The New Orleans Saints are getting their butts kicked by the Chicago Bears right now. And a few days from now, a lot of people who rode the Saints bandwagon will jump off, climb on the wagon for one of the Superbowl teams and pretend they were there all along. That happens, of course – everyone knows what a “fair-weather” friend or supporter is. It occurs to me that we see the same thing in politics, as well, even more often. Deserters always make excuses, but in the end few people show loyalty under the test, no matter how much it is deserved by the man they desert.
History will vindicate George Walker Bush, not only as a good President, but as one of our best. Not only because of the tax cuts which reignited the economy, not only because he was the first President to seriously try to reform Social Security, not only because he saw us through the 9/11 crisis without either a rash or cowardly result, but because he stood by his people, especially listening to the military and making decisions by what was best in the long run. For everyone concerned.
Few people will agree now. It has become quite fashionable to show a backbone of butter, or worse to falsely insult the President if one can make points off it. I heard more than one Republican this past week try to pretend that President Bush did not know how hard the fight would be in Iraq, a baseless lie obvious to anyone who bothers to recall any of his State of the Union addresses or his response to early and constant whining from the press. It is those politicians who never found themselves willing to bear the burden or keep the commitment, who so falsely try to shift their own guilt onto the President. We’ve certainly seen that before. Such cowards blamed Ford for Vietnam, and Reagan for Lebanon, while they themselves never found it convenient to stand with the President when the nation itself required such a sacrifice.
I am writing today’s piece as something of a bookmark. The day most certainly will come, when many pretend that they stood with President Bush. But only those who stand with him now can honestly claim that honor.
I stand with the President, as always, and support his efforts wholeheartedly. And so I condemn the desertion of pretenders and enemies who thought to fool the party and the nation.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Why Nuclear War Can Be Ethical
On a discussion board I frequent, one poster presented the following hypothetical question;
“If you were President of the U.S. and were just informed that we were definitely under a full nuclear attack by a country that'll destroy most or all our people, would you order a full nuclear counter-attack?”
The poster received the predictable “correct” answers from many people, condemning any sort of violent response, to the point that the consensus became clear that the group, as a whole, thought that any use of nuclear weapons, even in retaliation to a massive unprovoked attack, was not only immoral but an atrocity. I was the sole respondent to observe that the only moral course was to retaliate in full force. For today’s column, I want to expand on why this is so.
I must begin with the acknowledgement that nuclear weapons are horrific weapons, which no sane person wants to see used. Yet it must be understood that nuclear weapons exist, and therefore we must address that fact. We can try to prevent proliferation, but in truth we cannot hope to do so forever. It follows therefore, that the only control we can hope to hold is to influence the behavior of nations in such a way that they will be disinclined to build or use nuclear weapons.
When we look at the question posed at the beginning, there are a lot of missing pieces. What we do know, is that a massive nuclear attack is underway against the United States, and therefore the United States is not the trigger of these events, but rather someone else has done this. Since we are dealing with a hypothetical, it is completely fair to answer by saying we would plan and act ahead of time in a way to dissuade that massive attack from happening. Deterrence, in a word. And historically, for all the talk and blather, the only proven deterrent from such an attack is the sure destruction of the aggressor through retaliation.
A good example of this can be found by examining the world condition in 1975. While it is popular to pretend that the Soviet Union was largely misunderstood and never truly a threat to the West, in reality the USSR certainly hoped to win a war of conquest against the Free World, and planned it military ambitions accordingly. The Soviets boasted a much larger army, with better experience and organization, higher morale (especially as Vietnam fell), support from regional governments and logistics. The Soviets made inroads into Africa, Asia, and South America and many leading “intellectuals”, both Republican and Democrat, were counseling American leaders to push for the best deal possible, before it was “too late”. In the dark days before Reagan and Thatcher, it seemed all too plausible that the Iron Curtain would soon extend its reach to at least all of Europe and North Africa.
Yet it did not happen. One thing bothered the Soviets, one thorn in their plans which stymied Moscow’s ambitions. The United States refused to rule out a nuclear retaliation, even in response to a conventional invasion by the Warsaw Pact. The United States possessed the means, and it seemed the will, to use nuclear weapons to prevent Soviet hegemony in Europe. The Soviets erroneously believed that the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 reinforced that view, since Carter had served as an officer in the United States Navy. Perhaps that view was not erroneous, as even in his most obliging discussions with Moscow, President Carter never ruled out a U.S. First Strike, an option he understood was vital, perhaps literally vital to the very survival of the United States.
It is difficult for some people to understand the unique role of the United States. Even as they demand the U.S. serve as a global policeman, liberals and simplists fail to understand that the United States serves a truly unique role, one which no other nation is able, much less inclined, to take up. The nuclear umbrella is held by Uncle Sam, and so there is a very great difference between American nuclear might and nuclear weapons in anyone else’s arsenal. It should also be understood that such an umbrella has already restrained the American hand in the use of nuclear weapons.
It is now known that in the last weeks of 1963, President Johnson was seriously concerned that the assassination of President Kennedy might have been planned and supported by either Cuba or the Soviet Union. If this was true, President Johnson would be faced with a truly ghastly decision in how to respond. . One consideration was the possibility of full-scale war with the Soviet Union, which would inevitably include nuclear strikes. In 1964, there was little doubt that the United States could devastate the Soviet Union to a degree that the Soviets could not hope to match. However, even if American losses would comparatively light, Johnson understood that even “complete victory” as it was then defined would include the deaths of millions of Americans, and severe damage to the infrastructure of the United States in all respects. But even if this could be avoided, the annihilation of the Soviet Union would mean that the United States would forever after be linked to an act of incalculable barbarism, and any influence the United States could claim would be solely through the threat of force; it would impossible to reconcile any claim of moral leadership with the devastation of so much of the earth and the deaths of so many people.
It is in this light that I return to the hypothetical question. If we accept for discussion the claim of a massive nuclear attack on the United States, then we are by definition discussing an aggressor who is unconcerned with the morality of their attack, but who is pursuing the destruction of America as an integral step in a plan of conquest – no other possibility exists. If such a power were to succeed in surviving the assault on the United States, the remaining nations of the earth would fall under control of an unquestionably evil despot, having proved a bloodthirstiness on unprecedented scale and malicious forethought. The responsibility of the United States is such, that even were it facing its own imminent destruction that the United States must use its forces to remove that threat from the rest of the world. The attack must be deterred through the certainty of total retaliation, but even if that should be insufficient to prevent the attack, the attacker must be totally destroyed to end its threat and evil.
Certainly all of this sounds grim and cold-blooded, and that is true. However, the audience should take note of the great difference between a hypothetical massacre and a real one. If the knowledge of the first can dissuade a power from causing a second, then that course must be pursued as the most moral choice. Nuclear weapons cannot be unmade, nor knowledge of them undone. Therefore the resolve of the United States to respond in full force must be established beyond question, in order to diminish desire to build, much less use, such weapons.
“If you were President of the U.S. and were just informed that we were definitely under a full nuclear attack by a country that'll destroy most or all our people, would you order a full nuclear counter-attack?”
The poster received the predictable “correct” answers from many people, condemning any sort of violent response, to the point that the consensus became clear that the group, as a whole, thought that any use of nuclear weapons, even in retaliation to a massive unprovoked attack, was not only immoral but an atrocity. I was the sole respondent to observe that the only moral course was to retaliate in full force. For today’s column, I want to expand on why this is so.
I must begin with the acknowledgement that nuclear weapons are horrific weapons, which no sane person wants to see used. Yet it must be understood that nuclear weapons exist, and therefore we must address that fact. We can try to prevent proliferation, but in truth we cannot hope to do so forever. It follows therefore, that the only control we can hope to hold is to influence the behavior of nations in such a way that they will be disinclined to build or use nuclear weapons.
When we look at the question posed at the beginning, there are a lot of missing pieces. What we do know, is that a massive nuclear attack is underway against the United States, and therefore the United States is not the trigger of these events, but rather someone else has done this. Since we are dealing with a hypothetical, it is completely fair to answer by saying we would plan and act ahead of time in a way to dissuade that massive attack from happening. Deterrence, in a word. And historically, for all the talk and blather, the only proven deterrent from such an attack is the sure destruction of the aggressor through retaliation.
A good example of this can be found by examining the world condition in 1975. While it is popular to pretend that the Soviet Union was largely misunderstood and never truly a threat to the West, in reality the USSR certainly hoped to win a war of conquest against the Free World, and planned it military ambitions accordingly. The Soviets boasted a much larger army, with better experience and organization, higher morale (especially as Vietnam fell), support from regional governments and logistics. The Soviets made inroads into Africa, Asia, and South America and many leading “intellectuals”, both Republican and Democrat, were counseling American leaders to push for the best deal possible, before it was “too late”. In the dark days before Reagan and Thatcher, it seemed all too plausible that the Iron Curtain would soon extend its reach to at least all of Europe and North Africa.
Yet it did not happen. One thing bothered the Soviets, one thorn in their plans which stymied Moscow’s ambitions. The United States refused to rule out a nuclear retaliation, even in response to a conventional invasion by the Warsaw Pact. The United States possessed the means, and it seemed the will, to use nuclear weapons to prevent Soviet hegemony in Europe. The Soviets erroneously believed that the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 reinforced that view, since Carter had served as an officer in the United States Navy. Perhaps that view was not erroneous, as even in his most obliging discussions with Moscow, President Carter never ruled out a U.S. First Strike, an option he understood was vital, perhaps literally vital to the very survival of the United States.
It is difficult for some people to understand the unique role of the United States. Even as they demand the U.S. serve as a global policeman, liberals and simplists fail to understand that the United States serves a truly unique role, one which no other nation is able, much less inclined, to take up. The nuclear umbrella is held by Uncle Sam, and so there is a very great difference between American nuclear might and nuclear weapons in anyone else’s arsenal. It should also be understood that such an umbrella has already restrained the American hand in the use of nuclear weapons.
It is now known that in the last weeks of 1963, President Johnson was seriously concerned that the assassination of President Kennedy might have been planned and supported by either Cuba or the Soviet Union. If this was true, President Johnson would be faced with a truly ghastly decision in how to respond. . One consideration was the possibility of full-scale war with the Soviet Union, which would inevitably include nuclear strikes. In 1964, there was little doubt that the United States could devastate the Soviet Union to a degree that the Soviets could not hope to match. However, even if American losses would comparatively light, Johnson understood that even “complete victory” as it was then defined would include the deaths of millions of Americans, and severe damage to the infrastructure of the United States in all respects. But even if this could be avoided, the annihilation of the Soviet Union would mean that the United States would forever after be linked to an act of incalculable barbarism, and any influence the United States could claim would be solely through the threat of force; it would impossible to reconcile any claim of moral leadership with the devastation of so much of the earth and the deaths of so many people.
It is in this light that I return to the hypothetical question. If we accept for discussion the claim of a massive nuclear attack on the United States, then we are by definition discussing an aggressor who is unconcerned with the morality of their attack, but who is pursuing the destruction of America as an integral step in a plan of conquest – no other possibility exists. If such a power were to succeed in surviving the assault on the United States, the remaining nations of the earth would fall under control of an unquestionably evil despot, having proved a bloodthirstiness on unprecedented scale and malicious forethought. The responsibility of the United States is such, that even were it facing its own imminent destruction that the United States must use its forces to remove that threat from the rest of the world. The attack must be deterred through the certainty of total retaliation, but even if that should be insufficient to prevent the attack, the attacker must be totally destroyed to end its threat and evil.
Certainly all of this sounds grim and cold-blooded, and that is true. However, the audience should take note of the great difference between a hypothetical massacre and a real one. If the knowledge of the first can dissuade a power from causing a second, then that course must be pursued as the most moral choice. Nuclear weapons cannot be unmade, nor knowledge of them undone. Therefore the resolve of the United States to respond in full force must be established beyond question, in order to diminish desire to build, much less use, such weapons.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
O As In Obama, Or 0 As In Zero?
In 2004, Democrats thought they had it all set up. Convinced that America hated President Bush as much as they did, they figured that all they had to do was avoid a complete disaster for a candidate. Unfortunately, History showed that the entire Democrat selection shared that quality.
Unsure about what went wrong but convinced that the problem could not be that President Bush was actually respected and supported by most of the nation in that election, the Democrats examined their methodology and decided that the ’jump to conclusions and grab the first candidate who makes them breathe heavy’ plan was still the way to go, and in addition to keeping their front-loaded primary schedule for 2008 they agreed that qualifications for their nominee must depend heavily on the public whim. Acknowledging that John Forbes Kerry was the party’s second straight disaster for a nominee, and the fourth such ridiculous submission from the Jackass Party in the last five Presidential tries, they also tried a hard reverse on several points:
Whereas John Kerry was clearly a horse-faced old white man, and a veteran of the War in Vietnam, the current Democrats are more than slightly enamoured of Barack Obama, an attractive young black man who probably couldn’t find Vietnam on a map. Where Kerry was most well-known as a back-stabbing traitor who falsely accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities, Obama is careful to praise the military, if only in platitudes. Where Kerry could not order lunch without offending someone, Obama is articulate and charming. Where Kerry’s roots were in the most elite sections of Massachusetts, Obama boasts of his Chicago roots, as if he were an ordinary working-class man. Where most folks would expect Kerry to hang out with Ted Kennedy, they would expect Obama to chill with Oprah. And where Kerry thought his name would help him, Obama is already working hard to keep his name from being a factor.
Beneath the surface, however, the Democrats’ preference in personal qualities continues to be a constant. Both Kerry and Obama have voting records which support Socialist economic policies and try to impede the Military and our Intelligence agencies from doing their jobs. Both avoid naming any specific polices they would support as President, or any doctrines they would pronounce in leading America. Neither is known for sponsoring significant legislation, nor is either a heavyweight in the Senate in terms of getting things done. Both men are essentially ornamental, rather than practical, from dress to function. Both hope to win election through public resentment of the present leadership, rather than any personal character or plan of action on their part. Both refuse to answer tough questions, and both get kid glove treatment from the Mainstream Media, especially network television. Both have a habit of disappearing when Hillary enters the room.
I would not bet money on an Obama Presidency anytime soon.
Unsure about what went wrong but convinced that the problem could not be that President Bush was actually respected and supported by most of the nation in that election, the Democrats examined their methodology and decided that the ’jump to conclusions and grab the first candidate who makes them breathe heavy’ plan was still the way to go, and in addition to keeping their front-loaded primary schedule for 2008 they agreed that qualifications for their nominee must depend heavily on the public whim. Acknowledging that John Forbes Kerry was the party’s second straight disaster for a nominee, and the fourth such ridiculous submission from the Jackass Party in the last five Presidential tries, they also tried a hard reverse on several points:
Whereas John Kerry was clearly a horse-faced old white man, and a veteran of the War in Vietnam, the current Democrats are more than slightly enamoured of Barack Obama, an attractive young black man who probably couldn’t find Vietnam on a map. Where Kerry was most well-known as a back-stabbing traitor who falsely accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities, Obama is careful to praise the military, if only in platitudes. Where Kerry could not order lunch without offending someone, Obama is articulate and charming. Where Kerry’s roots were in the most elite sections of Massachusetts, Obama boasts of his Chicago roots, as if he were an ordinary working-class man. Where most folks would expect Kerry to hang out with Ted Kennedy, they would expect Obama to chill with Oprah. And where Kerry thought his name would help him, Obama is already working hard to keep his name from being a factor.
Beneath the surface, however, the Democrats’ preference in personal qualities continues to be a constant. Both Kerry and Obama have voting records which support Socialist economic policies and try to impede the Military and our Intelligence agencies from doing their jobs. Both avoid naming any specific polices they would support as President, or any doctrines they would pronounce in leading America. Neither is known for sponsoring significant legislation, nor is either a heavyweight in the Senate in terms of getting things done. Both men are essentially ornamental, rather than practical, from dress to function. Both hope to win election through public resentment of the present leadership, rather than any personal character or plan of action on their part. Both refuse to answer tough questions, and both get kid glove treatment from the Mainstream Media, especially network television. Both have a habit of disappearing when Hillary enters the room.
I would not bet money on an Obama Presidency anytime soon.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
What Paul Taught Me About Pain
“To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.”
Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9
My cancer is growing. How fast, I cannot say, but it is more difficult now than it was last week, both in what I can do and in terms of pain. I won’t dwell on that here, except that it has brought unexpected blessings of perception, perhaps a few insights. That verse from Paul was one I thought I understood, but I have a different take on it now. Obviously, I have no idea what Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was, although I cannot help but consider my similarity when I feel a jab in my side, unexpected and sharp. I imagine Paul thinking from time to time, that maybe he has gotten past the problem, when suddenly he feels it again, maybe when he tries to sleep, maybe while eating, but a nasty reminder that he is never free from it. It seems quite apt to call such a thing a “messenger from Satan, to torment”.
But maybe it’s not quite the same for me. Where Paul calls his pain a messenger from Satan, I believe mine is a reminder from God. I am reminded that we all must die one day, that all sorts of things we might think are important are really just vanity and selfish pursuits. I am reminded that many people are in pain, sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent, sometimes minor and sometimes a torment, sometimes it seems just part of life which we all must face, and sometimes a singular injustice we did nothing to deserve. On the one hand, I sometimes complain that every time I seem to start getting things to go well in my life, something seems to happen which ruins it all. On the other hand, I have seen children with cancer, and people who found out too late to do anything but wait for death, and I am ashamed of my own complaint. Sometimes I feel that I do not receive what I have worked for, that I am cheated of justice and my right reward, but then I see others who have been cheated to a greater degree, and for much longer, and again I am silenced by that rebuke.
I think about things, especially at night when I am having trouble getting sleep. I realize that I live for a purpose, and I want very badly not to screw up the things that matter. I do not just desire to be a good husband and father, I need to be the best husband and father that I can possibly be. I do not simply want to live in service to God and as a witness to His love, I need to do so. I do not simply wish to help people understand what hope and joy and peace are really like, I need to do my best to help people find those things if they desire them.
Even if I beat this thing, I am aware that the clock is running.
Painfully aware.
Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9
My cancer is growing. How fast, I cannot say, but it is more difficult now than it was last week, both in what I can do and in terms of pain. I won’t dwell on that here, except that it has brought unexpected blessings of perception, perhaps a few insights. That verse from Paul was one I thought I understood, but I have a different take on it now. Obviously, I have no idea what Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was, although I cannot help but consider my similarity when I feel a jab in my side, unexpected and sharp. I imagine Paul thinking from time to time, that maybe he has gotten past the problem, when suddenly he feels it again, maybe when he tries to sleep, maybe while eating, but a nasty reminder that he is never free from it. It seems quite apt to call such a thing a “messenger from Satan, to torment”.
But maybe it’s not quite the same for me. Where Paul calls his pain a messenger from Satan, I believe mine is a reminder from God. I am reminded that we all must die one day, that all sorts of things we might think are important are really just vanity and selfish pursuits. I am reminded that many people are in pain, sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent, sometimes minor and sometimes a torment, sometimes it seems just part of life which we all must face, and sometimes a singular injustice we did nothing to deserve. On the one hand, I sometimes complain that every time I seem to start getting things to go well in my life, something seems to happen which ruins it all. On the other hand, I have seen children with cancer, and people who found out too late to do anything but wait for death, and I am ashamed of my own complaint. Sometimes I feel that I do not receive what I have worked for, that I am cheated of justice and my right reward, but then I see others who have been cheated to a greater degree, and for much longer, and again I am silenced by that rebuke.
I think about things, especially at night when I am having trouble getting sleep. I realize that I live for a purpose, and I want very badly not to screw up the things that matter. I do not just desire to be a good husband and father, I need to be the best husband and father that I can possibly be. I do not simply want to live in service to God and as a witness to His love, I need to do so. I do not simply wish to help people understand what hope and joy and peace are really like, I need to do my best to help people find those things if they desire them.
Even if I beat this thing, I am aware that the clock is running.
Painfully aware.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Something I Did Not Know Before
My readers will already be aware that I do not think all that highly of Democrats, particularly the present leadership. However, I try to be honest when considering people, and I have discovered something which needs to be praised.
I am presently reading a book about the Zodiac Murders, and so came across the name of David Toschi, the San Francisco detective who was the lead investigator for the case. Unfortunately for Toschi, he became something of a celebrity, and so collected enemies and rivals along the way; while Toschi never voiced a desire to be anything but a good cop, it was rumored that some high-profile politicians intended to make him police chief, perhaps back him for elected office. A sort of smear campaign began against Toschi, which not only cost him his position in the Homicide department (Toschi was transferred to Pawn Shop robberies for allegedly writing fan mail about himself to a newspaper under assumed names), but which damaged the credibility of authenticated letters sent by the murderer. It was later established that Toschi broke no laws or regulations, and in no way compromised his work or the evidence, something police chief Gain cannot claim. He was restored to his former rank and duties after a number of people came to his defense, most notably then-City Supervisor Dianne Feinstein (later Mayor and now United States Senator). It should be noted that Feinstein put her own position at some risk to defend Toschi, and that the available information indicates her defense of Toschi was principled and apolitical.
I disagree with Senator Feinstein on a number of issues, but applaud her principles and courage in defending Detective Toschi. It demonstrates a level of character and integrity which should not be ignored.
I am presently reading a book about the Zodiac Murders, and so came across the name of David Toschi, the San Francisco detective who was the lead investigator for the case. Unfortunately for Toschi, he became something of a celebrity, and so collected enemies and rivals along the way; while Toschi never voiced a desire to be anything but a good cop, it was rumored that some high-profile politicians intended to make him police chief, perhaps back him for elected office. A sort of smear campaign began against Toschi, which not only cost him his position in the Homicide department (Toschi was transferred to Pawn Shop robberies for allegedly writing fan mail about himself to a newspaper under assumed names), but which damaged the credibility of authenticated letters sent by the murderer. It was later established that Toschi broke no laws or regulations, and in no way compromised his work or the evidence, something police chief Gain cannot claim. He was restored to his former rank and duties after a number of people came to his defense, most notably then-City Supervisor Dianne Feinstein (later Mayor and now United States Senator). It should be noted that Feinstein put her own position at some risk to defend Toschi, and that the available information indicates her defense of Toschi was principled and apolitical.
I disagree with Senator Feinstein on a number of issues, but applaud her principles and courage in defending Detective Toschi. It demonstrates a level of character and integrity which should not be ignored.
Friday, January 12, 2007
So Tell Us, What's YOUR Plan?
It needs to be repeated, again and again. For all the noise and hatred spewing from the Democrats against President Bush, no one else has suggested a specific plan of action to address the key concerns of the Middle East. So again I ask you, Democrats Liberals and Bush-Haters everywhere, to lay out your plan.
To constitute a legitimate “plan”, the plan must be specific enough to address the following salient questions:
[] How will your plan result in a stable Iraq?
[] How will your plan address the known aggression from Iran, Syria, and militant Islam?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East economically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East diplomatically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East culturally?
[] How will your plan prevent another 9/11-style attack?
[] How will your plan attack Al Qaeda or similar terrorist organizations?
[] How will your plan protect Israel?
[] How will your plan improve the standard of living in the Middle East?
[] How will your plan protect the rights of women, religious minorities, or children in the Middle East?
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t expect much in the way of substantive answers. And for purposes of scoring, rhetoric alone will count as negative submissions, and personal insults will count as negative submissions twice each.
This forum is open to all mature, civil adults. I think there’s what, five or six of us still around.
To constitute a legitimate “plan”, the plan must be specific enough to address the following salient questions:
[] How will your plan result in a stable Iraq?
[] How will your plan address the known aggression from Iran, Syria, and militant Islam?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East economically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East diplomatically?
[] How will your plan protect or advance American interests in the Middle East culturally?
[] How will your plan prevent another 9/11-style attack?
[] How will your plan attack Al Qaeda or similar terrorist organizations?
[] How will your plan protect Israel?
[] How will your plan improve the standard of living in the Middle East?
[] How will your plan protect the rights of women, religious minorities, or children in the Middle East?
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t expect much in the way of substantive answers. And for purposes of scoring, rhetoric alone will count as negative submissions, and personal insults will count as negative submissions twice each.
This forum is open to all mature, civil adults. I think there’s what, five or six of us still around.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Lance Armstrong Is Wrong This Time
Lance Armstrong, arguably the best athlete alive today, and justly respected for the toughness and courage he showed in beating Cancer, did his reputation a little tarnishing today. Writing for CNN and speaking in front of the Capitol as if he were the Voice of America itself, Armstrong had himself a little whine-fest, demanding that the United States government spend more money on Cancer research.
OK, normally I would be really slow to take on someone as respected as Lance Armstrong. Especially where the territory is cancer. But if there’s one thing that I can say now that I could not just a couple months ago, it’s that I have at least as much right as Lance Armstrong to speak about Cancer and what the government should do, since I am presently fighting my own battle, years after he won his (and God willing he will not have to fight it again). I certainly have ideas about some things the government – at all levels – can and must do better – but I also know enough to suggest that Armstrong’s speech today was not altogether honest, either about what is being done or what can be expected in a reasonable effort to find a cure for Cancer.
Armstrong sounds like the stereotypical Liberal in his speech. Said Armstrong, ”I patiently waited to hear a candidate for office explain to constituents what he or she planned to do about one of the leading threats to the health and well-being of all Americans -- cancer. My patience was greeted with silence.” Well Lance, as important as it is to cancer patients to know what elected officials intend to do about Cancer, there has never been an indication that the voters in general demanded candidates address specific diseases or conditions. One could just as easily be outraged because no candidate for Congress mentioned Alzheimer’s, Heart Disease, or Diabetes. You were not answered, I dare suggest, because the question never came up during the campaigns.
Armstrong’s attack on the government continued: ”The political ads didn't tell voters that earlier in the year funding for cancer research was cut for the first time in 30 years. Nor did they explain that a lack of funding slows the pace of scientific discovery and the development of treatments. Our candidates did not mention the decrease in funding for programs that provide information and screening to people who need these services.”
Armstrong did not cite any sources to back up these claims, nor frankly am I personally interested in whether they are true or not. This might sound peculiar, but it’s because I see Mr. Armstrong’s suggestion that less money means less progress (also implying that more money spent will somehow create more progress, all on its own, which is a quintessentially Liberal proposition), is hopelessly poor logic. It’s as if Armstrong was arguing that only the most expensive bike wins the Tour de France, or that only the best-paid employee does the best work. Armstrong’s argument is emotional, at times compelling, but it hardly works on a rational level.
Armstrong claimed to speak on behalf of millions of Cancer survivors and patients, but he does not speak for me in this instance. The reason he does not, is because I find that confrontational tactics like his, while satisfying on one level, really do nothing to advance understanding or results, those very things Armstrong claims he wants most. As an example, I return to my own condition:
My cancer is a rare variant of abdominal cancer, PMP for short. Even after decades of research, not much is known about it, and while one new regimen has shown promise, technically there is no known cure for PMP and so by the book to have PMP is to have terminal cancer. Don’t worry, I am hardly giving up, but I want you to understand that I am not painting the walls of my scenario with fantastic illusions.
As it happens, I am presently going through a bureacratic maze, because the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center will not admit me until they have reviewed my case, which means they want to receive the medical records from every doctor I have seen and every test I have taken. The reader will note that M.D. Anderson has not offered to collect this information, but demands that I retrieve it and send it to them. In that course, I have discovered that my other doctors' offices have been very bad about dragging their feet. I was shocked to learn that unlike other states, Texas does not consider medical records to belong to the patient - the records belong to the medical provider, which in hard fact means that I cannot compel them to release my records - I have to ask them nicely and hope all my forms are filled out correctly. At least one doctor's office was actually offended that I was going to another provider to have my cancer treated, even though the cancer I have is a rare variant which the oncologist has never seen before. They "lost" my file for a week, then made me appear in person to request the files, which meant filling out a long form, which they then announced was - oops - the "wrong" form, and so I had to fill out another form instead. Despite multiple requests, by phone, in writing and in person, after two weeks neither my Primary Care Provider, my urosurgeon, nor my oncologist has sent the files to M.D. Anderson. Forgive me Mr. Armstrong, but I strongly doubt that giving more money to these sorts of people will improve the situation. If government wants to help cancer patients like me, they need to establish nationally the right of patients to receive and keep our own medical records. They need to establish nominal procedures that take burdens from patients and their families when they are already stressed and overwrought, and require that medical providers cooperate with patient requests and expedite processes where delay affects survival chances. Money is not the issue here, Mr. Armstrong.
I have great respect for Lance Armstrong's fight against Cancer, and his advocacy for better education and attention to Cancer in general. I would suggest that I see Armstrong's courageous and noble fight against Cancer in the same way that I see John McCain's courageous and noble service in Vietnam; extremely honorable and a great message, but it does not qualify him to speak with authority in all things or at all times. In other words, Armstrong is a heroic figurehead for all of us who fight Cancer, but he is not thereby qualified to make budget decisions, to judge the effort of Cancer research solely on one factor, nor is he qualified to speak as the sole voice for cancer patients.
Would I like more money to be available for Cancer research? Of course, but only if the researchers are accountable and specific about what they will do with additional money. There needs to be sanity about which form of Cancer needs funding the most and in what amounts, and what threats to human life and health must also be addressed. Simply giving doctors and laboratories more money, I must contradict Mr. Armstrong, will in no way advance the discovery of vaccines automatically, nor will a higher salary for doctors suddenly open the insights to prevention or curative regimens. At best, the money will provide tools which can help find advances, but without a demand for accountability it can just as easily be wasted. But more to the point, the problem with Mr. Armstrong's speech and demands, is that it focuses on the people who have always held control - the people who have money, who are in positions of power, and who will always be tempted to grandstand and play favorites. The focus should be on the needs of the patients, who all too often are objectified and their individual voices muffled because spokesmen like Armstrong are too busy playing politics to listen themselves.
OK, normally I would be really slow to take on someone as respected as Lance Armstrong. Especially where the territory is cancer. But if there’s one thing that I can say now that I could not just a couple months ago, it’s that I have at least as much right as Lance Armstrong to speak about Cancer and what the government should do, since I am presently fighting my own battle, years after he won his (and God willing he will not have to fight it again). I certainly have ideas about some things the government – at all levels – can and must do better – but I also know enough to suggest that Armstrong’s speech today was not altogether honest, either about what is being done or what can be expected in a reasonable effort to find a cure for Cancer.
Armstrong sounds like the stereotypical Liberal in his speech. Said Armstrong, ”I patiently waited to hear a candidate for office explain to constituents what he or she planned to do about one of the leading threats to the health and well-being of all Americans -- cancer. My patience was greeted with silence.” Well Lance, as important as it is to cancer patients to know what elected officials intend to do about Cancer, there has never been an indication that the voters in general demanded candidates address specific diseases or conditions. One could just as easily be outraged because no candidate for Congress mentioned Alzheimer’s, Heart Disease, or Diabetes. You were not answered, I dare suggest, because the question never came up during the campaigns.
Armstrong’s attack on the government continued: ”The political ads didn't tell voters that earlier in the year funding for cancer research was cut for the first time in 30 years. Nor did they explain that a lack of funding slows the pace of scientific discovery and the development of treatments. Our candidates did not mention the decrease in funding for programs that provide information and screening to people who need these services.”
Armstrong did not cite any sources to back up these claims, nor frankly am I personally interested in whether they are true or not. This might sound peculiar, but it’s because I see Mr. Armstrong’s suggestion that less money means less progress (also implying that more money spent will somehow create more progress, all on its own, which is a quintessentially Liberal proposition), is hopelessly poor logic. It’s as if Armstrong was arguing that only the most expensive bike wins the Tour de France, or that only the best-paid employee does the best work. Armstrong’s argument is emotional, at times compelling, but it hardly works on a rational level.
Armstrong claimed to speak on behalf of millions of Cancer survivors and patients, but he does not speak for me in this instance. The reason he does not, is because I find that confrontational tactics like his, while satisfying on one level, really do nothing to advance understanding or results, those very things Armstrong claims he wants most. As an example, I return to my own condition:
My cancer is a rare variant of abdominal cancer, PMP for short. Even after decades of research, not much is known about it, and while one new regimen has shown promise, technically there is no known cure for PMP and so by the book to have PMP is to have terminal cancer. Don’t worry, I am hardly giving up, but I want you to understand that I am not painting the walls of my scenario with fantastic illusions.
As it happens, I am presently going through a bureacratic maze, because the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center will not admit me until they have reviewed my case, which means they want to receive the medical records from every doctor I have seen and every test I have taken. The reader will note that M.D. Anderson has not offered to collect this information, but demands that I retrieve it and send it to them. In that course, I have discovered that my other doctors' offices have been very bad about dragging their feet. I was shocked to learn that unlike other states, Texas does not consider medical records to belong to the patient - the records belong to the medical provider, which in hard fact means that I cannot compel them to release my records - I have to ask them nicely and hope all my forms are filled out correctly. At least one doctor's office was actually offended that I was going to another provider to have my cancer treated, even though the cancer I have is a rare variant which the oncologist has never seen before. They "lost" my file for a week, then made me appear in person to request the files, which meant filling out a long form, which they then announced was - oops - the "wrong" form, and so I had to fill out another form instead. Despite multiple requests, by phone, in writing and in person, after two weeks neither my Primary Care Provider, my urosurgeon, nor my oncologist has sent the files to M.D. Anderson. Forgive me Mr. Armstrong, but I strongly doubt that giving more money to these sorts of people will improve the situation. If government wants to help cancer patients like me, they need to establish nationally the right of patients to receive and keep our own medical records. They need to establish nominal procedures that take burdens from patients and their families when they are already stressed and overwrought, and require that medical providers cooperate with patient requests and expedite processes where delay affects survival chances. Money is not the issue here, Mr. Armstrong.
I have great respect for Lance Armstrong's fight against Cancer, and his advocacy for better education and attention to Cancer in general. I would suggest that I see Armstrong's courageous and noble fight against Cancer in the same way that I see John McCain's courageous and noble service in Vietnam; extremely honorable and a great message, but it does not qualify him to speak with authority in all things or at all times. In other words, Armstrong is a heroic figurehead for all of us who fight Cancer, but he is not thereby qualified to make budget decisions, to judge the effort of Cancer research solely on one factor, nor is he qualified to speak as the sole voice for cancer patients.
Would I like more money to be available for Cancer research? Of course, but only if the researchers are accountable and specific about what they will do with additional money. There needs to be sanity about which form of Cancer needs funding the most and in what amounts, and what threats to human life and health must also be addressed. Simply giving doctors and laboratories more money, I must contradict Mr. Armstrong, will in no way advance the discovery of vaccines automatically, nor will a higher salary for doctors suddenly open the insights to prevention or curative regimens. At best, the money will provide tools which can help find advances, but without a demand for accountability it can just as easily be wasted. But more to the point, the problem with Mr. Armstrong's speech and demands, is that it focuses on the people who have always held control - the people who have money, who are in positions of power, and who will always be tempted to grandstand and play favorites. The focus should be on the needs of the patients, who all too often are objectified and their individual voices muffled because spokesmen like Armstrong are too busy playing politics to listen themselves.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
No Champion This Year in I-A College Football
Personally, I was hoping the Florida Gators would do something like this. They flat-out stomped the highly-favored and apparently-overrated Ohio State Buckeyes 41-14, and so laid claim to the National Championship in College Football. Unfortunately for Florida, they did not prove that they really were the best team. While the Gators played a great game, all they really did was prove, once again, that Division I-A NCAA Football can never claim an authentic “champion”, unless and until they establish a playoff, as is done with every other NCAA sport, and every division in NCAA Football except Division I-A.
The University of Florida finished 13-1, losing only to Auburn. Auburn, for its part, finished 11-2, losing to Arkansas and Georgia, but 1 loss is awfully close to 2 losses, and Florida cannot simply brush off the loss to Auburn as irrelevant; at the least it proves that Florida could not beat every opponent it faced. The only team that can say that is Boise State, from the WAC. The WAC, of course, has never been a favorite of Football’s Snob Society; years ago Brigham Young had a number of teams with records and stats as good as any team, yet they were always locked out of a National Championship chance, simply for being BYU. Auburn, who beat this year’s Pretender to the throne, was itself undefeated in 2004 but not allowed a shot, again because men who cared about money rather than honor refused to do the right thing. So, while pollsters will grudgingly allow that Boise State had a good team, no one in a position of power has suggested that they were hosed, even though millions of football fans know that for a fact.
Since teams that lose can be considered above the one undefeated team for a national championship, we should also consider that Wisconsin finished 12-1, as did Louisville, and of course Ohio State. If there’s going to be a mulligan, then we have at least five teams who can all make a valid claim to number 1. And if one loss is really the same thing – as we seem to hear argued – as no losses, then we must in fairness consider the two-loss teams, which would bring in Auburn (who beat Florida), LSU, USC, Michigan, West Virginia, Rutgers, TCU and BYU. That gives us thirteen teams with a claim to the title in some fashion or another. It’s been obvious for decades, but this year as much as ever; If there is no playoff, no team can rightfully claim to be the Champion.
The University of Florida finished 13-1, losing only to Auburn. Auburn, for its part, finished 11-2, losing to Arkansas and Georgia, but 1 loss is awfully close to 2 losses, and Florida cannot simply brush off the loss to Auburn as irrelevant; at the least it proves that Florida could not beat every opponent it faced. The only team that can say that is Boise State, from the WAC. The WAC, of course, has never been a favorite of Football’s Snob Society; years ago Brigham Young had a number of teams with records and stats as good as any team, yet they were always locked out of a National Championship chance, simply for being BYU. Auburn, who beat this year’s Pretender to the throne, was itself undefeated in 2004 but not allowed a shot, again because men who cared about money rather than honor refused to do the right thing. So, while pollsters will grudgingly allow that Boise State had a good team, no one in a position of power has suggested that they were hosed, even though millions of football fans know that for a fact.
Since teams that lose can be considered above the one undefeated team for a national championship, we should also consider that Wisconsin finished 12-1, as did Louisville, and of course Ohio State. If there’s going to be a mulligan, then we have at least five teams who can all make a valid claim to number 1. And if one loss is really the same thing – as we seem to hear argued – as no losses, then we must in fairness consider the two-loss teams, which would bring in Auburn (who beat Florida), LSU, USC, Michigan, West Virginia, Rutgers, TCU and BYU. That gives us thirteen teams with a claim to the title in some fashion or another. It’s been obvious for decades, but this year as much as ever; If there is no playoff, no team can rightfully claim to be the Champion.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
The Evolution Of Insurance Claims – How UHC Changed The Way It Listens
OK, right from the start I admit that this one is going to attract very few people for its excitement value, but it’s a very big deal if you can grasp the significance of these changes. For full disclosure, I state here that my health insurance carrier is United Healthcare, and that they will be providing coverage for my cancer treatment. This situation should be considered in weighing possible bias on my part regarding United Healthcare.
As you all know by now, I have cancer. PMP for short, Pseudomyxoma Peritonei if you’re into the long version. Cutting to the chase, dealing with this cancer has already meant a string of doctor visits and tests, and will involve at least one major surgery and a bunch of chemotherapy. There are all sorts of factors to consider in this sort of thing, but one of the big worries is what it costs, financially, to survive cancer. And a big part of that worry is the cost of medical care. One of my fellow patients with PMP revealed that her hospital stay produced a bill in the amount of roughly $280,000. You know, that’s a big number in anyone’s book, and enough to send the average household right into bankruptcy.
Now, as it happens I have health insurance, through United Healthcare. The policy in general says they will cover 80% of accepted charges after the annual deductible is paid. That’s fine when we are talking about paying for a short stay of a well-known condition, but PMP is not well-known, and everyone I have talked to says that the hospital stay will be for several weeks, followed by several months of recovery. And even if UHC agreed to cover the hospital stay, the projected bill could easily result in me being responsible for $57,000. I do not have that kind of money, and I could not realistically pay that kind of cost out even if someone gave me years to do it.
OK, roll back to the mid-1980s. One big and common complaint about major insurance companies, was how hard people had to fight to get claims covered. From 1994 to 2000, I worked for a third-party claims administrator and I can tell you that there was a lot of difficulty. Sometimes it was fraud, but as often by the provider or the patient as it was from an insurer, but a lot more often there was something missing or misunderstood in the information and communication. This happened the most often when a claim was very large, or the diagnosis was controversial or complex. Things only got worse during the Clinton Administration, because in its zeal to protect the patient, the administration often made insurance companies out to be the villain. Imagine you run a business, but you are not allowed to control your costs. This was how many insurers saw the trend in government management of Healthcare. At that same time, the strong rise in medical malpractice suits and the subsequent jump in premiums made providers feel that they were being pinched; they were being forced to accept standardized reimbursement for medical services, but which did not rise in proportion to their operating costs or sense of risk. And patients continued to complain that valid needs were unmet, and legitimate claims denied purely for financial reasons. As recently as 1998, the matter seemed impossible to resolve.
I cannot speak for every insurer, but United Healthcare examined the issue, considered its options, and made changes. So far, that sounds like something any company would do, but in the case of UHC, the first changes were not towards patients or providers, but in the quality of information UHC had to use to make decisions. Speaking at the 11th Conference of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Lee Newcomer, the Business Leader of Oncology Services for UHC explained that “it can be difficult to separate human error from system error”, meaning that the data sources had to be evaluated, and for that, UHC needed to hear – directly – from providers and patients. Participation in medical conferences like the NCCN Roundtable was one way to find out information, but UHC also opened queries to doctors and clients about their satisfaction with UHC. UHC also conducts clinical research in cooperation with laboratories and doctors, especially on those conditions with little established data. UHC also began to release Clinical Profiles, a program to coordinate doctors’ practices with other programs and to establish national benchmarks for medical care. In 1999, UHC followed this with the start of a Care Coordination program, which connected the different services, medicines, and treatments that patients needed for extended and serious conditions. And somewhere along the way UHC examined the numbers and determined an Out-of-Pocket Ceiling that any client would be expected to pay in any year, and UHC eliminated lifetime limits to medical care for most clients. In my case, this means that while my surgery and the associated costs will be expensive, they will be within predictable limits and in general the level of worry I will have from my insurance claims has been greatly reduced.
It remains to be seen how the promise will meet up with the reality, but I have read accounts from other PMP patients with UHC insurance, and the response has been very favorable. True, a lot of this depends on doctors and their staffs following through with the insurance company and all the paperwork, but it should be noted that at least some of the insurance companies have remembered that the patients are real persons, and they respect us in accordance with that truth.
As you all know by now, I have cancer. PMP for short, Pseudomyxoma Peritonei if you’re into the long version. Cutting to the chase, dealing with this cancer has already meant a string of doctor visits and tests, and will involve at least one major surgery and a bunch of chemotherapy. There are all sorts of factors to consider in this sort of thing, but one of the big worries is what it costs, financially, to survive cancer. And a big part of that worry is the cost of medical care. One of my fellow patients with PMP revealed that her hospital stay produced a bill in the amount of roughly $280,000. You know, that’s a big number in anyone’s book, and enough to send the average household right into bankruptcy.
Now, as it happens I have health insurance, through United Healthcare. The policy in general says they will cover 80% of accepted charges after the annual deductible is paid. That’s fine when we are talking about paying for a short stay of a well-known condition, but PMP is not well-known, and everyone I have talked to says that the hospital stay will be for several weeks, followed by several months of recovery. And even if UHC agreed to cover the hospital stay, the projected bill could easily result in me being responsible for $57,000. I do not have that kind of money, and I could not realistically pay that kind of cost out even if someone gave me years to do it.
OK, roll back to the mid-1980s. One big and common complaint about major insurance companies, was how hard people had to fight to get claims covered. From 1994 to 2000, I worked for a third-party claims administrator and I can tell you that there was a lot of difficulty. Sometimes it was fraud, but as often by the provider or the patient as it was from an insurer, but a lot more often there was something missing or misunderstood in the information and communication. This happened the most often when a claim was very large, or the diagnosis was controversial or complex. Things only got worse during the Clinton Administration, because in its zeal to protect the patient, the administration often made insurance companies out to be the villain. Imagine you run a business, but you are not allowed to control your costs. This was how many insurers saw the trend in government management of Healthcare. At that same time, the strong rise in medical malpractice suits and the subsequent jump in premiums made providers feel that they were being pinched; they were being forced to accept standardized reimbursement for medical services, but which did not rise in proportion to their operating costs or sense of risk. And patients continued to complain that valid needs were unmet, and legitimate claims denied purely for financial reasons. As recently as 1998, the matter seemed impossible to resolve.
I cannot speak for every insurer, but United Healthcare examined the issue, considered its options, and made changes. So far, that sounds like something any company would do, but in the case of UHC, the first changes were not towards patients or providers, but in the quality of information UHC had to use to make decisions. Speaking at the 11th Conference of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Lee Newcomer, the Business Leader of Oncology Services for UHC explained that “it can be difficult to separate human error from system error”, meaning that the data sources had to be evaluated, and for that, UHC needed to hear – directly – from providers and patients. Participation in medical conferences like the NCCN Roundtable was one way to find out information, but UHC also opened queries to doctors and clients about their satisfaction with UHC. UHC also conducts clinical research in cooperation with laboratories and doctors, especially on those conditions with little established data. UHC also began to release Clinical Profiles, a program to coordinate doctors’ practices with other programs and to establish national benchmarks for medical care. In 1999, UHC followed this with the start of a Care Coordination program, which connected the different services, medicines, and treatments that patients needed for extended and serious conditions. And somewhere along the way UHC examined the numbers and determined an Out-of-Pocket Ceiling that any client would be expected to pay in any year, and UHC eliminated lifetime limits to medical care for most clients. In my case, this means that while my surgery and the associated costs will be expensive, they will be within predictable limits and in general the level of worry I will have from my insurance claims has been greatly reduced.
It remains to be seen how the promise will meet up with the reality, but I have read accounts from other PMP patients with UHC insurance, and the response has been very favorable. True, a lot of this depends on doctors and their staffs following through with the insurance company and all the paperwork, but it should be noted that at least some of the insurance companies have remembered that the patients are real persons, and they respect us in accordance with that truth.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Friday Hitch-Hike With The Anchoress
The gerbil in charge of my brain on Fridays has decided not to go long on Imagination today, so I am following the thoughts of The Anchoress, adding my own impressions and inviting our readers to do the same. The Anchoress’ fine article is here, and basically it addresses how things have changed since 1977. The Anchoress is herself building on a piece at CBS by Dick Meyer, but I see no reason to advertise for a Communist agent if I can avoid it, so that’s all I will say here about CBS. Basically both Meyer and The Anchoress are discussing what they call Civic Immaturity, and frankly I chuckle at the notion that this is something new; I’ve certainly seen this before, but never mind, the topic is worth discussing.
People have been nasty about politics for as long as the word has existed. I remember reading quite a bit about what the media of their day had to say about President Lincoln, about President Truman, about President Adams. It has been quite common, even within their own political party, for accusations of incompetence, malfeasance, even treason, to be leveled against one person by another person or group. It seems to me that to some extent we are fooling ourselves to believe that people have changed to such a degree that anyone may expect to be treated with respect and decorum. What seems to have changed, however, is how the mainstream disrespect manifests itself, and for that, I think I have a different answer than Mr. Meyer or The Anchoress. Simply put, look at what has changed, most significantly, in the United States since 1977; It is no longer unreasonable or impractical to serve the public with a Conservative worldview. The reaction to this sea change has been hostile and bitter, in the extreme, and this can best be seen in the treatment and expectations of the President.
In 1964, life was good for a Democrat and for liberal policy advocates everywhere in America. The Democrats controlled Congress, held the courts in ideological orbit, and Democrats had won 7 of the last 9 Presidential elections (4 by FDR, then Truman, Kennedy and LBJ one apiece, against only Eisenhower’s two wins). In addition, Johnson’s last victory was a landslide by any measure, and so it appeared that nothing would happen to change that condition, least of all that the hated Richard Nixon would show his face on the national level again. By 1977, a few bumps had occurred, so that Republicans could now claim 4 wins in the last 11 elections, but with Nixon having been forced to resign, control by the Left appeared even more sure than ever. Then it all came tumbling down.
In 1980 President Carter became the first sitting President running for re-election in a general election to lose since Hoover. In 1984 Reagan won an even bigger landslide, slamming home the fact that America could get behind a Conservative leader. When Reagan’s Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, won in 1988 in an electorally-impressive fashion, the GOP could claim 5 wins in the last 6 elections, and 7 of the last 10. The Republicans effectively owned the rights to the White House. This was one reason for the emergence of the ‘Must Hate Bush’ pandemic; the destruction of the Liberal Dominance Myth.
A campaign of smear tactics, media misinformation to attack the President, and a false face for the public allowed Bill Clinton to claim the White House in 1992, in a fashion not unlike the way Nixon took it in 1968. While Clinton was able to win two terms, he never managed a popular majority of the vote, and never established a commanding sense that he was in control of the issues or the policies. Bill Clinton sort of rode the flow and played for the public, like a stand-up comedian hoping not to get booed off the stage. So a great deal depended on the 2000 election, whether another Democrat would get a shot to actually do more than sit in the office, or else whether the public would put the Republicans again in the White House. The election was controversial, but in historical terms the focus was decided by the events of 9/11. Essentially, one either understood the significance of 9/11 and supported President Bush, or else one went into prolonged denial and gradually (some not so gradually) lost sense of reality. Such dementia is evident by the repeated denial that the election counted, demands for impeachment on the grounds of Presidential actions directly authorized by Congress, or fantasy films which misportrayed historical events or fantasized about assassination.
When President Bush was re-elected in 2004 by several million votes, the effect on the political sphere of existence was to amplify and polarize existing fights and bias. The dementia I noted earlier has reached such a detachment from reality, that President Bush is now being blamed for events and effects which he could not possibly control or affect, and he remains the object of intense personal hatred, the fact that he will never run for any public office again having completely missed the comprehension of the haters.
Moving forward, it is difficult to know what sort of results in the 2008 Presidential election would serve to relieve this condition. Democrats are expecting a great deal, as if the wins in the House and Senate in 2006 will guarantee a White House win in 2008. Certainly there is something to the so-called ‘political party fatigue’, yet it should also be understood that the 2008 election will be held in the context of the Democrats’ actions in control of Congress for two years. The public will like, dislike, or be apathetic to the actions of the Democrats’ Congress, but if fatigue plays a role, it could well hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. Also, there is a reason why the GOP has won seven of the last ten Presidential elections, and some of that reason – frankly – is that few of the Democrats’ offerings for the race have struck Americans as a good leader. While the Republicans have shown a similar failing at times, at the Executive level only the Democrats can consistently blow their opportunities so often. But in any case, it is difficult to imagine that a Democrat President aligned with a Democrat Congress would care to even make the slightest attempt at respecting his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And if the Republicans continue to hold the Oval Office, the feuding and bitterness is bound to continue, especially if the GOP begins reclaiming Congressional and Senate seats.
It’s ugly, and it’s going to stay ugly, is how I see it.
People have been nasty about politics for as long as the word has existed. I remember reading quite a bit about what the media of their day had to say about President Lincoln, about President Truman, about President Adams. It has been quite common, even within their own political party, for accusations of incompetence, malfeasance, even treason, to be leveled against one person by another person or group. It seems to me that to some extent we are fooling ourselves to believe that people have changed to such a degree that anyone may expect to be treated with respect and decorum. What seems to have changed, however, is how the mainstream disrespect manifests itself, and for that, I think I have a different answer than Mr. Meyer or The Anchoress. Simply put, look at what has changed, most significantly, in the United States since 1977; It is no longer unreasonable or impractical to serve the public with a Conservative worldview. The reaction to this sea change has been hostile and bitter, in the extreme, and this can best be seen in the treatment and expectations of the President.
In 1964, life was good for a Democrat and for liberal policy advocates everywhere in America. The Democrats controlled Congress, held the courts in ideological orbit, and Democrats had won 7 of the last 9 Presidential elections (4 by FDR, then Truman, Kennedy and LBJ one apiece, against only Eisenhower’s two wins). In addition, Johnson’s last victory was a landslide by any measure, and so it appeared that nothing would happen to change that condition, least of all that the hated Richard Nixon would show his face on the national level again. By 1977, a few bumps had occurred, so that Republicans could now claim 4 wins in the last 11 elections, but with Nixon having been forced to resign, control by the Left appeared even more sure than ever. Then it all came tumbling down.
In 1980 President Carter became the first sitting President running for re-election in a general election to lose since Hoover. In 1984 Reagan won an even bigger landslide, slamming home the fact that America could get behind a Conservative leader. When Reagan’s Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, won in 1988 in an electorally-impressive fashion, the GOP could claim 5 wins in the last 6 elections, and 7 of the last 10. The Republicans effectively owned the rights to the White House. This was one reason for the emergence of the ‘Must Hate Bush’ pandemic; the destruction of the Liberal Dominance Myth.
A campaign of smear tactics, media misinformation to attack the President, and a false face for the public allowed Bill Clinton to claim the White House in 1992, in a fashion not unlike the way Nixon took it in 1968. While Clinton was able to win two terms, he never managed a popular majority of the vote, and never established a commanding sense that he was in control of the issues or the policies. Bill Clinton sort of rode the flow and played for the public, like a stand-up comedian hoping not to get booed off the stage. So a great deal depended on the 2000 election, whether another Democrat would get a shot to actually do more than sit in the office, or else whether the public would put the Republicans again in the White House. The election was controversial, but in historical terms the focus was decided by the events of 9/11. Essentially, one either understood the significance of 9/11 and supported President Bush, or else one went into prolonged denial and gradually (some not so gradually) lost sense of reality. Such dementia is evident by the repeated denial that the election counted, demands for impeachment on the grounds of Presidential actions directly authorized by Congress, or fantasy films which misportrayed historical events or fantasized about assassination.
When President Bush was re-elected in 2004 by several million votes, the effect on the political sphere of existence was to amplify and polarize existing fights and bias. The dementia I noted earlier has reached such a detachment from reality, that President Bush is now being blamed for events and effects which he could not possibly control or affect, and he remains the object of intense personal hatred, the fact that he will never run for any public office again having completely missed the comprehension of the haters.
Moving forward, it is difficult to know what sort of results in the 2008 Presidential election would serve to relieve this condition. Democrats are expecting a great deal, as if the wins in the House and Senate in 2006 will guarantee a White House win in 2008. Certainly there is something to the so-called ‘political party fatigue’, yet it should also be understood that the 2008 election will be held in the context of the Democrats’ actions in control of Congress for two years. The public will like, dislike, or be apathetic to the actions of the Democrats’ Congress, but if fatigue plays a role, it could well hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. Also, there is a reason why the GOP has won seven of the last ten Presidential elections, and some of that reason – frankly – is that few of the Democrats’ offerings for the race have struck Americans as a good leader. While the Republicans have shown a similar failing at times, at the Executive level only the Democrats can consistently blow their opportunities so often. But in any case, it is difficult to imagine that a Democrat President aligned with a Democrat Congress would care to even make the slightest attempt at respecting his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And if the Republicans continue to hold the Oval Office, the feuding and bitterness is bound to continue, especially if the GOP begins reclaiming Congressional and Senate seats.
It’s ugly, and it’s going to stay ugly, is how I see it.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
School and Cancer Update
Some time ago, I promised to keep anyone who was interested, updated on my journey towards my MBA degree. Unfortunately, while that effort will continue it must be postponed for a semester, as my cancer has spread and the surgery I thought might wait for summer must be done much sooner.
To be honest, I was almost a great fool on that score. I had thought that because I felt well physically, without much pain or difficulty in motion and digestion, that I might be able to set my work and personal affairs in order, even taking on the spring courseload at UH-Victoria and putting my surgery off until mid-May at the earliest. The good people at the MD Anderson Cancer Center corrected me of that presumption rather quickly. The staff reminded me that cancer does not obligingly hold off its attack on the body, but must generally be attacked as soon as possible, or else significant damage and danger will result. As if to underscore that lesson, my bowels have been especially painful these past few days, almost as if I had swallowed a handful of quarters and half-dollars which I was now trying to pass. Not a good feeling, at all. So I accepted reality and cancelled my spring semester. I also am hurrying up collection of critical information I need for the Gastro-Intestinal department at MDA, such as my CT Scan and pathology data, reports from the last three doctors I have seen, and the necessary support for the insurance company’s files.
To be honest, I was almost a great fool on that score. I had thought that because I felt well physically, without much pain or difficulty in motion and digestion, that I might be able to set my work and personal affairs in order, even taking on the spring courseload at UH-Victoria and putting my surgery off until mid-May at the earliest. The good people at the MD Anderson Cancer Center corrected me of that presumption rather quickly. The staff reminded me that cancer does not obligingly hold off its attack on the body, but must generally be attacked as soon as possible, or else significant damage and danger will result. As if to underscore that lesson, my bowels have been especially painful these past few days, almost as if I had swallowed a handful of quarters and half-dollars which I was now trying to pass. Not a good feeling, at all. So I accepted reality and cancelled my spring semester. I also am hurrying up collection of critical information I need for the Gastro-Intestinal department at MDA, such as my CT Scan and pathology data, reports from the last three doctors I have seen, and the necessary support for the insurance company’s files.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
A New Adventure
"I don't know if the pants still fit, but I know the hat will."
- Harrison Ford, on the making of a new ‘Indiana Jones’ movie
- Harrison Ford, on the making of a new ‘Indiana Jones’ movie
The Meaning of Iraq 2007
2007 will be the Year of the Jackal, or so it seems. Even as they insist that they 'support the troops', leading Democrats are demanding that our military abandon everything they have accomplished and are pursuing in Iraq. One may not question the patriotism of those on the Left, although if one looks for evidence of said patriotism, there is much greater support for the flag of Syria than the flag of America, more support for the plans and goals of President Ahmadinejad of Iran than for the twice-elected President of the United States, or even for the war which Democrats overwhelmingly supported in 2003. But fashions change we are told, and even some who would claim the name Republican have deserted the effort to bring a Democratic Republic to Iraq, or to stabilize the region so the next generation might be able to escape the sort of madness which has plagued the civilized world this past half century. To that end, many liars and idiots have assigned Iraq to the same condition as Vietnam. That is a false claim, often repeated but never true to any sense of reality.
The first dispute must begin with the fact that in Vietnam, the United States entered by condition of a treaty with France, exactly the sort of multi-lateral approach which Leftists and morons of many stripes demand America revert to now. In the case of Iraq, the United States weighed the threat of Saddam's support of Terrorism, the threat his aggressive behavior meant to the region's stability, and the utter failure of Saddam's regime to abide, in letter or spirit, with the terms of the 1991 Cease-fire from the first Gulf War, and determined that the removal of Saddam from power should not only be United States policy, as it had been since President Clinton signed such a law into effect in 1998, but the active campaign of the United States military. Unlike Vietnam, where the United States was alone except for indigenous allies, the change in Iraq was and is the work of an International Coalition, led by the United States but each member state free to act according to its moral and political necessities; the decision by Spain to quit the fight, therefore, is proof of the voluntary nature of the Coalition, a fact long ignored by the media because it controverts their campaign of disinformation. As for that, it must also be noted that the media has shamefully ignored and distorted the sacrifice and commitment of the armed forces engaged in the enterprise to bring a Democratic Republic to Iraq.
It must also be noted that the United States utterly failed to create a representative government in South Vietnam, which created the intense distrust of American intentions. In Iraq, the very instability of the government comes from the fact that the United States allowed the infant democratic system to work; even the Sunnis who now so vigorously protest that government, in relatively large numbers participated in the elections to elect that government, because they understood that the future of Iraq rests on the shoulders of such men.
I must also stop at this point and observe that the effort in Vietnam was initially supported by both major political parties, and the media initially reported the conflict in relatively fair standards. In Iraq, the Democrats abandoned the war almost immediately after they realized the President would do exactly as he said he would, and the media became the enemy of the U.S. military even before the conflict began; the decision by CNN to cover-up atrocities by Saddam's government demonstrate their intent to oppose American interests, and the systematic betrayal of American secrets and the non-stop slander of U.S. troops by the New York Times and other newspapers are poisonous proof of perfidy which even the narcissistic media of the 1970s would have found beyond the pale.
Another significant difference between Vietnam and Iraq are the stakes. In Vietnam, the United States initially failed to understand that where North Korea had been as much a Chinese client state as a Soviet client state, in Vietnam there was animosity between Hanoi and Beijing; so long as the United States made no move indicating an action against China, offensive actions against North Vietnam would likely have been allowed by China, because it would improve their regional position relative to the USSR. Evidence of that can be seen by Chinese restraint in response to U.S. actions against North Vietnam through Cambodia and Thailand. The Beijing government found it useful for the Americans to sap the strength of their Soviet rivals in the region. In Iraq, the United States understood as a strategic goal the need to break the network of a number of terrorist organizations, especially those which were technically non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but who received support from anti-Western states. The United States also pursued the course, vindicated by the resulting events, or attacking terrorist interests in the Middle East in order to pre-empt attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists in Western cities, especially the United States. A simple examination of the number, type, and casualty numbers of terrorist attacks since 2001 proves the success of that strategy. I should also note that removing Saddam and the Baathists from power in Iraq led directly to Libya abandoning its own WMD programs, encouraged Lebanon to demand independence from Syria, and served notice to the region's aggressors, who scaled back their plans for aggression until the Democrats resumed running interference for them. If the United States had remained united in this effort, the extant dictatorships and family-based oligarchies would have been slowly but inexorably replaced by democratic republics, which would have stabilized the region, checked Islamofascism, and created an economic power to balance hegemonist ambitions in Asia.
Granted, things have changed in Iraq. Emboldened by the Democrats' refusal to address the threat from Islamofascism and their pathological hatred of President Bush, the enemies of Democracy march ahead towards objectives long planned; the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the drive to push the West out of the region, the abolition of personal rights and liberty, and the inevitable next war against Israel. The new fascists of Islam can not only count on the Left getting out of their way in these ambitions, but when they are done the Left will not hesitate to blame their personal political opponents, rather than address the threat in reality. The party which blames the police for crime, the churches for immorality, and successful businesses for economic concerns, can be counted on to attack anyone who dares to address the problem or meet the threat with any sort of effective plan of action.
But again, things are different this time around. In 1974, the Democrats chased out Richard Nixon on the grounds of his actual actions against the law, assisted by outraged Republicans. This time the Democrats have built a case on lies and false accusations, perpetuated by rabid fanaticism and no more. In 1974, the Democrats could and did vilify the brave servicemen who fought in Vietnam, but this time around even those cowards who care nothing for the fate of millions of honest Iraqis who desperately want to live in the same freedom we enjoy, do not dare say in words their true contempt for our troops. Instead, they promise they "support the troops", though in actual fact there is never much evidence of it. They run a decorated veteran as their champion, never addressing the serious questions about how he allegedly earned his medals, and to say nothing of his despicable conduct against his fellow servicemen when he thought he could spit on them with impunity. But there was no mistake in their selection; a backbiter who lied to get his medals, is just what the Democrats thought would make a winner. I think a lot of folks forgot that fact when the 2006 elections rolled around.
Of course, it must be admitted that the Democrats grabbed both chambers of Congress in the last election. Doubtless this condition does not bode well, either for Iraqis who want their government to be a bit more like ours, nor for the Marines and the other services who have given so much for Iraq to have that chance. But there are still a number of surprises the Left does not see coming. And top on that list is the fact that Iraq has irrevocably changed. No matter what the Democrats want to try, the Hussein family regime has been wiped from Iraq.
Also, while it is possible that the Democrats will succeed in their desire to abandon Iraq, even they understand that they cannot do so in a way which undeniably demonstrates their hostility to freedom for Iraq and the commitments made by the United States. Also, while despots may hope for a less resolute America, the events of the last several years have quite proven bin Laden's "paper tiger" claim to be very much in error. If it remains an annoying possibility that Osama bin Laden is still drawing breath, it remains nonetheless a fact that Osama may only do so in caves and temporary residences; no one wants to be around a man who is so eagerly hunted, and who is so obviously impotent in true capability these days.
Zarqawi is dead, along with countless thousands of soulless men who chose to follow his method. Those particular monsters will not be coming back.
It should also be understood that Iraq marks, for the whole world to see, the difference between a Democratic Party government and a Republican Party government. Democrats may back down from challenges, and test the wind with a wet finger before announcing their course, but Republicans will not forget their commitments so easily, nor desert their allies because the trendy people want to change their mind halfway across the river. The next time that an election returns the Republicans to control of the American government, an air of soiled trousers will again emanate from Damascus and Teheran, because those regimes will understand and fear the resolve of the United States once again.
The first dispute must begin with the fact that in Vietnam, the United States entered by condition of a treaty with France, exactly the sort of multi-lateral approach which Leftists and morons of many stripes demand America revert to now. In the case of Iraq, the United States weighed the threat of Saddam's support of Terrorism, the threat his aggressive behavior meant to the region's stability, and the utter failure of Saddam's regime to abide, in letter or spirit, with the terms of the 1991 Cease-fire from the first Gulf War, and determined that the removal of Saddam from power should not only be United States policy, as it had been since President Clinton signed such a law into effect in 1998, but the active campaign of the United States military. Unlike Vietnam, where the United States was alone except for indigenous allies, the change in Iraq was and is the work of an International Coalition, led by the United States but each member state free to act according to its moral and political necessities; the decision by Spain to quit the fight, therefore, is proof of the voluntary nature of the Coalition, a fact long ignored by the media because it controverts their campaign of disinformation. As for that, it must also be noted that the media has shamefully ignored and distorted the sacrifice and commitment of the armed forces engaged in the enterprise to bring a Democratic Republic to Iraq.
It must also be noted that the United States utterly failed to create a representative government in South Vietnam, which created the intense distrust of American intentions. In Iraq, the very instability of the government comes from the fact that the United States allowed the infant democratic system to work; even the Sunnis who now so vigorously protest that government, in relatively large numbers participated in the elections to elect that government, because they understood that the future of Iraq rests on the shoulders of such men.
I must also stop at this point and observe that the effort in Vietnam was initially supported by both major political parties, and the media initially reported the conflict in relatively fair standards. In Iraq, the Democrats abandoned the war almost immediately after they realized the President would do exactly as he said he would, and the media became the enemy of the U.S. military even before the conflict began; the decision by CNN to cover-up atrocities by Saddam's government demonstrate their intent to oppose American interests, and the systematic betrayal of American secrets and the non-stop slander of U.S. troops by the New York Times and other newspapers are poisonous proof of perfidy which even the narcissistic media of the 1970s would have found beyond the pale.
Another significant difference between Vietnam and Iraq are the stakes. In Vietnam, the United States initially failed to understand that where North Korea had been as much a Chinese client state as a Soviet client state, in Vietnam there was animosity between Hanoi and Beijing; so long as the United States made no move indicating an action against China, offensive actions against North Vietnam would likely have been allowed by China, because it would improve their regional position relative to the USSR. Evidence of that can be seen by Chinese restraint in response to U.S. actions against North Vietnam through Cambodia and Thailand. The Beijing government found it useful for the Americans to sap the strength of their Soviet rivals in the region. In Iraq, the United States understood as a strategic goal the need to break the network of a number of terrorist organizations, especially those which were technically non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but who received support from anti-Western states. The United States also pursued the course, vindicated by the resulting events, or attacking terrorist interests in the Middle East in order to pre-empt attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists in Western cities, especially the United States. A simple examination of the number, type, and casualty numbers of terrorist attacks since 2001 proves the success of that strategy. I should also note that removing Saddam and the Baathists from power in Iraq led directly to Libya abandoning its own WMD programs, encouraged Lebanon to demand independence from Syria, and served notice to the region's aggressors, who scaled back their plans for aggression until the Democrats resumed running interference for them. If the United States had remained united in this effort, the extant dictatorships and family-based oligarchies would have been slowly but inexorably replaced by democratic republics, which would have stabilized the region, checked Islamofascism, and created an economic power to balance hegemonist ambitions in Asia.
Granted, things have changed in Iraq. Emboldened by the Democrats' refusal to address the threat from Islamofascism and their pathological hatred of President Bush, the enemies of Democracy march ahead towards objectives long planned; the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the drive to push the West out of the region, the abolition of personal rights and liberty, and the inevitable next war against Israel. The new fascists of Islam can not only count on the Left getting out of their way in these ambitions, but when they are done the Left will not hesitate to blame their personal political opponents, rather than address the threat in reality. The party which blames the police for crime, the churches for immorality, and successful businesses for economic concerns, can be counted on to attack anyone who dares to address the problem or meet the threat with any sort of effective plan of action.
But again, things are different this time around. In 1974, the Democrats chased out Richard Nixon on the grounds of his actual actions against the law, assisted by outraged Republicans. This time the Democrats have built a case on lies and false accusations, perpetuated by rabid fanaticism and no more. In 1974, the Democrats could and did vilify the brave servicemen who fought in Vietnam, but this time around even those cowards who care nothing for the fate of millions of honest Iraqis who desperately want to live in the same freedom we enjoy, do not dare say in words their true contempt for our troops. Instead, they promise they "support the troops", though in actual fact there is never much evidence of it. They run a decorated veteran as their champion, never addressing the serious questions about how he allegedly earned his medals, and to say nothing of his despicable conduct against his fellow servicemen when he thought he could spit on them with impunity. But there was no mistake in their selection; a backbiter who lied to get his medals, is just what the Democrats thought would make a winner. I think a lot of folks forgot that fact when the 2006 elections rolled around.
Of course, it must be admitted that the Democrats grabbed both chambers of Congress in the last election. Doubtless this condition does not bode well, either for Iraqis who want their government to be a bit more like ours, nor for the Marines and the other services who have given so much for Iraq to have that chance. But there are still a number of surprises the Left does not see coming. And top on that list is the fact that Iraq has irrevocably changed. No matter what the Democrats want to try, the Hussein family regime has been wiped from Iraq.
Also, while it is possible that the Democrats will succeed in their desire to abandon Iraq, even they understand that they cannot do so in a way which undeniably demonstrates their hostility to freedom for Iraq and the commitments made by the United States. Also, while despots may hope for a less resolute America, the events of the last several years have quite proven bin Laden's "paper tiger" claim to be very much in error. If it remains an annoying possibility that Osama bin Laden is still drawing breath, it remains nonetheless a fact that Osama may only do so in caves and temporary residences; no one wants to be around a man who is so eagerly hunted, and who is so obviously impotent in true capability these days.
Zarqawi is dead, along with countless thousands of soulless men who chose to follow his method. Those particular monsters will not be coming back.
It should also be understood that Iraq marks, for the whole world to see, the difference between a Democratic Party government and a Republican Party government. Democrats may back down from challenges, and test the wind with a wet finger before announcing their course, but Republicans will not forget their commitments so easily, nor desert their allies because the trendy people want to change their mind halfway across the river. The next time that an election returns the Republicans to control of the American government, an air of soiled trousers will again emanate from Damascus and Teheran, because those regimes will understand and fear the resolve of the United States once again.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
What American Doctrine SHOULD Be
Dean Barnett lays it out bluntly and with sharp-edged truth:
“I think the main reason we haven’t had a repeat of 9/11 or something worse in over five years is because George W. Bush scares the s**t out of his enemies. When domestic liberal whine, “He scaaaares me,” they really mean it. The world’s bad people feel the same way. The American reprisals to a terror attack that took place under George W. Bush’s watch would likely be swift, brutal and disproportionate.
Our enemies may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. I bet the next 9/11, which will probably be magnitudes worse than the previous 9/11, will wait until George W. Bush is gone from office.”
I think he’s right. And that absolutely, positively means we need to think and pray hard for someone with similar courage, nerve, and vision to run for President.
The next President of the United States should be as much George Dubya Bush as possible, with a bit of Michael Corleone thrown into the mix. God save us from the current list of “leaders” who want the job, please.
“I think the main reason we haven’t had a repeat of 9/11 or something worse in over five years is because George W. Bush scares the s**t out of his enemies. When domestic liberal whine, “He scaaaares me,” they really mean it. The world’s bad people feel the same way. The American reprisals to a terror attack that took place under George W. Bush’s watch would likely be swift, brutal and disproportionate.
Our enemies may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. I bet the next 9/11, which will probably be magnitudes worse than the previous 9/11, will wait until George W. Bush is gone from office.”
I think he’s right. And that absolutely, positively means we need to think and pray hard for someone with similar courage, nerve, and vision to run for President.
The next President of the United States should be as much George Dubya Bush as possible, with a bit of Michael Corleone thrown into the mix. God save us from the current list of “leaders” who want the job, please.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saddam Is Dead – Why That Matters
Within a few hours of receiving custody of Saddam Hussein from American authorities, the Iraqi government put him to death. Doubtless this will cause howls of protest from leftists everywhere, that a man proven to be a mass murderer on a most gruesome scale would himself be executed without years of delay and double-talking meant to subvert justice itself or at least deny the victims’ families the chance to believe that such men as Saddam would ever be treated as they deserve. But the execution of Saddam Hussein served a compelling notice, one the Left will deny but which is true for all their bitterness; the Rule of Law has come to Iraq.
The Left has tried very hard to deny that truth. The mainstream media revels in showing video of bombings and reporting kidnappings, never noting the stability and economic growth in many parts of Iraq. Kevin McCullough has written a compelling article to show that Iraq is, by any reasonable standard, a clear success. The notion that Iraq is becoming a foothold for democratic republicanism is terrifying for the Left. Enough so that they will denounce even its possibility, much less the growing evidence for it.
The Middle East has not enjoyed many attempts at freely elected government. Small wonder. Without turning this essay into a history lesson, the region has historically been a target for conquering empires. That’s one big lie the Left doesn’t want folks to learn, that even if none of the world’s oil came from there, there would still be wars and unrest. For thousands of years, the Middle East has been the juncture between three continents (which comprised the entire known world for most of our written history) and control of key locations meant military and economic success. That truth meant that tyrants, emperors, and puppet leaders controlled by invaders were the norm, all the way through the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, Great Britain tried to establish some nominal national identities, but in many places the lines drawn were too artificial and ignored critical demographics. The resulting mess allowed the Germans and Italians to invade the region with little trouble, which is one reason Mussolini tried to colonize Ethiopia through invasion. Following World War 2, the immediate polarization between Soviet and Western spheres meant that the Middle East was denied a chance to build truly representative governments; the governments in place were largely free to continue as they had. It is only in very recent years, therefore, that the tide of young Arabs and Farsis and Kurds have begun to demand their right to vote on popular candidates instead of figures hand-picked by mullahs or oligarchies, and it is only recently that the region began to show signs of universal law. That is where Saddam’s fate makes such a difference. For many years, a man who became a tyrant might be killed by another tyrant taking his place, but more often passed on his wealth and power to a chosen successor, or if deposed was often allowed to simply live in luxury somewhere else. The south beach of France is still littered with relatives of the former Shah, of the entourages of former strongmen and would-be aristocrats from oil-producing nations. The reader may recall that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia offered such a package to Saddam and his family in hopes of avoiding the war. This was because the Saudis recognized a signal shift in the order of things, and were becoming desperate to deny or delay that change. The arrest, trial and now the execution of Saddam Hussein were all accomplished in a manner which undeniably demonstrates that the new government in Iraq intends to conduct itself through universal law, law which applies to all Iraqis regardless of station. No other government in the region, save Israel, is so committed to the Rule of Law. This demonstrates a clear victory in the development of democratic republics in the Middle East.
I personally took no pleasure in the death of Saddam Hussein. I watched the video of the noose being put around his neck, and I could read in his face that he knew his death was coming, final and irrevocable. It would be a cruel man indeed who could look at that and not feel a tug of compassion and pity for a man so condemned, alone and hopeless. Especially knowing the many evils he committed in his life; if Saddam believed in even half of Islam, he knows that a terrible fate awaits him. But his death proved the truth of Iraq law, that no one, not even the former absolute ruler of Iraq, still followed by thousands of ruthless minions, can escape answering for his crimes.
The Left has tried very hard to deny that truth. The mainstream media revels in showing video of bombings and reporting kidnappings, never noting the stability and economic growth in many parts of Iraq. Kevin McCullough has written a compelling article to show that Iraq is, by any reasonable standard, a clear success. The notion that Iraq is becoming a foothold for democratic republicanism is terrifying for the Left. Enough so that they will denounce even its possibility, much less the growing evidence for it.
The Middle East has not enjoyed many attempts at freely elected government. Small wonder. Without turning this essay into a history lesson, the region has historically been a target for conquering empires. That’s one big lie the Left doesn’t want folks to learn, that even if none of the world’s oil came from there, there would still be wars and unrest. For thousands of years, the Middle East has been the juncture between three continents (which comprised the entire known world for most of our written history) and control of key locations meant military and economic success. That truth meant that tyrants, emperors, and puppet leaders controlled by invaders were the norm, all the way through the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, Great Britain tried to establish some nominal national identities, but in many places the lines drawn were too artificial and ignored critical demographics. The resulting mess allowed the Germans and Italians to invade the region with little trouble, which is one reason Mussolini tried to colonize Ethiopia through invasion. Following World War 2, the immediate polarization between Soviet and Western spheres meant that the Middle East was denied a chance to build truly representative governments; the governments in place were largely free to continue as they had. It is only in very recent years, therefore, that the tide of young Arabs and Farsis and Kurds have begun to demand their right to vote on popular candidates instead of figures hand-picked by mullahs or oligarchies, and it is only recently that the region began to show signs of universal law. That is where Saddam’s fate makes such a difference. For many years, a man who became a tyrant might be killed by another tyrant taking his place, but more often passed on his wealth and power to a chosen successor, or if deposed was often allowed to simply live in luxury somewhere else. The south beach of France is still littered with relatives of the former Shah, of the entourages of former strongmen and would-be aristocrats from oil-producing nations. The reader may recall that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia offered such a package to Saddam and his family in hopes of avoiding the war. This was because the Saudis recognized a signal shift in the order of things, and were becoming desperate to deny or delay that change. The arrest, trial and now the execution of Saddam Hussein were all accomplished in a manner which undeniably demonstrates that the new government in Iraq intends to conduct itself through universal law, law which applies to all Iraqis regardless of station. No other government in the region, save Israel, is so committed to the Rule of Law. This demonstrates a clear victory in the development of democratic republics in the Middle East.
I personally took no pleasure in the death of Saddam Hussein. I watched the video of the noose being put around his neck, and I could read in his face that he knew his death was coming, final and irrevocable. It would be a cruel man indeed who could look at that and not feel a tug of compassion and pity for a man so condemned, alone and hopeless. Especially knowing the many evils he committed in his life; if Saddam believed in even half of Islam, he knows that a terrible fate awaits him. But his death proved the truth of Iraq law, that no one, not even the former absolute ruler of Iraq, still followed by thousands of ruthless minions, can escape answering for his crimes.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
A Founding Father Discusses Iraq
“At a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people, it is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.”
- John Jay, The Federalist No. 2, 1787
In actual fact, Mr. Jay was addressing the new American government and the many complaints made against its early structure. It serves as a reminder that new democratic republics often seem less than equal to the task, but that in no way makes the venture unwise or wrong. So too in Iraq, the high cost and unstable chances the government faces, are still worth the effort.
- John Jay, The Federalist No. 2, 1787
In actual fact, Mr. Jay was addressing the new American government and the many complaints made against its early structure. It serves as a reminder that new democratic republics often seem less than equal to the task, but that in no way makes the venture unwise or wrong. So too in Iraq, the high cost and unstable chances the government faces, are still worth the effort.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
More Football – Politics Comparisons
The Houston Texans did something very strange Sunday. They beat the Indianapolis Colts. The Texans were not supposed to be in the same class as the Colts, and were not supposed to have any reason to be competitive, especially after being thrashed 40-7 against the Patriots the week before. The Colts, for their part, had clinched their division but were playing for a first-round bye in the playoffs, and so were expected to be well-motivated. Yet the Texans jumped out to a 14-0 lead, and scored a field goal as time ran out to beat the Colts for the first time ever. The next day the Dallas Cowboys played the Philadelphia Eagles, in a game which the Cowboys were expected to win handily, yet the Cowboys were consistently blown off the line of scrimmage and were completely embarrassed on Christmas Day.
As you might expect, Cowboys fans and Colts fans were less than pleased with the results, and overwhelmingly blamed their teams for losing. This is common in sports, the fair-weather fan who cannot accept that their team does not always win, or that the other team might have been the better team that day, or at least had a good plan for that one game. I see the same thing happening in politics. The Democrats beat the Republicans in the midterm elections, and we are reading and hearing all sorts of crazy theories based on that one event. Never mind the elections in 2004, 2002, and 2000 we are told, this one is the only one that matters. That folks is just a combination of wishful thinking by the Donks, in the same way that there are bound to be Texans fans who forget the ten losses our team has, and believe that winning this one game has somehow righted a lot of wrongs the team has to face, and Republicans who just gave up and turned rodent about it. Optimism is a nice thing, but too much leads to rash thinking and poor decisions. I visited the Indianapolis newspaper’s online site and found a lot of Colts fans ready to fire their coach and retool their team. A playoff-bound division winner, and they want to can the coach. But we see that among Republicans, as well. President Bush is responsible for tax cuts,. Two worthy Supreme Court picks and a bunch of solid federal court nods, for putting people in the right place to improve things at Defense and State, and for a forceful response to 9/11 that can fairly be said to be part of why there has not been another 9/11 since then. Yet Republicans started to desert him as soon as MSM-biased polls started suggesting that Dubya was not popular in New York or other liberal bastions. The RINOS like McCain and DeWine left first, followed by weak Republicans like Frist and Hastert, and then the extremists quit when they decided they could not get what they wanted by supporting the President or their party; rogue egotists like Tancredo began attacking the republican leadership, willing to put Democrats in power simply because they were denied the power to hijack the agenda and initiatives. The Republican Party will endure, indeed it shall thrive, not least because it is generally willing to meet its challenges and face its needs for change. But in the meantime, we all would do well to pay attention to those who advance the ideals of the nation and the party, and pay no heed to those who can only support the team when they get what they want and expect.
As you might expect, Cowboys fans and Colts fans were less than pleased with the results, and overwhelmingly blamed their teams for losing. This is common in sports, the fair-weather fan who cannot accept that their team does not always win, or that the other team might have been the better team that day, or at least had a good plan for that one game. I see the same thing happening in politics. The Democrats beat the Republicans in the midterm elections, and we are reading and hearing all sorts of crazy theories based on that one event. Never mind the elections in 2004, 2002, and 2000 we are told, this one is the only one that matters. That folks is just a combination of wishful thinking by the Donks, in the same way that there are bound to be Texans fans who forget the ten losses our team has, and believe that winning this one game has somehow righted a lot of wrongs the team has to face, and Republicans who just gave up and turned rodent about it. Optimism is a nice thing, but too much leads to rash thinking and poor decisions. I visited the Indianapolis newspaper’s online site and found a lot of Colts fans ready to fire their coach and retool their team. A playoff-bound division winner, and they want to can the coach. But we see that among Republicans, as well. President Bush is responsible for tax cuts,. Two worthy Supreme Court picks and a bunch of solid federal court nods, for putting people in the right place to improve things at Defense and State, and for a forceful response to 9/11 that can fairly be said to be part of why there has not been another 9/11 since then. Yet Republicans started to desert him as soon as MSM-biased polls started suggesting that Dubya was not popular in New York or other liberal bastions. The RINOS like McCain and DeWine left first, followed by weak Republicans like Frist and Hastert, and then the extremists quit when they decided they could not get what they wanted by supporting the President or their party; rogue egotists like Tancredo began attacking the republican leadership, willing to put Democrats in power simply because they were denied the power to hijack the agenda and initiatives. The Republican Party will endure, indeed it shall thrive, not least because it is generally willing to meet its challenges and face its needs for change. But in the meantime, we all would do well to pay attention to those who advance the ideals of the nation and the party, and pay no heed to those who can only support the team when they get what they want and expect.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
BusinessWeek Blunders
On the last page of the December 25/January 1 issue of BusinessWeek, Jack and Suzy Welch wrote a disappointing answer to a valid question. In their column entitled “The Boardroom Bunker”, they begin with a question from an anonymous reader who asked, “Do you think boards today are running better or worse than before?”. A valid and important question, but the Welches made no serious effort to answer it. Instead, they changed the question and launched yet another indirect attack on Sarbanes-Oxley, saying that too many boards “are running scared”. Even that might have opened the door to an interesting examination of governance options, but the Welches had other intentions, specifically to whine and complain. Instead of a cross-section of executives and managers who have to deal with the Sox reality, the Welches focused on CEOs, and it was not long at all before the Welches were unloading cheap shots on Accountants in general. The money quote? “The same accountants who failed to flag the scandals are now the biggest beneficiaries”. That is the same sort of logic which blames the police for criminals, hospitals for disease, or our defense forces for our enemies. And yet the Welches blame other people for paranoia.
The Welches made no attempt to support their accusation, not that they could find much evidence for their claims. No, they delivered a sort of whiny homily, basically blaming the problems of boards on everyone else. I found it strangely reminiscent of Mr. Skilling’s defense strategy. But after consideration, I realized that the Welches had done at least one service. They have demonstrated that five years after the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, far too few people in the high end of business are willing to seriously examine their responsibility and accountability, even when they pull a check from BusinessWeek magazine.
The Welches made no attempt to support their accusation, not that they could find much evidence for their claims. No, they delivered a sort of whiny homily, basically blaming the problems of boards on everyone else. I found it strangely reminiscent of Mr. Skilling’s defense strategy. But after consideration, I realized that the Welches had done at least one service. They have demonstrated that five years after the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, far too few people in the high end of business are willing to seriously examine their responsibility and accountability, even when they pull a check from BusinessWeek magazine.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Man Your Stations!
Yesterday, I took George Will to task for not recognizing the many talents and strengths of the Blogosphere. Today, I am addressing the need, again, for bloggers to remember that – yes, we are still at war, and – this war includes you, and personally. Because in addition to the artillery, tanks, and material elements of the fight, we are also engaged in an Infowar, which is just as critical to the future of the United States. And at the moment, we are losing the Infowar, in some part because a number of bloggers do not seem to understand their duties in this conflict.
Infowar is in some ways a complex topic, but in general it means the part of a war which involves control of information – how it is produced, what is produced, and what is suppressed. Information in wartime has always been a critical part of the strategy; the reader may recall that Washington’s raid on Trenton (‘Washington Crossing the Delaware’, as it is famously known) began with townspeople misleading the Hessians to believe that Washington was not nearby. Propaganda and Disinformation have also been significant contributors to wars and their conduct. Again, the reader may recall that the disloyal priorities of the New York Times damaged the American effort in Vietnam during both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. It is even more important now in the Middle East conflict.
From what I have read and heard, the greatest problem is that most Americans still do not understand why we went into Iraq in 2003. This means that people have had to either trust the President or oppose him. Since the invasion began, ironically in large measure because it was so successful, opposition to the war has grown in terms of publicity and rhetoric. The overwhelming majority of the military believes in the cause, and is astounded that so many Americans have not heard the good news from Iraq, and that so many Americans react with negative emotion, lacking in many cases even the most basic information about the major forces in the conflict, their motives, and the American objectives. That’s where we come in, and that call-up was years ago.
Since 2003, the Blogosphere has often answered the challenge of providing information on the Iraq War and marshalling the forces of Reason for debate. But the Right side of the Blogosphere has largely deserted the field of late, as if there was no need for us to continue defending the ramparts of Democracy, of defending America’s interests, and of explaining – ad nauseum, it must seem – why for all their faults, the Republican candidates and their party remain the only serious choice for governance of our nation. As a result, the public has fallen to a large degree for lies and errors regarding the most important issues of the day, and we find the government in the control of persons ill-equipped and perhaps even worse-minded for its health and integrity.
We are at war, and our enemies include perfidious and self-obsessed groups and persons, who would and do damage the nation for the sake of their pride and bank accounts. The military can address the threat of guns and bombs, but we must take up our arms and stand against the lies and calumnies of the Left, of the new Fascism, and of the Old Media.
To Arms!
Infowar is in some ways a complex topic, but in general it means the part of a war which involves control of information – how it is produced, what is produced, and what is suppressed. Information in wartime has always been a critical part of the strategy; the reader may recall that Washington’s raid on Trenton (‘Washington Crossing the Delaware’, as it is famously known) began with townspeople misleading the Hessians to believe that Washington was not nearby. Propaganda and Disinformation have also been significant contributors to wars and their conduct. Again, the reader may recall that the disloyal priorities of the New York Times damaged the American effort in Vietnam during both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. It is even more important now in the Middle East conflict.
From what I have read and heard, the greatest problem is that most Americans still do not understand why we went into Iraq in 2003. This means that people have had to either trust the President or oppose him. Since the invasion began, ironically in large measure because it was so successful, opposition to the war has grown in terms of publicity and rhetoric. The overwhelming majority of the military believes in the cause, and is astounded that so many Americans have not heard the good news from Iraq, and that so many Americans react with negative emotion, lacking in many cases even the most basic information about the major forces in the conflict, their motives, and the American objectives. That’s where we come in, and that call-up was years ago.
Since 2003, the Blogosphere has often answered the challenge of providing information on the Iraq War and marshalling the forces of Reason for debate. But the Right side of the Blogosphere has largely deserted the field of late, as if there was no need for us to continue defending the ramparts of Democracy, of defending America’s interests, and of explaining – ad nauseum, it must seem – why for all their faults, the Republican candidates and their party remain the only serious choice for governance of our nation. As a result, the public has fallen to a large degree for lies and errors regarding the most important issues of the day, and we find the government in the control of persons ill-equipped and perhaps even worse-minded for its health and integrity.
We are at war, and our enemies include perfidious and self-obsessed groups and persons, who would and do damage the nation for the sake of their pride and bank accounts. The military can address the threat of guns and bombs, but we must take up our arms and stand against the lies and calumnies of the Left, of the new Fascism, and of the Old Media.
To Arms!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Debating a Dinosaur
Why George Will Doesn't Understand the Blogosphere
Every now and then, I make the mistake of reading one of George Will's columns. This is because George has a knack for finding interesting topics, which gets me to read, but he constantly proves his own bias and error in his columns, which causes the regret. On this occasion, Will started by taking on TIME magazine, for its narcissist trick to sell covers by appealing to the readers well-fed egos (link Courtesy of Real Clear Politics).
So far, a good choice, especially since TIME magazine's predilection for how they discuss certain personages and their portrayal is more than slightly tilted to the Left. Unfortunately, before very long Will starts in bloggers. And in so doing, he displays the sort of ignorance and prejudice which he ostensibly finds poor practice in others. A good example is this section from the column, where Will writes:
"There are expected to be 100 million bloggers worldwide by the middle of 2007, which is why none will be like Franklin or Paine. Both were geniuses; genius is scarce. Both had a revolutionary civic purpose, which they accomplished by amazing exertions. Most bloggers have the private purpose of expressing themselves, for their own satisfaction."
Certainly it must be acknowledged that there is a good deal of dreck in blogging, and that many bloggers are in fact just as vain as Will suggests. However, Will throws out diamonds with the sewer water, and his comments not only assail a large number of very fine bloggers and astute minds, his column seems to imply that the old-school media is not even more arrogant and self-indulgent. I should like to ask you, Mister Will, who is more credible:
Kofi Annan or David Limbaugh?
Katie Couric or Little Green Footballs?
Rosie O'Donnell or Betsy Newmark?
Dan Rather or John Hinderaker?
Joy Behar or Lorie Byrd?
Mike Nifong or Hugh Hewitt?
Harry Reid or Bill Roggio?
Ray Nagin or La Shawn Barber?
Joel Stein or The Anchoress?
Mike Wallace or Bruce Kesler?
You get the idea. Between the old media and their chosen figureheads to adore, there is much to criticize and precious little to praise, especially compared to the Blogosphere in similar efforts. As the Rathergate scandal demonstrated, many bloggers are intelligent and skilled professionals, whose dedication to much higher standards than anything exhibited by the New York or Los Angeles Times is beyond question. Some write well, some are amazing at digging below the surface, and as Bill Roggio and Michael Yon have demonstrated, some back up their claims with action, going to the source even across the world, far beyond the self-imposed limits by the nominal media to verify claims and deliver true reporting. You owe them better than derision, Mister Will. You owe them respect they earned years ago. The fact that you are paid well as the MSM is, should not mean you side with them against bloggers, who pursue truth often for its own sake, rather like Tom Paine and Ben Franklin, though you have shown you are slow to admit that fact.
I should not be too hard on George Will, I guess. In some respects, he is simply showing loyalty to the media he knows; print and television. That does not make him right, however, and he really needs to discover what tens of millions of Americans already know - that the blogs supply entertainment, conversation, debate, information and education on a scale beyond anything the Mainstream Media can even dream of. Not that the MSM is going to become obsolete, but commentators who don't know what they are talking about may expect to lose their readers and viewers. And that includes self-important columnists, even George Will.
Every now and then, I make the mistake of reading one of George Will's columns. This is because George has a knack for finding interesting topics, which gets me to read, but he constantly proves his own bias and error in his columns, which causes the regret. On this occasion, Will started by taking on TIME magazine, for its narcissist trick to sell covers by appealing to the readers well-fed egos (link Courtesy of Real Clear Politics).
So far, a good choice, especially since TIME magazine's predilection for how they discuss certain personages and their portrayal is more than slightly tilted to the Left. Unfortunately, before very long Will starts in bloggers. And in so doing, he displays the sort of ignorance and prejudice which he ostensibly finds poor practice in others. A good example is this section from the column, where Will writes:
"There are expected to be 100 million bloggers worldwide by the middle of 2007, which is why none will be like Franklin or Paine. Both were geniuses; genius is scarce. Both had a revolutionary civic purpose, which they accomplished by amazing exertions. Most bloggers have the private purpose of expressing themselves, for their own satisfaction."
Certainly it must be acknowledged that there is a good deal of dreck in blogging, and that many bloggers are in fact just as vain as Will suggests. However, Will throws out diamonds with the sewer water, and his comments not only assail a large number of very fine bloggers and astute minds, his column seems to imply that the old-school media is not even more arrogant and self-indulgent. I should like to ask you, Mister Will, who is more credible:
Kofi Annan or David Limbaugh?
Katie Couric or Little Green Footballs?
Rosie O'Donnell or Betsy Newmark?
Dan Rather or John Hinderaker?
Joy Behar or Lorie Byrd?
Mike Nifong or Hugh Hewitt?
Harry Reid or Bill Roggio?
Ray Nagin or La Shawn Barber?
Joel Stein or The Anchoress?
Mike Wallace or Bruce Kesler?
You get the idea. Between the old media and their chosen figureheads to adore, there is much to criticize and precious little to praise, especially compared to the Blogosphere in similar efforts. As the Rathergate scandal demonstrated, many bloggers are intelligent and skilled professionals, whose dedication to much higher standards than anything exhibited by the New York or Los Angeles Times is beyond question. Some write well, some are amazing at digging below the surface, and as Bill Roggio and Michael Yon have demonstrated, some back up their claims with action, going to the source even across the world, far beyond the self-imposed limits by the nominal media to verify claims and deliver true reporting. You owe them better than derision, Mister Will. You owe them respect they earned years ago. The fact that you are paid well as the MSM is, should not mean you side with them against bloggers, who pursue truth often for its own sake, rather like Tom Paine and Ben Franklin, though you have shown you are slow to admit that fact.
I should not be too hard on George Will, I guess. In some respects, he is simply showing loyalty to the media he knows; print and television. That does not make him right, however, and he really needs to discover what tens of millions of Americans already know - that the blogs supply entertainment, conversation, debate, information and education on a scale beyond anything the Mainstream Media can even dream of. Not that the MSM is going to become obsolete, but commentators who don't know what they are talking about may expect to lose their readers and viewers. And that includes self-important columnists, even George Will.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The King of Chaos
In his masterpiece of literature, the 'Chronicles of Amber', novelist Roger Zelazny described two absolute powers, and the sometimes paradoxical relationship between them. Examining one side then the other over the course of ten books, Zelazny observed the difficulties of managing the affairs of a major state, to the point that even an absolute monarch is often bound by events and circumstances beyond his control. In the hardscrabble world we know, such is even more the case. No action occurs in a vacuum, nor is any decision truly unilateral. Decision-makers sometimes forget this, but pundits often do, and critics of officials display a ubiquitous ignorance of the difficulties of having to actually choose the course.
As he enters the long stretch of his last two years of public service, President Bush is faced with a dizzying array of problems and opposition, as difficult as any President has had to face in half a century. Congress is now under the direction of a political party which has no clear idea what it wants to do, except that it detests George W. Bush personally, for no better reason than his identity and existence. So far as I can tell, such an obsession leads to no good end. The Republican Party is not showing any discernible leadership either, as their participation in the desperately negligent ‘Iraq Study Group’ report demonstrates. The nation’s future depends on either the diligence of unworthy men, or the redemption of villains.
To be President of the United States is much more than to accept the heaviest duties of your time. It is also to accept responsibility for keeping all the past efforts in good order. Presidents who have been described as failures, very often not only failed the issues which rose in their office, but also were less than able to prevent old issues from returning, as Presidents Hoover, Pierce, and Carter made painfully obvious. Presidents who have been described as successful, were often not so popular in their day, but Time and a better perspective vindicated them.
With this quality of character in mind, it seems to me appropriate to pray to God that our next President must possess such qualities as a slow temper, a long perspective, a sound understanding of History, and the humble knowledge of his or her limits. I must emphasize that the ability to be elected President is quite different from the ability to do the job properly, so it is apparent that there are some people who could win the office, but who cannot be said to be qualified for it.
As he enters the long stretch of his last two years of public service, President Bush is faced with a dizzying array of problems and opposition, as difficult as any President has had to face in half a century. Congress is now under the direction of a political party which has no clear idea what it wants to do, except that it detests George W. Bush personally, for no better reason than his identity and existence. So far as I can tell, such an obsession leads to no good end. The Republican Party is not showing any discernible leadership either, as their participation in the desperately negligent ‘Iraq Study Group’ report demonstrates. The nation’s future depends on either the diligence of unworthy men, or the redemption of villains.
To be President of the United States is much more than to accept the heaviest duties of your time. It is also to accept responsibility for keeping all the past efforts in good order. Presidents who have been described as failures, very often not only failed the issues which rose in their office, but also were less than able to prevent old issues from returning, as Presidents Hoover, Pierce, and Carter made painfully obvious. Presidents who have been described as successful, were often not so popular in their day, but Time and a better perspective vindicated them.
With this quality of character in mind, it seems to me appropriate to pray to God that our next President must possess such qualities as a slow temper, a long perspective, a sound understanding of History, and the humble knowledge of his or her limits. I must emphasize that the ability to be elected President is quite different from the ability to do the job properly, so it is apparent that there are some people who could win the office, but who cannot be said to be qualified for it.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Imposition of Joy
I'm afraid that this post will come off a bit hum-buggish, but it's something I think needs to be said.
Not everyone is having a 'Merry Christmas'. It's not because they have anything against the season, please understand, or that they wish any poor sentiments against those who are enjoying the season and its joy. But they have reasons to feel a bit differently, and in some cases do not want to be told how they should be feeling or act.
In my case, I admit to a certain grimness at present. While I am generally an optimist, the past year has done my family some damage. My father passed away in April, which is weighing my mother down at present as she has to go through the first Christmas without him. She also had about a thousand dollars worth of plumbing repairs which had to be done. My brother, three years older than me, has a badly-paying, no-chance-of-promotion job and is showing some hand tremors which may - long story - be the warning signs of long-feared Parkinson's disease. One of my sisters had to undergo surgery on her thyroid, and as soon as she recovers from that she is schedule to have spine surgery as well. And of course, a few weeks ago I was diagnosed with cancer, a variant which has no known cure and while slow-growing, kills half of its victims within ten years of its first symptoms. I find myself distinctly less than bouyant this Christmas season.
I certainly am aware that other members here have their own trials and difficulties, and I do not mean, at all, for this to be a 'poor me' thread. But while I remain determined and hopeful in the main, and I still thank God for all the good things he has given me (I will never forget how lucky I am to have Mikki and Jagan in my life, nor my good friends) I am not in the mood - at all - to act as if I do not have a care in the world, or to perform on demand some pretense to jollity. When someone insists that I need to just 'be happy', I find myself inclined to find a shotgun and look for flying reindeer to shoot. Anyone resembling an elf would also do well to steer clear of me.
Enjoy your holidays as you please, and be as merry as you like, but please do not demand that people must act a certain way. Joy may not be imposed, and even now there are duties which may not be dismissed or put off, nor to my mind would it be seemly to forget them.
Not everyone is having a 'Merry Christmas'. It's not because they have anything against the season, please understand, or that they wish any poor sentiments against those who are enjoying the season and its joy. But they have reasons to feel a bit differently, and in some cases do not want to be told how they should be feeling or act.
In my case, I admit to a certain grimness at present. While I am generally an optimist, the past year has done my family some damage. My father passed away in April, which is weighing my mother down at present as she has to go through the first Christmas without him. She also had about a thousand dollars worth of plumbing repairs which had to be done. My brother, three years older than me, has a badly-paying, no-chance-of-promotion job and is showing some hand tremors which may - long story - be the warning signs of long-feared Parkinson's disease. One of my sisters had to undergo surgery on her thyroid, and as soon as she recovers from that she is schedule to have spine surgery as well. And of course, a few weeks ago I was diagnosed with cancer, a variant which has no known cure and while slow-growing, kills half of its victims within ten years of its first symptoms. I find myself distinctly less than bouyant this Christmas season.
I certainly am aware that other members here have their own trials and difficulties, and I do not mean, at all, for this to be a 'poor me' thread. But while I remain determined and hopeful in the main, and I still thank God for all the good things he has given me (I will never forget how lucky I am to have Mikki and Jagan in my life, nor my good friends) I am not in the mood - at all - to act as if I do not have a care in the world, or to perform on demand some pretense to jollity. When someone insists that I need to just 'be happy', I find myself inclined to find a shotgun and look for flying reindeer to shoot. Anyone resembling an elf would also do well to steer clear of me.
Enjoy your holidays as you please, and be as merry as you like, but please do not demand that people must act a certain way. Joy may not be imposed, and even now there are duties which may not be dismissed or put off, nor to my mind would it be seemly to forget them.
Monday, December 18, 2006
A Business To AVOID
Every so often, you encounter a business which renews your faith in Integrity, in Customer Service, and Professional standards. Roadrunner Hi-Speed Internet, however, is almost the exact opposite of those qualities, a company so inept, dishonest and hostile to customers that it is hard to imagine how they could be any worse and still stay in business. I will make this one short and to the point; if you are considering high-speed Internet service, avoid Roadrunner AT ALL COSTS.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Fall 2006 Grade Results
I promised to report on the results of my first semester at UH-Victoria, as I pursue my Masters of Business Administration. The short story is two A’s and one B, but the value I hope to offer lies in how those grades were earned. The grades were determined through seven different types of activity, and those are somewhat different from the brick-and-mortar method of education I knew in High School and at Baylor during my undergraduate years.
To understand how grades are awarded at UHV, instead of visualizing a 100-point system, imagine if you will a thousand points awarded over the year. Nine hundred or more earns an A, eight hundred to eight-ninety-nine gets a B, and so on. There are no plus or minus grades, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage, as we shall see. For the three courses this fall, that means three thousand points in grades were issued. I will list the seven categories in declining proportion of the total, and also note a running total and average for each class through them.
The largest portion belonged to major examinations; fifteen hundred out of three thousand points awarded came from Mid-Term and Final examinations, three hundred points each on five tests. This came around, because my Economics and Business classes each had both a Mid-Term and a Final examination, while my Accounting class had only the Mid-Term examination. I want to stop here and warn the reader that examinations in online classes may be very different from one another. My Economics and Business tests were a combination of multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and short essay questions, but the Business class required a special browser which did not work the way Internet Explorer does, and this caused me trouble in the Mid-Term. The Accounting Mid-Term was actually a take-home test, but the test was definitely the most difficult test. In Economics, my Mid-Term exam graded 96% and my Final exam 86%. Dr. Adamchik cited statistical results about how students did on each question, as well as an overall average. Overall, the class found the Final examination tougher than the Mid-Term. Personally I liked the way the Economics tests were set up, as questions came directly from self-performed chapter quizzes, assigned homework and discussion board problems. If you did your classwork, you did well on the tests. For those two tests, 60% of my grade was earned with a 91% average, or 546 points out of a possible 600. In Business, I lost the connection to the secure browser during my Mid-Term, and was nervous and hasty when I regained access, which definitely impacted my ability to consider my answers on the Mid-Term. This showed up in my 80.5% grade. On the Final Exam, I studied hard on all the discussions and reading assignments, and earned a 91% on the Final Exam, for an 85.75% average between the two, or 514.5 points out of a possible 600. I was not completely happy with the method used in this class, as there was no formal review prior to the examinations, nor were we allowed to compare our answers and the test questions later. Professor Cloninger explained that this was a matter of security, but I still think that makes it a matter of denying students a proper review. In Accounting, I had great difficulty in the first question, which required assigned certain companies to a set of given financial data. I only earned 10 out of a possible 60 points, and from there could not accomplish the kind of results I planned. I earned a 72% grade, or 216 of a possible 300.
After examinations, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 91% average [A], 546 for 600, F minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 85.75% average [B], 514.5 for 600, F minimum, A maximum
ACCOUNTING – 72% average [C], 216 for 300, F minimum, A maximum
The next largest portion was from Term Papers, 500 possible points awarded. In Economics, I prepared a term paper on Retail Bookstores, which was graded not only on its content and logic, but on a number of technical standards. The short version was that I did well on the content, but lost points because I was inconsistent in style and a little cluttered in places. 90% grade, for 135 out of a possible 150. In Business, the style was fine but I lost points largely because the professor expected me to better balance my argument regarding how a juice company handled an e coli outbreak. In retrospect, there were points I should have presented to better show the company missed opportunity to meet social responsibility, but I still feel that the professor expected me to make assumptions not in evidence, as we were clearly instructed to not use any sources besides the textbook. 86% grade, for 129 out of a possible 150. In Accounting, I participated in a group project which evaluated the condition and prospects of a major public firm, and to make strategic recommendations for it. We earned a 91.5% grade, or 183 out of a possible 200.
After the term papers, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 90.8% average [A], 681 out of a possible 750, D minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 85.8% average [B], 643.5 out of a possible 750, D minimum, B maximum
ACCOUNTING – 79.8% average [C], 399 out of a possible 500, F minimum, B maximum
The next largest portion came from Participation. This is where the online experience radically departs from the face-to-face class. In my time as an undergrad, participation was expected but only earned a small part of the total grade. Online, participation can be and is tracked by actual participation in discussions, especially as to whether the student advances the discussion with substantive comments. I noticed during the last couple weeks, a few students try to make last-minute comments to earn some points, but seriously, if you want full credit here you had better plan on being active and involved all the way through. 430 possible points were distributed here, or over 14% of your final grade. I collected all 100 participation points in Economics, all 250 participation points in Business, and all 80 participation points in Accounting.
After adding the participation points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 91.9% average [A], 781 out of a possible 850, C minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 82.6% average [B], 479 out of a possible 580, F minimum, B maximum
The next largest portion came from quizzes. In both Economics and Accounting, this part really came down to studying the material and doing your reading on time. In Economics, I took four quizzes and averaged a 95% grade, for 95 out of a possible 100. In Accounting, I took ten quizzes and averaged a 91% grade, for 182 out of a possible 200.
After adding the quiz points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 92.2% average [A], 876 out of a possible 950, B minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 84.7% average [B], 661 out of a possible 780, D minimum, B maximum
The next largest portion (and the last formal one) came from Homework. In Economics, I earned a 100% grade, or 50 out of a possible 50 points. In Accounting, I earned a 98% grade, or 196 out of a possible 200 points.
After adding the homework points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 92.6% average [A], 926 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 87.4% average [B], 857 out of a possible 980, B minimum and maximum
The next portion came from a little different tack in Accounting. I earned 10 of 10 for a class survey, and 9 of 10 from a peer review, for an additional 19 out of a possible 20 points.
After adding in the sundry points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 92.6% average [A], 926 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 87.6% average [B], 876 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
The observant reader will have noted long ago that only one of my classes allowed for an A, yet I say I got two. That is because of the final section, the Bonus. This not always an automatic. My Accounting class’ professor, Dr. Lee, offered no curve and no opportunity to raise the final grade. My Economics professor however added a 4-point curve to the grade on both the Mid-Term and Final exams, adding 24 points to everyone’s final tally. And Dr. Cloninger offered an opportunity to submit a mini-term paper on a specific company’s code of ethics, for one point to be added to the final average. I took advantage of that offer, and received that point, which produced the following final results:
ECONOMICS – 95.0% average [A], 950 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
BUSINESS – 90.35% average [A], 903.5 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 87.6% average [B], 876 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
So there you are. Obviously, different students enjoyed different results, but for those few people who could find this useful or interesting, there you go. I have registered for Accounting, Quant, and Management for the Spring, so I will let you all know what I find out. Just a mention on pre-semester prep. I bought new books last time, thinking I would keep them neat and sell them back, but I read them a lot and they got used because I had to read and work them everywhere I could. So next semester I am making sure I get used books, so long as they are the right edition.
To understand how grades are awarded at UHV, instead of visualizing a 100-point system, imagine if you will a thousand points awarded over the year. Nine hundred or more earns an A, eight hundred to eight-ninety-nine gets a B, and so on. There are no plus or minus grades, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage, as we shall see. For the three courses this fall, that means three thousand points in grades were issued. I will list the seven categories in declining proportion of the total, and also note a running total and average for each class through them.
The largest portion belonged to major examinations; fifteen hundred out of three thousand points awarded came from Mid-Term and Final examinations, three hundred points each on five tests. This came around, because my Economics and Business classes each had both a Mid-Term and a Final examination, while my Accounting class had only the Mid-Term examination. I want to stop here and warn the reader that examinations in online classes may be very different from one another. My Economics and Business tests were a combination of multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and short essay questions, but the Business class required a special browser which did not work the way Internet Explorer does, and this caused me trouble in the Mid-Term. The Accounting Mid-Term was actually a take-home test, but the test was definitely the most difficult test. In Economics, my Mid-Term exam graded 96% and my Final exam 86%. Dr. Adamchik cited statistical results about how students did on each question, as well as an overall average. Overall, the class found the Final examination tougher than the Mid-Term. Personally I liked the way the Economics tests were set up, as questions came directly from self-performed chapter quizzes, assigned homework and discussion board problems. If you did your classwork, you did well on the tests. For those two tests, 60% of my grade was earned with a 91% average, or 546 points out of a possible 600. In Business, I lost the connection to the secure browser during my Mid-Term, and was nervous and hasty when I regained access, which definitely impacted my ability to consider my answers on the Mid-Term. This showed up in my 80.5% grade. On the Final Exam, I studied hard on all the discussions and reading assignments, and earned a 91% on the Final Exam, for an 85.75% average between the two, or 514.5 points out of a possible 600. I was not completely happy with the method used in this class, as there was no formal review prior to the examinations, nor were we allowed to compare our answers and the test questions later. Professor Cloninger explained that this was a matter of security, but I still think that makes it a matter of denying students a proper review. In Accounting, I had great difficulty in the first question, which required assigned certain companies to a set of given financial data. I only earned 10 out of a possible 60 points, and from there could not accomplish the kind of results I planned. I earned a 72% grade, or 216 of a possible 300.
After examinations, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 91% average [A], 546 for 600, F minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 85.75% average [B], 514.5 for 600, F minimum, A maximum
ACCOUNTING – 72% average [C], 216 for 300, F minimum, A maximum
The next largest portion was from Term Papers, 500 possible points awarded. In Economics, I prepared a term paper on Retail Bookstores, which was graded not only on its content and logic, but on a number of technical standards. The short version was that I did well on the content, but lost points because I was inconsistent in style and a little cluttered in places. 90% grade, for 135 out of a possible 150. In Business, the style was fine but I lost points largely because the professor expected me to better balance my argument regarding how a juice company handled an e coli outbreak. In retrospect, there were points I should have presented to better show the company missed opportunity to meet social responsibility, but I still feel that the professor expected me to make assumptions not in evidence, as we were clearly instructed to not use any sources besides the textbook. 86% grade, for 129 out of a possible 150. In Accounting, I participated in a group project which evaluated the condition and prospects of a major public firm, and to make strategic recommendations for it. We earned a 91.5% grade, or 183 out of a possible 200.
After the term papers, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 90.8% average [A], 681 out of a possible 750, D minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 85.8% average [B], 643.5 out of a possible 750, D minimum, B maximum
ACCOUNTING – 79.8% average [C], 399 out of a possible 500, F minimum, B maximum
The next largest portion came from Participation. This is where the online experience radically departs from the face-to-face class. In my time as an undergrad, participation was expected but only earned a small part of the total grade. Online, participation can be and is tracked by actual participation in discussions, especially as to whether the student advances the discussion with substantive comments. I noticed during the last couple weeks, a few students try to make last-minute comments to earn some points, but seriously, if you want full credit here you had better plan on being active and involved all the way through. 430 possible points were distributed here, or over 14% of your final grade. I collected all 100 participation points in Economics, all 250 participation points in Business, and all 80 participation points in Accounting.
After adding the participation points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 91.9% average [A], 781 out of a possible 850, C minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 82.6% average [B], 479 out of a possible 580, F minimum, B maximum
The next largest portion came from quizzes. In both Economics and Accounting, this part really came down to studying the material and doing your reading on time. In Economics, I took four quizzes and averaged a 95% grade, for 95 out of a possible 100. In Accounting, I took ten quizzes and averaged a 91% grade, for 182 out of a possible 200.
After adding the quiz points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 92.2% average [A], 876 out of a possible 950, B minimum, A maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 84.7% average [B], 661 out of a possible 780, D minimum, B maximum
The next largest portion (and the last formal one) came from Homework. In Economics, I earned a 100% grade, or 50 out of a possible 50 points. In Accounting, I earned a 98% grade, or 196 out of a possible 200 points.
After adding the homework points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 92.6% average [A], 926 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 87.4% average [B], 857 out of a possible 980, B minimum and maximum
The next portion came from a little different tack in Accounting. I earned 10 of 10 for a class survey, and 9 of 10 from a peer review, for an additional 19 out of a possible 20 points.
After adding in the sundry points, here is how I stood:
ECONOMICS – 92.6% average [A], 926 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
BUSINESS – 89.35% average [B], 893.5 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 87.6% average [B], 876 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
The observant reader will have noted long ago that only one of my classes allowed for an A, yet I say I got two. That is because of the final section, the Bonus. This not always an automatic. My Accounting class’ professor, Dr. Lee, offered no curve and no opportunity to raise the final grade. My Economics professor however added a 4-point curve to the grade on both the Mid-Term and Final exams, adding 24 points to everyone’s final tally. And Dr. Cloninger offered an opportunity to submit a mini-term paper on a specific company’s code of ethics, for one point to be added to the final average. I took advantage of that offer, and received that point, which produced the following final results:
ECONOMICS – 95.0% average [A], 950 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
BUSINESS – 90.35% average [A], 903.5 out of a possible 1000, A minimum and maximum
ACCOUNTING – 87.6% average [B], 876 out of a possible 1000, B minimum and maximum
So there you are. Obviously, different students enjoyed different results, but for those few people who could find this useful or interesting, there you go. I have registered for Accounting, Quant, and Management for the Spring, so I will let you all know what I find out. Just a mention on pre-semester prep. I bought new books last time, thinking I would keep them neat and sell them back, but I read them a lot and they got used because I had to read and work them everywhere I could. So next semester I am making sure I get used books, so long as they are the right edition.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The Holocaust Myth
The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had a week to waste, so he sponsored a conference on the Holocaust, which is to say that he set up a week of noise to denounce historical fact in favor of his fantasy. It would be pointless here to rebut the lies and hypocrisy of that group, but it is necessary to consider the motive and goals of the new Fascism.
When I gave this essay the title of ‘The Holocaust Myth’, I was not referring to the well-documented genocide of Jews and other “undesirables” by the Nazis. Between General Eisenhower’s specific orders to film the camps and document the crimes he feared would be diminished in time or conveniently forgotten as Germany rebuilt, and the Nazi’s own ghastly obsession with documenting the efficiency of their “Final Solution”, there is no doubt – whatsoever – that the Nazis deliberately and systematically abused and dehumanized the Jews through laws and the camps, in the diabolical hope that they might exterminate a race of people. The focus I want to direct is on the other myths of the Holocaust. Myths like the notion that Israel’s existence is the cause of unrest in the Middle East, which requires the deaths of as many Jews as possible to resolve the matter. Myths like the notion that Iran deserves nuclear weapons, and is morally equal to the United States in its accountability and responsibility for such weapons. Myths like the notion that the United States has no business “interfering” in Muslim nations, even when specifically asked by the governments there, or to remove a tyrant who had committed clear acts of war against America. Myths like the notion that the Jihadists can produce anything, anywhere, but a bloodbath.
The Holocaust Conference in Iran therefore needs to be seen for what it is, a tactical propaganda move in a continuing war against Israel and the West. It demonstrates why it is so wrong for the Mainstream Media to declare themselves neutral, granting a moral equivalency between America and forces which murder Americans, and why it is wrong to attack the President in time of war, in hopes of political gains at home. In 2003, after the successful invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, the Middle East understood that the United States had taken control of the initiative, and was dictating events, just as President Bush promised, at the times and manner chosen by the United States. Because of this, Moammar Qaddafi in Libya voluntarily surrendered his WMD programs, Syria backed down from the border of Iraq, correctly believing its own invasion was imminent, and even the mullahs in Iran toned down their rhetoric, hoping to not anger the United States into a war which seemed all too likely to destroy the Jihadists’ base. But because the Democrats in Congress refused to support the war for reasons which came completely from expediency issues, and because the media like CNN and CBS and the New York Times became actively opposed to the American government, the Jihadists found hope for their survival through the cowardice and cavil of vain and shallow men.
A clear example of such an abandonment of American ideals is the reaction to the ascension of Ahmadinejad to the Presidency of Iran. A member of the group which seized the U.S. Embassy in Teheran during the Carter Administration, it is very likely that as a young thug, Ahmadinejad held a gun to the head of captive American citizens, an act which all too well symbolizes the present desires and intentions of the Ahmadinejad regime today. Not one Democrat or Liberal has condemned Ahmadinejad, treating as reasonable his recent ultimatum to President Bush; indeed, the consensus from the Left has been to suggest that President Bush should meet with Ahmadinejad, negotiate on his terms, none of which would be palatable to a Western secular democratic republic. No leading Democrat has condemned the practice of Honor Killings, nor of the execution of a teenage girl in Iran this year, nor the training and funding of terrorists exported to Iraq to attack U.S. and Coalition forces, as well as Iraqi citizens. Because of this attitude, to allow Iran to say and do exactly as it pleases, the Left has betrayed the military forces in Iraq and undermined the valid doctrines established by the Bush Administration. And that has emboldened Iran’s vicious mullahs to the point where they can openly begin a campaign against Israel. We are not to the point of military action, of course, but that is waiting on two key conditions the Jihadists expect to see fulfilled in short order; the significant drawdown of American military forces in the region, especially Iraq, and the testing of a battlefield-ready nuclear weapon. The total lack of resistance and outrage to the Holocaust Conference has encouraged the Imams to plan for greater and bloodier goals.
There is abundant precedent for the upcoming campaign to wipe out Israel. The 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars all began their planning on the hope for a newer, Muslim-led ethnic cleansing. Because of Iraq, the Jihadists hope to keep the U.S. out. Because of Chechnya, the Jihadists hope to keep the Russians out. Because of commerce, the Jihadists hope to be well-armed with state-of-the-art weapons and C3I capability. Syria will grab Lebanon and Iran will control Iraq, by proxy more than outright invasion, but in a matter of months the region could devolve to utter chaos. Casualties will be high, especially civilians, and all because politics was too tempting for the Left to remember or care about American promises or commitments. And it all began last week, with the myth that Iran only wants peace and stability. A myth which will introduce a new, Muslim, holocaust.
When I gave this essay the title of ‘The Holocaust Myth’, I was not referring to the well-documented genocide of Jews and other “undesirables” by the Nazis. Between General Eisenhower’s specific orders to film the camps and document the crimes he feared would be diminished in time or conveniently forgotten as Germany rebuilt, and the Nazi’s own ghastly obsession with documenting the efficiency of their “Final Solution”, there is no doubt – whatsoever – that the Nazis deliberately and systematically abused and dehumanized the Jews through laws and the camps, in the diabolical hope that they might exterminate a race of people. The focus I want to direct is on the other myths of the Holocaust. Myths like the notion that Israel’s existence is the cause of unrest in the Middle East, which requires the deaths of as many Jews as possible to resolve the matter. Myths like the notion that Iran deserves nuclear weapons, and is morally equal to the United States in its accountability and responsibility for such weapons. Myths like the notion that the United States has no business “interfering” in Muslim nations, even when specifically asked by the governments there, or to remove a tyrant who had committed clear acts of war against America. Myths like the notion that the Jihadists can produce anything, anywhere, but a bloodbath.
The Holocaust Conference in Iran therefore needs to be seen for what it is, a tactical propaganda move in a continuing war against Israel and the West. It demonstrates why it is so wrong for the Mainstream Media to declare themselves neutral, granting a moral equivalency between America and forces which murder Americans, and why it is wrong to attack the President in time of war, in hopes of political gains at home. In 2003, after the successful invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, the Middle East understood that the United States had taken control of the initiative, and was dictating events, just as President Bush promised, at the times and manner chosen by the United States. Because of this, Moammar Qaddafi in Libya voluntarily surrendered his WMD programs, Syria backed down from the border of Iraq, correctly believing its own invasion was imminent, and even the mullahs in Iran toned down their rhetoric, hoping to not anger the United States into a war which seemed all too likely to destroy the Jihadists’ base. But because the Democrats in Congress refused to support the war for reasons which came completely from expediency issues, and because the media like CNN and CBS and the New York Times became actively opposed to the American government, the Jihadists found hope for their survival through the cowardice and cavil of vain and shallow men.
A clear example of such an abandonment of American ideals is the reaction to the ascension of Ahmadinejad to the Presidency of Iran. A member of the group which seized the U.S. Embassy in Teheran during the Carter Administration, it is very likely that as a young thug, Ahmadinejad held a gun to the head of captive American citizens, an act which all too well symbolizes the present desires and intentions of the Ahmadinejad regime today. Not one Democrat or Liberal has condemned Ahmadinejad, treating as reasonable his recent ultimatum to President Bush; indeed, the consensus from the Left has been to suggest that President Bush should meet with Ahmadinejad, negotiate on his terms, none of which would be palatable to a Western secular democratic republic. No leading Democrat has condemned the practice of Honor Killings, nor of the execution of a teenage girl in Iran this year, nor the training and funding of terrorists exported to Iraq to attack U.S. and Coalition forces, as well as Iraqi citizens. Because of this attitude, to allow Iran to say and do exactly as it pleases, the Left has betrayed the military forces in Iraq and undermined the valid doctrines established by the Bush Administration. And that has emboldened Iran’s vicious mullahs to the point where they can openly begin a campaign against Israel. We are not to the point of military action, of course, but that is waiting on two key conditions the Jihadists expect to see fulfilled in short order; the significant drawdown of American military forces in the region, especially Iraq, and the testing of a battlefield-ready nuclear weapon. The total lack of resistance and outrage to the Holocaust Conference has encouraged the Imams to plan for greater and bloodier goals.
There is abundant precedent for the upcoming campaign to wipe out Israel. The 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars all began their planning on the hope for a newer, Muslim-led ethnic cleansing. Because of Iraq, the Jihadists hope to keep the U.S. out. Because of Chechnya, the Jihadists hope to keep the Russians out. Because of commerce, the Jihadists hope to be well-armed with state-of-the-art weapons and C3I capability. Syria will grab Lebanon and Iran will control Iraq, by proxy more than outright invasion, but in a matter of months the region could devolve to utter chaos. Casualties will be high, especially civilians, and all because politics was too tempting for the Left to remember or care about American promises or commitments. And it all began last week, with the myth that Iran only wants peace and stability. A myth which will introduce a new, Muslim, holocaust.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Modern Education
It has been a long time since I disagreed with Hugh Hewitt, but Monday was such a day. Hugh had Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College on his radio show. Much of what Dr. Arnn said I agreed with, until at Hugh’s urging he produced his list of what he called “serious old-fashioned” schools. In short, Dr. Arnn divided schools into four groups by two qualities: Serious versus Unserious schools, and Old-fashioned versus Modern. Dr. Arnn went on to state that a school was “serious” only if it instilled character and values into a student, and that Old-fashioned meant holding, even defending traditional Christian values. Again, so far no problem. But from there Dr. Arnn turned into a blatant propagandist, claiming that only about ten schools would meet the standard for Serious Old-Fashioned school. I found serious problems with his arrogance on that point. The sheer fact that none of the military academies met Dr. Arnn’s cut should tell you how short-sighted his list was. Perhaps he was merely being polite, but Mr. Hewitt made no attempt at all to correct any of Dr. Arnn’s misstatements or omissions. I certainly noticed that Dr. Arnn favored schools on the east and west coasts, so it surprised me that Hewitt did not point out how much of the country Dr., Arnn was – however inadvertently – insulting. For example, here in Texas any serious college evaluation must include Baylor University in Waco, Texas A&M in College Station, and while Dr. Arnn mentioned the University of Dallas he somehow missed the University of Texas at Dallas, a fast rising star in many reviews. Dr. Arnn had not a word of mention about Houston Baptist University, or Lady of the Lake University, or Trinity College in San Antonio. And that is limiting the field to the Christian perspective, which would frown on things like coed dorms or an agnostic/atheistic worldview, which would exclude some otherwise fine universities.
The reader will note that I have not yet mentioned online studies, which I consider an equal if not superior option to the nominal experience for many students. So far as I know, Hillsdale does not offer even a single online course, so it is poor indeed on that matter of addressing student needs, but in the main it is obvious that many people who consider themselves experts simply prefer to promote the schools they know, which brings me to my question for the day:
In terms of building a young person into an intelligent and responsible adult, what three colleges or universities would you consider the best? Please share your reasons.
The reader will note that I have not yet mentioned online studies, which I consider an equal if not superior option to the nominal experience for many students. So far as I know, Hillsdale does not offer even a single online course, so it is poor indeed on that matter of addressing student needs, but in the main it is obvious that many people who consider themselves experts simply prefer to promote the schools they know, which brings me to my question for the day:
In terms of building a young person into an intelligent and responsible adult, what three colleges or universities would you consider the best? Please share your reasons.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Lame TV Shows
Well, I should have known it would happen. I made the mistake of watching the season finale of “The Amazing Race”, but it was neither Amazing nor really much of a race. The show, in case you were wise than me and did not waste your time on it, works like this: Twelve teams of two start out and go from place to place, pretty much around the world, and gradually teams are eliminated until the last few survivors make a run for the prize – a million dollars for first place. There is no word on whether any of the other teams get money, although being first reach each of the twelve “pit stops” gets a prize of some kind, usually trip-related (someone wanna explain to me why someone who has been running around the world for literally tens of thousands of miles, would want to go on another trip anytime soon?). That general plan could actually work, except that the guys running the show have thoroughly mucked it up.
As an example, Sunday’s finale should have been the best run of all, with lots of challenges and wholly dependant on the players’ skill and daring. Instead, CBS’ finale was as stupid as Dan Rather’s ‘fake but credible’ forged documents. First, the players had to make their way from Barcelona to Paris; that part was interesting, especially to see Team Bama move from third to first by going to Lyon Airport instead of De Gaulle. But from there the race was a waste. In short, it came down to getting seats on an overbooked plane. I am not a racist, but it does strike me as a wee bit odd that the white people were able to get on the plane with “no seats”, but not the team of two black women. Considering what was at stake, the “Amazing Race” people totally blew that decision and managed to make the race a matter of chance. It comes down to who gets the plane to New York, then which cab has the EZ-tag. For crying out loud, the show goes around the world, and it’s decided by neither skill nor character? That’s CBS’ idea of a winner?
Maybe next year “The Amazing Race” should just have the contestants use scratch-off cards. It would be just as dramatic, but faster and cheaper.
TV is doing that a lot these days. I love the CSI shows, but not so much when they decide they need to use sex to sizzle up the show, which seems to happen more and more. And I can’t stand Letterman or Leno anymore; they pander to their NY and LA crowds like the rest of America doesn’t exist. And the news? Now that Tony Snow has come to Washington, improving the quality of White House Press Briefings, even Fox News sucks for the most part, and the “Big Three” (ABC, CBS, NBC) are a total loss. And CNN might as well be pulling paychecks from Ahmadinejad, and for all I know, they are.
Where are the good TV shows anymore?
As an example, Sunday’s finale should have been the best run of all, with lots of challenges and wholly dependant on the players’ skill and daring. Instead, CBS’ finale was as stupid as Dan Rather’s ‘fake but credible’ forged documents. First, the players had to make their way from Barcelona to Paris; that part was interesting, especially to see Team Bama move from third to first by going to Lyon Airport instead of De Gaulle. But from there the race was a waste. In short, it came down to getting seats on an overbooked plane. I am not a racist, but it does strike me as a wee bit odd that the white people were able to get on the plane with “no seats”, but not the team of two black women. Considering what was at stake, the “Amazing Race” people totally blew that decision and managed to make the race a matter of chance. It comes down to who gets the plane to New York, then which cab has the EZ-tag. For crying out loud, the show goes around the world, and it’s decided by neither skill nor character? That’s CBS’ idea of a winner?
Maybe next year “The Amazing Race” should just have the contestants use scratch-off cards. It would be just as dramatic, but faster and cheaper.
TV is doing that a lot these days. I love the CSI shows, but not so much when they decide they need to use sex to sizzle up the show, which seems to happen more and more. And I can’t stand Letterman or Leno anymore; they pander to their NY and LA crowds like the rest of America doesn’t exist. And the news? Now that Tony Snow has come to Washington, improving the quality of White House Press Briefings, even Fox News sucks for the most part, and the “Big Three” (ABC, CBS, NBC) are a total loss. And CNN might as well be pulling paychecks from Ahmadinejad, and for all I know, they are.
Where are the good TV shows anymore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
