an instant of poor temper demoted the other writers from members of a 'group blog', to 'guest bloggers', to 'former writers no longer welcome', yesterday posted the following peculiar statement:
“I’m going to refrain from commenting on the whole guest-blogger situation until we’ve worked out a resolution.”
Say what?
Actually, some of his readers voiced similar thoughts. From the ‘comments’ section of that post:
BlackCon: “What resolution is there? If they don’t agree with you on immigration, then they don’t get to play. What’s left to resolve?”
Bender: “Resolution?? It seems to me that once you’ve put the gun in your mouth and pulled the trigger, you’ve got as much as a “resolution” as you are ever going to get.”
Others were less kind, either promising to leave Polipundit.com, or praising him for the evictions and basically telling the rest where they can go.
So, where to now? One thing to notice is the traffic. Despite predictions that the purge would cost him readership, the Sitemeter for Polipundit.com shows that his 20,000 a day readership jumped to 45,000 on Tuesday, but dropped back to its normal 20,000 on Wednesday. Lorie Byrd.com (formerly Byrd Droppings), used to track between 500 and 1,000 hits a day, but logged more than 7,500 on Tuesday and more than 6,000 on Wednesday. As of this writing, her site has already logged 1,188 (which would be a pace for about 3,000?), so Lorie’s traffic can be said to have permanently jumped by a geometric factor. As for me, my pace used to be a very modest 50 to 100 hits a day; Tuesday and Wednesday each pulled 800, not nearly in Lorie’s league or anything like Polipundit, but literally ten to twelve TIMES what I was getting before, so let me stop right here and say thanks for your visits (today has shown 180 hits so far, on a pace for a clean 400 maybe). Alexander and Jayson do not have personal blogs, so I cannot say what effect this is having on their name recognition, although I will say that Jayson reports he is focusing mainly on his law work, including some teaching; we may have to ask him for guest appearances in a very real sense. Alexander is still keen on political analysis, but is debating whether he wants to be part of a group blog or start up his own site. Given his intelligence and style, I do not doubt he will be a hit.
Alexander’s decision between single-and-group blogs is sort of the issue for all of us. It looks right now as if we have three general routes to choose from:
[] Single-person blogs
[] Join an existing group blog
[] Start up our own group blog
Now me, I’m a big advocate of the third option, not least because I liked the synergy between us in our group, and because if we co-start a blog, there won’t be any danger of that ‘I own the site and you will do as I say’ nonsense. If we had to choose one of us to be the ‘captain’ of the team, I would nominate Lorie, for two reasons:
1. Lorie has always been the best-tempered of us all; and
2. Lorie’s personal traffic shows that she is the best-known and most-respected of us all.
I don’t want to get too caught up in ifs and possibilities here, but I did want to say where I see the best option. To be crudely mercenary, I also see a group blog, if it’s set up well, as a tremendous possibility; people like big newspapers which can supply their thirst for news, opinion, culture, entertainment, and background. A good group blog should do the same but frankly, no one yet has done all of that. This suggests to me that a blog which is informative, thought-provoking, funny, entertaining, and which listens to its readers would be a gland slam, a first-stop-of-the-day which would lead to huge readership and significant revenue. Quite literally a win-win.
The obstacles, of course, are huge. First, no one can guarantee success – I recall the anecdote of the first development of the downloadable music player, back around 1989-90. It was ahead of its time, and so fifteen years before the iPod, this great idea got no traction. Also, we’d need to recruit advertisers, design a sharp-looking site with spiffy graphics and logos and such, and of course we’d have to bring aboard the right balance of writers, enough to cover all the bases but not so much that it became a crowd. Talk about ‘opportunity cost’!
And then there is the question of fairness. Most group blogs have to figure out how to pay out the money. The first part is simple – you have to make more than you’re spending on the site, but after that, who gets what? The most common answer I hear is that the writers split the money evenly, but I don’t know about that. The reason I say this, is because of what I noted earlier; if Lorie and I pooled our talents on a 2-person blog [I am not saying this as an option, but only for this example], we would get my 400-800 a day plus Lorie’s 3,000-8,000 a day, less anyone who was visiting both of our individual sites. Lorie would reasonably be said to be responsible for 90% of our traffic, and by rights should enjoy a similar portion of profits. The problem is this sort of thing is not a science. If, again as an example, Alexander came on board, we’d have no idea what his fan base measures, and so could not empirically determine a reasonable portion of the revenue. I know from history, that this is the sort of thing which should be worked out before the place gets going. The question for Lorie then, is to decide what works to her own best advantage. Obviously, I benefit from having a connection to someone of her talent and reputation, but unless she believes she receives a similar benefit, Lorie might find it more to her advantage to join forces with someone better able to advance her professional position.
So anyway, you have a sense of what’s going on, in my mind as least. The site owner of Polipundit, though I wish him well, pretty much slammed the door when he sent an ultimatum to us and locked us out. I want to thank everyone for their gracious offers of temporary or permanent blog homes, but as you can see there’s a lot to consider. I promise, if I’m going to continue to see this amount of traffic here at Stolen Thunder, to work on a more attractive background.
UPDATE: I see that Alexander has tentatively accepted a position joining the fine team at Redstate.com. I am happy for Alexander and wish him all the best, and hope you will all visit Redstate, if you are not doing so already.
Mom, Nerf-heads, and Help From Dr. Lewis
[___]
I spoke with Mom again last night, as I have been doing daily ever since the day my father passed away. She’s doing better than before, both emotionally and physically, though of course it’s a long road ahead, and I don’t doubt some days will be problems for her. I figure to keep in close touch by phone, and to visit as often as I can; she really likes to see Jagan, who has lately been on her very best behavior, so that helps her feel better as well.
My Mom got some books from people to help deal with the loss. One thing which jumps out at me is how poor the available books on Grief are. I understand that it’s a complex issue, especially since it seems that everyone has to deal with grief in their own way, but the books out there today are, well, pretty much all dreck. This seems to be especially the case with books written by people who hold PhD’s. They understand the intellectual concept well enough, but they don’t seem to have a clue about talking to real people about their real pain and trauma. As an example, my mom is pretty religious. So she was less than impressed when one author holding a PhD, in a book intended to be read by the bereaved for guidance and comfort, suggested that it was a sign of weakness to “use religion as a crutch” when a loved one dies. While I can understand that someone who is not religious may not like the idea of embracing one’s faith in a time of trouble, it seems to me the height of arrogance to insult someone’s deepest-held beliefs at a time when they have already suffered a severe loss. Other books were not much better, treating the death of a loved one with much the same regard as they would a problem with the garbage disposal – oh, your husband died? Gee, that’s too bad, but he was getting old anyway, and now you have freedom to do whatever you really wanted to do – blah, blah, blah. Browsing through the books myself, I cannot say I found a single thing worth mentioning here – with the notable exception of C.S. Lewis.
As those familiar with Dr. Lewis know, he lost his wife Joy to cancer, after a long fight which the couple at one time thought they had won. I especially enjoyed the scene from the movie “Shadowlands”, where Anthony Hopkins caught perfectly the pain and frustration Lewis felt when person after person, all with the best of intentions, trotted out some banal exhortion. You know, ‘This was somehow for the best’, ‘It was meant to be’, and such useless words which do nothing for the moment or the need. As he was still coming to grips with his pain, and understanding that people needed something to address the pain they felt when suffering such a loss, and as therapy for his own loss, C.S. Lewis wrote “A Grief Observed”, far and away the best book I have ever read on the subject. It’s not an easy read, by any means, but it’s direct and honest, and it helps like no other book I have read on the subject.
It’s not surprising, really. Grief strikes all of us, but when it does, there’s few indeed who feel inclined to write about it, to wrestle with it, while the white-hot pain tears away at your own spirit and composure; even the best writers would be reluctant to invite that monster further into their own soul. It adds to my respect for Dr. Lewis that he was that rare courageous person, who understood that his own pain could serve to heal others.
I spoke with Mom again last night, as I have been doing daily ever since the day my father passed away. She’s doing better than before, both emotionally and physically, though of course it’s a long road ahead, and I don’t doubt some days will be problems for her. I figure to keep in close touch by phone, and to visit as often as I can; she really likes to see Jagan, who has lately been on her very best behavior, so that helps her feel better as well.
My Mom got some books from people to help deal with the loss. One thing which jumps out at me is how poor the available books on Grief are. I understand that it’s a complex issue, especially since it seems that everyone has to deal with grief in their own way, but the books out there today are, well, pretty much all dreck. This seems to be especially the case with books written by people who hold PhD’s. They understand the intellectual concept well enough, but they don’t seem to have a clue about talking to real people about their real pain and trauma. As an example, my mom is pretty religious. So she was less than impressed when one author holding a PhD, in a book intended to be read by the bereaved for guidance and comfort, suggested that it was a sign of weakness to “use religion as a crutch” when a loved one dies. While I can understand that someone who is not religious may not like the idea of embracing one’s faith in a time of trouble, it seems to me the height of arrogance to insult someone’s deepest-held beliefs at a time when they have already suffered a severe loss. Other books were not much better, treating the death of a loved one with much the same regard as they would a problem with the garbage disposal – oh, your husband died? Gee, that’s too bad, but he was getting old anyway, and now you have freedom to do whatever you really wanted to do – blah, blah, blah. Browsing through the books myself, I cannot say I found a single thing worth mentioning here – with the notable exception of C.S. Lewis.
As those familiar with Dr. Lewis know, he lost his wife Joy to cancer, after a long fight which the couple at one time thought they had won. I especially enjoyed the scene from the movie “Shadowlands”, where Anthony Hopkins caught perfectly the pain and frustration Lewis felt when person after person, all with the best of intentions, trotted out some banal exhortion. You know, ‘This was somehow for the best’, ‘It was meant to be’, and such useless words which do nothing for the moment or the need. As he was still coming to grips with his pain, and understanding that people needed something to address the pain they felt when suffering such a loss, and as therapy for his own loss, C.S. Lewis wrote “A Grief Observed”, far and away the best book I have ever read on the subject. It’s not an easy read, by any means, but it’s direct and honest, and it helps like no other book I have read on the subject.
It’s not surprising, really. Grief strikes all of us, but when it does, there’s few indeed who feel inclined to write about it, to wrestle with it, while the white-hot pain tears away at your own spirit and composure; even the best writers would be reluctant to invite that monster further into their own soul. It adds to my respect for Dr. Lewis that he was that rare courageous person, who understood that his own pain could serve to heal others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
