Up To The Job

This week I have been writing about President Bush and his management of our country in difficult times. The response has been mixed, from people who agree with me that Bush is one of our best Presidents, to vitriol-laced screeds that he is somehow our worst President. While the latter sort are clearly unbalanced by their hatred – their refusal to recognize the greatness of President Reagan does their credibility quite a bit of damage – it seems to me that it is worthwhile to explore the way we look at Presidents.

There are three methods generally available to consider the merits of a President’s accomplishments; ranking front-to-back, a grade scale such as a teacher would issue, and in-place comparisons. The first method, while an interesting exercise, is often devolved to a simple popularity contest, which really does not address the actual performance of a President. And a grade scale, while useful if applied as objectively as possible, is often the puppet of the grader, and is used to create an image rather than assess the man in total. Also, the difference in each President’s time and place to address the nation’s welfare to varying degrees and with shifting priorities, makes many comparisons unfair. Indeed, many leading historians decline to assess a President who served in their own lifetime, because they realize that personal bias will likely devalue the analysis they apply, as each President is awarded or penalized points simply because the historian personally likes or dislikes the man and his politics.

The third method, in-place comparisons, can also fall prey to personal manipulation, but at least an attempt to correct for bias can be made. I would further note that in-place comparisons should not be used to claim that one President was clearly “better” than another, because of the difference in each man’s environment; it is one thing to say, for example, that no President since Washington would be likely to have done a better job in his place at the start of the nation, yet it might also be valid to say that no President could have done better than Lincoln with the tasks laid to his charge. The purpose here is simply to consider whether President Bush was “up to the job”, as demonstrated by how other Presidents would have handled the same crises. I further note here that I am not including Bush’s non-Presidential contemporaries in a comparison, either as an opportunity to praise them or rebuke them, because we cannot truly know how a “President Gore” or a “President Kerry” would have faced the real events. Only men who have truly served as Presidents can honestly be weighed on the Presidential scale.

Setting the stage for these comparisons, therefore, requires me to consider the sort of actions which could be fairly considered without some personal requisite for success. That is, I do not consider the virtue or fault of President Bush’s judicial appointments, because a Conservative or Republican would see the matter much differently than a Liberal or Democrat. Also, while I personally find Bush’s efforts to reform Social Security and Medicare to be honorable and indicators of his sense of honor and duty to the country’s welfare, the fact that his efforts did not result in effective legislation makes it impossible to properly consider them accomplishments. Also, too complex a comparison would make the task cumbersome and cluttered in its results. Accordingly, I look to five key matters which I contend a responsible President would have addressed, and whose success can be clearly measured. Those matters are these:

[] April 1, 2001 – A PRC fighter jet collides with a U.S. Navy Reconnaissance aircraft in International waters. The PRC pilot is killed in the crash, while the U.S. Navy plane is forced to land and its crew taken prisoner by the PRC.

[] September 11, 2001 – Terrorists from the international group “Al Qaeda” hijack four US domestic commercial aircraft, and ram two of them into the World Trade Center buildings in New York City, and a third airliner into the Pentagon.

[] Fall 2001 – The economic recession which began earlier in the year is aggravated by effects, technical and psychological, from the 9/11 attacks. The economy threatens to worsen unless the government acts.

[] October 2001 – The terrorist group Al Qaeda is directly linked to the Taliban regime in control of Afghanistan. The Taliban refuse to cooperate with demands to eject Al Qaeda, instead demonstrating a militant desire for war against the West through terrorist attacks.

[] February 2003 – The dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq continues to flout its violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire terms, to support a large number of international terrorist actions, especially the tactics of suicide bombers against civilian Israeli targets, and the international consensus of the Intelligence Community is that Saddam is seeking the development of WMD, and his behavior strongly suggests he possesses stockpiles of WMD.

The situation in each of these crises is such that no President could have expected to have reliable prior knowledge sufficient to prevent the crisis from occurring, nor was U.S. policy able to anticipate these crises. It is no coincidence that four of the five defining crises of the Bush Administration emerge from international incidents.

With this in mind, the benchmarks established by the present Bush Administration are as follows:

I – The crisis, which could have ended in disaster and at times appeared in doubt, ended with improved U.S.-Sino relations and the safe return of the entire U.S. Navy crew. While often ignored by critics of the Bush Administration, this early crisis is one of his shining successes in Diplomacy, and demonstrated an often-missed subtlety to the Bush method.

II – The Bush Administration undertook a comprehensive review and overhaul of the National Defense paradigm. While controversial in places and not always well-explained, the actions taken under President Bush’s authority have prevented another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while keeping Civil Liberties intact.

III – The Bush Administration pursued and accomplished an aggressive set of tax cuts and system reforms, which were largely responsible for the early recovery from the recession, in addition to improving collection of federal revenues. The plan was controversial for its effect on long-term debt, but Bush’s deft use of monetary tools provided critical assistance for small businesses and drove confidence for the U.S. Economy in general.

IV – The Bush Administration, despite heckling from the Left that they were inviting disaster and ignoring History, supported a bold plan which assisted Afghan partisans in overthrowing the Taliban and establishing a freely-elected government, which allowed the first-ever votes by women in that country. Terrorist camps based in Afghanistan were obliterated and their networks devastated.

V – The Bush Administration created an international coalition even larger than the one which repulsed Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, obtained both a United Nations Security Council sanction against Iraq and an authorization for the use of force from both houses of Congress, before carrying out the invasion of Iraq in alignment with the 1998 United States policy of regime change in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled, Saddam along with the overwhelming majority of his minions was captured and many others killed, and a democratic republic began to develop in the Mid-East nation. Despite claims which pretended the war was solely about WMD, and lies that no WMD were found in Iraq, the major objectives of invading Iraq were justified and accomplished, although the emphasis by some figureheads on nuclear material led to embarrassment when assurances by numerous intelligence agencies proved wrong on that count. Fear of a democratic republic in an Arab nation led a number of surrounding regimes to support incursions of terrorist groups, and fascist Islamic groups also fueled an insurgency which has been difficult to defeat, in some part because political enemies of the Bush Administration have played games with the issue rather than maintain an united front, which has been played by the Islamofascists for media propaganda. It should also be noted that the U.S.-led action led to collateral reforms, such as the promise by Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi to renounce WMD, and the rise of self-determination demands by Lebanese citizens against Syrian occupation. The Iraq issue remains the largest effort by the Bush Administration which success remains in any doubt.

With these benchmarks in place, I now consider how other Presidents since World War 2 would have fared, given their known job performance.

I – The key qualities necessary to resolve the China crisis would appear to be an understanding of world power relationships, along with a long fuse. Accordingly, Presidents Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt would all have enjoyed success in resolving this crisis without loss of life or an escalation in tension. President Carter often “gave away the farm” in negotiations, and so would have given the PRC more than necessary, such as granting an extension of PRC airspace demands, and so I count his effort as less successful. Presidents Johnson and Truman were known for provocative and confrontational statements, especially with regard to Asia, and so I conclude that in their cases an escalation would be more likely.

II – 9/11 is a seminal historic event, and so it is difficult to precisely name how any individual would react, but the style of crisis management reveals clues. The Clinton Administration, for example, repeatedly failed to respond to Al Qaeda attacks, including the 1993 attempt to bomb the WTC, treating it instead as a matter for criminal investigation. Also, when a threat was perceived as serious, the Clinton Administration typically over-reacted with a heavy hand, as the Elian Gonzalez raid, the Waco raid, and the attack on Ruby Ridge demonstrate. The temptation for immediate retaliation was a mistake both Bush Administrations resisted successfully, but the behavior of the Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, and FDR Administrations indicate that they would have immediately struck at a target of opportunity, and in the 9/11 context such action would have played to the advantage of Al Qaeda, which hoped to enflame the region in a general war. On the other hand, the Reagan, Bush I, Carter, and Kennedy Administrations would – on the basis of their reaction to provocations in their own time – have refrained from spontaneous action and paid attention to their defenses instead.

III – It is a cliché to say that Presidents get far too much praise for a good economy, and too much blame for a bad one. However, there are instances where specific and timely action – or the duty to act missed – can have tremendous effect on the Economy. The lessons of Fiscal and Monetary Policy were developed from such understanding. In my opinion, only the Bush I, Reagan, and Kennedy Administrations would have properly understood and applied the Monetary action of broad tax cuts to reignite the Economy. The Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, and FDR Administrations would have tried Fiscal tools, which would have made the deficit worse than the Bush actions did, but without similar success in improving Employment and Consumer Confidence. The Ford, Eisenhower, and Truman Administrations would have tried to ride out the recession, which in the short term at least would have weakened the Economy and destroyed confidence and job creation. The Carter Administration, with its sometimes-myopic focus on the deficit, would never have consented to deficit spending or tax cuts, and so would have done the worst of all in that circumstance.

IV – The overthrow of the Taliban was a gutsy call, the kind of thing that no poll-driven President would have attempted. Only Reagan, Nixon, FDR and Truman would have understood the need for such an action, and only FDR and Truman would have had the nerve to take on the task the way George W. Bush did. While the other Presidents would have felt obliged to respond in force, bombings and a few raids would have been the end of it, by the lights of Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower.

V – The most controversial decision of George W. Bush’s Presidency would have been tough on any President. For instance, most modern commentators have forgotten the harsh criticism Reagan took for liberating Grenada, an action far smaller and quicker, to say nothing of the blame smeared on him for the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983. We commonly see defenders of the former dictator Saddam Hussein parade on television, as if his monstrous crimes were irrelevant to the issue, and we also hear the claim – never supported by evidence – that Iraq would have been better off if we had not invaded. Certainly by that logic, 1948 Berlin was not nearly the happy-go-lucky place it was in 1944, nor could Tokyo in 1947 be said to be the happenin’ place it was in 1942. And since so many in the media like to interview people with agenda in the Middle East, perhaps we should weigh the victory in the Cold War by the opinion of former KGB agents and zampolits now left unemployed with the demise of their oligarchy? In any case, only Franklin Roosevelt could be said to possess the vision and the courage to have engaged in a similar course, especially as his vision for the reformation of Germany after World War 2 is significantly similar to the Bush plan for the re-emergence of Iraq as a stable, central democratic republic in the Middle East. A gamble yes, but a worthy one. The other Presidents, honorable though their intentions are, would none of them been bold and resolute enough to decimate Al Qaeda the way the Bush plan has done, to establish a free republic in the middle of the most contentious region in the modern world. Some, like Clinton and Nixon, would have anticipated the political maneuvering by their opponents which would have made the task harder, and so they would have demurred to meet the challenge. Others, like Carter and Eisenhower, would have found the stakes too challenging and abandoned the game rather than think too deeply about the need for a long-term American commitment. And sadly, some might have been frightened by the madmen in Iran just one border away, and fled from the challenge even if their cowardice cost the country in its long-term welfare. To be courteous, I will not name those timid souls, except to observe their presence in this matter.

Those who chose to pursue the matter would have fared the same as Bush has; it is too often ignored that the enemies of America are not idle in their campaigns against us, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Those who would have declined to invade Iraq would doubtless have avoided the present specter of constant military action, yet they would not have emerged unscathed. Saddam had already shown a willingness, indeed an eagerness, to support and sponsor terrorist organizations, especially those most active against the United States, and connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were known even prior to the 2003 invasion. Consequently, failure to remove Saddam Hussein through a military invasion would not only have allowed the region to continue its devolution into chaos, feeding the ambitions of Syria and Iran along the way (why is it that anti-Bush minions never mention those ambitions, which would surely have filled the vacuum with their own armies if the Coalition had not come in?), but would also have emboldened Al Qaeda and assured it of a stable base from which to launch new and ambitious attacks on America.

Overall, I find it impossible to find any President in history who would have done as well in meeting these challenges as President George W. Bush has done, and it is inconceivable that any man could have done better. The sole question is how long this fact will be evident before Dubya receives the respect and appreciation he is so clearly overdue. That, and how long before the first howling jackal posts a comment which does nothing to establish his case, but rather spews hate and venom in their ceaseless attempt to defame the President.



PS - Chuck Simmins has an excellent non-partisan way to compare the State of the Union at this point in three Presidencies. (ht Glenn Reynolds)

Madness By Choice

Tuesday evening I strolled over to Polipundit to check reaction to the President’s State of the Union address. I might as well have visited Andrew Sullivan’s site or Kos-land, for the level of maturity I found there. Of course, to expect maturity from the Polipundit readers at large is a bit like expecting Mike Nifong to do his job properly, but that’s not the issue for here. I mentioned that most people would ignore or mock what the President said, and I was proven right by the content of the comments which followed my observation.

Soon after that, personal insults against me started. Small wonder, since I am a known supporter of the President and therefore an enemy to many of Polipundit’s tenants. But what else happened was a strange study in mob dynamics; I was quickly – and quite falsely – accused of banning certain readers from Polipundit.com when I was one of the hosts there. What’s intriguing is not the charge per se - that was a common lie used by a few individuals back in 2006, when the site polarized beyond repair and the site owner declared a dictatorship.

What is interesting is that the charge has taken a sort of “Woodstock” effect; where initially only two readers believed they had been banned – possibly an honest error, although the claim was never true – by this past Tuesday it was as common as buying coffee from Starbuck’s to claim that DJ Drummond had banned one from the Polipundit.com site. I addressed those claims fully when they first surfaced, and I would ignore the matter now, except that I perceive a syndrome at work, and one which is likely more pervasive than people are aware or would like to admit. It is that syndrome which not only is willing to lower one’s standards of conduct into the muck of false accusation and slander, but which in some cases comes to prefer it, so that the lie is the first choice rather than a desperate attempt. In the perspective of the Rabid Right, the arch enemy is typified by sites like the Daily Kos, which controls the tone and direction of its debates by quite deliberately banishing anyone who even appears to be Conservative, Rational, or who dares to question the marching orders of the Left. Thus, when the Rabid Right wishes to destroy an enemy, the preferred attack is to accuse him – however falsely – of acting in a like manner to the Daily Kos, even when this requires the RR to use the Kos’ own dishonest tactics, as we see here. Ignored is the fact that I answered the claims fully when they first came up, and ignored too is the fact that it was always impossible for me to ban individuals from the site, even if I wanted to do so. But in examining this situation, another unfortunate action has become evident; apparent malice on the part of the site owner.

Polipundit.com was created by a single person, who posts under the screen name “Polipundit”. When he decided to bring additional writers onto his site, there were certain conditions under which we operated, one of them the obvious fact that the site owner retained control of the site. Early on, there were incidents with individuals who attempted to disrupt discussions, using foul language, personal attacks, and attempts to derail discussions onto non-seqiturs. Three of the four new writers pressed for the right to ban the IP addresses of those offenders, but the site owner declined to grant that right. Offensive posts could be and were deleted, and in extreme cases an IP address could be banned from a specific post, but since Polipundit.com at that time usually had more than a dozen new threads a day, anyone kicked from one thread could simply show up again in another thread. Veteran readers of Polipundit.com may recall that readers often complained about thuggish behavior which moved from one thread to another. So those people who pretend to have banned from the site are either individuals who were banned from a few specific threads where they refused to act civilly, or who were banned from Polipundit.com by the site owner himself [the only person who ever that ability], or who were in fact never actually banned at all. In any case such people are lying, making false accusations for whatever reason their spite brought to being in their foul hearts.

The significance of this fact comes from the claims by some, that the site owner “restored” them to access to the site, and they implied that the site owner blamed me for their access difficulties. As I have no specific knowledge of communications between the site owner and such persons, I cannot say whether the individuals are lying or the site owner is, but in either case the actions and the lack thereof from that site owner are disappointing. When the site owner threw out the other writers from his site in May of 2006, certain promises and understandings were made in email communications, which I prefer not to detail here, except that all parties promised to act in an honorable manner, especially in not blaming the other side for any misunderstandings or in creating any hostility. I will say plainly that all the writers who left Polipundit.com kept our promises, including not revealing the true name or location of the site owner, nor disparaging his reputation. I must bluntly observe that the site owner of Polipundit.com has not done the same, failing to keep certain specific promises made, and in my case if he did not directly malign me for an action he knows full well I did not commit, he at the least made no effort whatsoever to correct the record when those individuals began falsely accusing me of banning them. The site owner knows full well that I am guiltless in that matter, and therefore he knows those accusations to be false and malicious, yet he has not once taken it upon himself to correct the record, apparently preferring the smear to the truth. He ignored email requests from me to correct the matter in mid-2006, and apparently is still happy to let a lie stand in order to malign me, even after I have wished him well, supported his endeavors and heretofore held from publicly pointing out his ignoble behavior. I suppose shame is powerless against some folks.

What is interesting here, however, is that Polipundit.com used to be a site of fair discussion, obviously right-of-center but a place where Liberal perspectives and arguments were welcome. What has changed, is that while Liberals still visit the place and state their piece, the civility is gone. Completely. The place has the ambience of a biker bar, where only crude epithets and sub-graduate logic are acceptable; the more genial Liberals who could banter in good spirit are quite gone, replaced by knuckle-draggers who do little more than throw insults. The same for the Right, where anyone who supports the President may expect to be ill-used, and context is lost to the preferred simplicity of the mob mentality. In recent weeks, the feeling one gets from visiting Polipundit.com soon after arriving, and especially after a comment which dares to pursue a modest discourse, is that one is glad to be there only in a virtual sense, because in a real-world establishment of this type, one would be fervently hoping for the appearance of a police officer or six. A rhetorical gang-rape is the program du jour at Polipundit.com, without fail. While the present writers are generally good, and one in particular worth the read in 9 out of 10 times, the sense of the place is foreboding and dire for anyone who does not stay in the herd.

I have seen this also at other formerly intriguing sites, though admittedly at a mush lower level of hostility to reason and civility. Yet it must be said that in the Blogosphere, the number of sites which are truly open to considering alternative points of view and maintaining a civil atmosphere are in the decline. Whether Left or Right, the promise of the “New Media” is no longer the fresh invitation to expand one’s horizons and explore the full dimensions of an issue. In this measure, I fear that the Blogosphere is representing the mindset of the populace as a whole. The President addressed the nation last night on a number of critical issues, but it is doubtful that many people listened at all, whether on the Left or on the Right. Twice elected President of the United States, with more than 62 million Americans lining up behind him in 2004, George W. Bush is now ignored because of personal enmity, turf wars, an arrogant media, and a desire to put expediency ahead of principle. The liars pretend that deserting the President on Iraq won’t impact our troops there or the mission, they claim that they only ‘criticize’ the President when they call him names and lie about his intentions, and they all pretend to better qualification, these posers who have none of them been elected to office, nor who have borne the weight and responsibility that Dubya has carried for more than half a decade now. They defecate on the flag with their actions, but would have one believe they are freshening the place up. And their style is becoming the norm.

History warns us that these things may represent a greater threat than mere incivility. After the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan managed a campaign of terror for decades in the South, domestic terrorism and mob violence directed at millions of Americans simply for their race and culture. Along the West Coast in the 19th Century, race riots and lynchings of Asians were common, to the degree that law enforcement did nothing to stop it, even at the federal level. Immediately after the First World War, a period of civil unrest in the United States included assassinations and bombings, and waves of criminal violence that was only put down with near-nationwide martial law through the Palmer Raids. And there are people alive today who recall the polarization of race during the late 1960s and early 1970s, which still influence New York and California politics and social conditions. Yes, it’s a stretch to jump from name-calling on a discussion board to race lynchings, but it is important to observe that the road to such violence started just the way our present road is changing, away from personal discretion declining the use of personal invective and a constant application of context to discussions, to the wholesale and deliberate disruption of legitimate authority, and demands for violent and radical action. This present road ignores the root causes of Terrorism and the decay of procedural standards in political debate, replacing them with the self-satisfying personal attack and the expedient poll-advancing statement which promotes the next political campaign at the cost of the nation’s health and welfare. While we are but newly set on that road, we dare not ignore its destination. And the Blogosphere, which moves the quickest of all media and enjoys the repute of popular support and participation in the greatest measure, is now called to the duty to restore Reason to the helm.

The Next Long War

President Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. While still disputed by Liberals and Communist sympathizers (more on them later), this fact is increasingly accepted by the American people and much of the Western World. I mention this at the start of this article, because while he was President, this conclusion was far from acknowledged. I remember the taunts that he sent troops to Grenada, because he could not win in Lebanon. I remember the claim that Reagan’s tax cuts would cost the country’s economy in the long run, or that Star Wars would provoke the Soviets into World War 3. Although anyone with a working knowledge of history understood that Stalin’s acquisition of Eastern Europe was Act One of WW3; the ‘Cold War’ moniker cloaked the true nature of the conflict for many people.

Which brings me to the media. Flush from the propaganda victory which helped bring down South Vietnam, CBS led the way for the offensive against Reagan’s defense of the United States. National Security became mocked as somehow an excess of government action or attention, and traditional values like Family and the expectation of Civility by public officials were targeted for ridicule and assault, as if the majority’s interests were Unconstitutional. Indeed, the media assisted a number of lawsuits which claimed just that; only the fringe hold rights.

The Cold War therefore was a war with many fronts, some of them immediate and local, and the costs both real and personal for every American. The nation changed, sometimes for the better but not always, as it wrestled with the ideological enemy which began in Moscow, but which found allies even in American colleges. By 1980 Reagan faced a dire condition and a resolute enemy, yet when he left office the enemy was in full retreat. Reagan changed the world, and we all owe him a great debt and gratitude.

Yet there were other heroes of the Cold War, even among our Presidents. Because of his success as President, some people have wondered what if we had found a man like Reagan long before. What if a Reagan had been elected instead of Eisenhower in 1952, for instance. Yet even Reagan had his setbacks and defeats, and we cannot know that he would not have done, in Eisenhower’s place, exactly as Ike did. The conditions each President faces are indeed unique, and we do well to consider what options were truly open to them. And with that in mind, I again turn to the first hero of the Gold War, Harry Truman. I say here, quite plainly, that there were aspects to Truman’s Administration which I do not like at all, not least his partisan politics. Truman was a bitter enemy to most Republicans, and never made an effort to cooperate with the other party. Yet in the context of the Cold War, Truman has earned high marks from historians and people who understood the world he faced. Truman recognized, almost before anyone else, the ambition of Stalin and the Soviets, and he spared no effort or expense to protect the United States and the Western World from Global Communism. For his efforts, Truman was roundly criticized, even by his own party, and he did not run for re-election in 1952 in part because his own people deserted him. Yet Truman has been vindicated where the Cold War is concerned; he correctly measured the threat, and set up the defenses which made all the future efforts, including Reagan’s victory, possible. The Cold War was never a one man show, and part of what makes Truman great, is that he understood that he would never receive his due credit for the initial defense, yet he took on the challenge without shirking.

We see now another long war, and the man who first called us to defense also warned us that the fight would be long and difficult, enjoying victories but also suffering defeats, and sometimes those defeats would come from lowering our guard or from officials who take the easy road instead of meeting the call of duty. That President was falsely maligned for celebrating the success of one mission in the first campaign, his enemies pretending he was announcing the final victory prematurely. In so doing, these enemies gave aid and comfort to the very forces seeking the destruction of the West, as they showed the beginning of the relentless and often witless campaign to divide the American government against itself, a collection of Quislings willing to deny their own nation if it seemed they could personally profit by it. Major newspapers have deliberately and repeatedly revealed secrets which weakened the effort of our troops and the men who guard our nation. Major politicians have promised “support for the troops”, only to public second-guess every strategy and tactic employed in the war when it became opportunistic for them to do so. Political rivals have purposefully blurred the priorities of the nation in order to recruit voters to their personal crew on a theme of “Blame Bush”. And so just a few years after the swift destruction of Saddam’s regime and the initial work to begin a new chapter in Middle East governance, where the people freely elect their representatives under a Constitution which protects rights and advances individual freedoms as a template for a brighter future, we see groups and demagogues tearing apart that promise in order to feed their own empires of greed and pride.

This has always been so. Not every man is willing to fight when needed by his country, and not every man who enjoys the freedoms and blessings of America is willing to support the ideals which brought those very freedoms about. Freedom is too much for some individuals, we are told. Once it was the country rube who supposedly could not understand the depth of a democratic republic, then we were told the black man could not be trusted with freedom. Then we were assured that women could not be trusted with the vote, or that minorities would ruin this nation if given equal standing with white men. Oddly, it is still the party which claims to represent the poor man, and the minority, which does the most to deprive them of equal position with the privileged men of old, just as historically that party did the most to prevent those rights in the first place. But there have always been such men. By the grace of God, however, America has also always been blessed with people who were willing to do whatever was necessary to advance Justice, Freedom, secure the lasting Peace, and to act in true Honor, even at terrible personal cost. By God’s grace such a man still serves as our President.

It is our misfortune that after so long a war to defeat Communism, we are faced with yet another implacable enemy. It is hardly chance, however. Jackals have long been known to watch two powerful opponents fight, in hopes of picking off the survivor. And there are still many shards of the old Communist ideology still about, lusting to destroy the power which shattered Communism’s hope for world dominance, and those men who most resemble the Champion who won that fight. It is, to my mind, a false assumption on the part of the Islamofascists that they defeated the Soviet Union, or that they can win the long war against the West. It is, however, also clear beyond doubting that they are willing to murder a billion people or more in hopes of that goal. Before this war is finished, Islam must utterly divest itself of the violence of Fascism, or else it must suffer the devastation its feral rogues hope to unleash on the world as a whole. This has been done before, of course. Germany was purged of Fascism, as were Italy and Japan, but each at a terrible cost. And though the world was spared the nuclear holocaust of a Soviet immolation, the cost in lives, pain, and loss was still very large for so many years.

Tonight President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address. It will sadly be necessary for the President to remind the nation that we are still at war. It is even more sad, that many will fail to accept that this war is necessary, indeed inevitable, that the United States is the defender of the Western World, or that the actions taken in Iraq since 2003 have been right and effective. Instead of considering the President’s message thoughtfully, the opponents of the President will instead deliver a rhetorical knee-jerk response which ignores Reality, assists the enemies of America, and dismays the public who trust the government to speak plainly to them about what is going on. The media will do what it does best and most commonly; praise themselves as the true “experts”, and lie about President Bush in order to create a conflict about which they can report. And in so doing they will make the war longer, harder, and more costly.

In the end, I still believe the United States will prevail. God has blessed this country for a reason, and that reason, indeed God Himself, is unknown to the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, to Sam Brownback and Arlen Specter. It would not be right or fair to claim that God is a Republican, and He certainly is no Democrat. Yet it would be correct to suggest that in this war, He is the sure Defender of America, because of the ideals of America, and those who do His work are His allies.

Desertion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.