We Elected A President, Not A Parrot

I am thoroughly disgusted with the rash of upstarts claiming they have a right to vilify and smear the sitting President of the United States, merely because Dubya has declined to obey their whims and (often ill-considered) demands for certain policy and executive decisions. I do not mean just the Speaker of the House, who can find no time to meet with the President on pressing matters of state, but who can and has broken Federal law in order to chat with a state sponsor of terrorism. I do not mean just the Democratic Party, which pledged to the public to be honest, forthright, and to support the troops, but which since their election has performed to a moral standard somewhat below Bluto’s level in the Toga Party during the movie “Animal House”. I do not even mean just the “gotcha” media which has been trying to bring down officials in the Bush Administration ever since he was sworn in, nor the spittle-flecked blogs of the Extreme Left, whose sense of morality is almost as absent as their knowledge of History, Grammar, or personal hygiene. No, here I am talking about ostensible members of the Republican Party, who have become so obsessed with their ego and arrogance that they have forgotten every lesson taught in word and practice by Ronald Reagan.

Let’s begin with John “No Free Speech” McCain, just to get that jackass out of the way. Time was, McCain was a symbol of heroic fortitude in the Vietnam War, a man who represented the courage and sacrifice of the troops, and whose personal integrity was beyond question. That, of course, was before McCain got his panties in a wad because he couldn’t nab the GOP nomination, and he began a trek to accommodation of the Left which has greatly diminished his stature. Over the last several years, Senator McPain has opined that people cannot be trusted to support the candidate of their choice with their own money, and so co-sponsored a “reform” bill which tells the First Amendment that it doesn’t apply to politics. Along those same lines, McJerk floated a few balloons in query as to whether Congress might want to regulate the Internet, especially those pesky political blogs, in order to prevent us from saying the “wrong” sorts of things. McCain, it appears, would have worked to ban such malcontents as Tom Paine and Patrick Henry; their pamphlets would have been just a bit more than he would allow.

But the capper is McCain’s recent opinion regarding Iraq. While McCain is one of the few Republicans willing to stick by the troops, even there he cannot resist trying to place blame on Republicans, including the President. Never mind that such statements play into the hands of the Left, never mind that such statements do nothing to help the average American understand the war’s purpose and justice, much less the difficulty for those who must make the calls which count. McCain is playing for his own name. I do believe he supports the troops, but his refusal to back Bush as well shows that he just does not understand the job he is seeking. A President is not elected to make popular decisions, or to play to the camera, but to do what the country needs. And the responsibility of the President’s party is to support those decisions when they are made. Undercutting the President is undermining the troops, and if John McCain does not understand that, he has no business trying to run for that job himself.

Another absolute moron is Tom Tancredo. Oh yes, I know he’s popular among the ’Draconian Measures Now!’ crowd, but the man is clueless about why his demands never come to fruition. In simple fact, what he wants is impractible, both politically and functionally. But more than that, Tom seems to have confused the difference between being a member of Congress, and being the President of the United States. No, Tom does not have a clue about the fact that he was elected to serve his district, and he chose to be part of a political party which is led by President Bush. Tancredo has every right to suggest options to the President, and while the issue is in debate to voice his mind and heart. However, opposing the President directly, and trying to cut out the legs of federal initiatives, simply because his own plan did not win the decision, is petty and disloyal. Tom Tancredo has made abundantly clear that he is interested only in the welfare and interests of Tom Tancredo. As a result, the attempts by the Bush White House to submit a unified front for specific and effective actions in Immigration Reform and Border Control, a complex issue at the best of times, have been further suborned by a malcontent who thinks he outranks the President.

This, of course, brings me to Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedleidiot, otherwise known as Representatives Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, and Robert Aderholt of Alabama, who decided that a trip to Syria was a nifty way to spend taxpayer’s money and to thumb their nose at official United States policy. These clueless individuals tried to wave off concern for their trip, by saying that they hoped to influence Syria to accept U.S. policy positions, such as ending support for Hamas and Hezbollah, recognizing Israel, and just maybe not murdering U.S. troops in Iraq. The effect of their visit, in the actual fact, however, was to blur the line between the stupid and the criminal, as Pelosi’s jaunt a few days later showed. It also demonstrated the inability of Congressmen to understand the limits of their duties of office, and the rights and privileges of being a Congressman. The White House alone has the right to send emissaries and envoys, not Congress. And such a trip by these Congressmen should unleash outrage from the taxpayers.

A big part of the reason why President Bush is not enjoying the glow of poll and media support, is that Dubya is willing to do the heavy lifting, to do what is right rather than what is trendy, to be unpopular if it means getting the job done. The fact that few in his own party are willing to stand by him in the rough spots, speaks not only to why the GOP lost the voters in 2006, but also to just how morally poor the party has become.

I say it again, and mark my words, we will miss George W. Bush after he is gone. Because no one as good as him is waiting to take up the challenge.

MLP Round 006

Game Scores:

Truman at Jefferson, 34-30 Jefferson
T Roosevelt at Tyler, 31-28 TR
Monroe at Taft, 30-29 Taft
Lincoln at McKinley, 37-33 McKinley
GW Bush at Eisenhower, 37-30 Dubya
Washington at Hoover, 37-23 Washington
Hayes at Polk, 32-29 Polk
Reagan at Cleveland, 37-31 Reagan
Nixon at Kennedy, 32-27 JFK
Pierce at Ford, 35-19 Ford
John Adams at Fillmore, 32-31 J Adams
Quincy Adams at Carter, 32-26 JQA
Grant at B Harrison, 23-22 Grant
W Harrison at Jackson, 28-26 Jackson
Van Buren at Madison, 25-23 Madison
Taylor at Arthur, 31-26 Taylor
Buchanan at F Roosevelt, 33-24 FDR
Wilson at Clinton, 23-21 Clinton
Coolidge at Garfield, 29-27 Garfield
L Johnson at Harding, 27-23 Harding
A Johnson at GH Bush, 28-21 GH Bush

4 Presidents remain undefeated, another 7 have one loss, still another 5 have two losses, another 11 have three losses, 5 have four losses, 4 have 5 losses, and the remaining 6 Presidents are winless.

Silk-Tie America

I was reading through BusinessWeek the other day, and in one of the new issues they are going on about the new crop of MBA students. As I happen to be pursuing the Masters of Business Administration degree myself, I took note and paid close attention. I was a bit dismayed to note how much of the magazine that week was little better than an advertising platform for the high-priced schools, the ones just below that elite status that attracts the best students by reputation. Don’t get me wrong, these are fine schools but I can spot a market ploy quickly enough, and it made me wonder how much I could trust in the stories surrounding the advertisements from the schools.

One thing which struck me in the stories presented, was the focus on two sorts of MBA students; the commuter student who treks thousands of miles in order to go to the “right” school, sometimes leaving family and common sense behind in pursuit of the degree with that certain cachet, and the students who indulge in high-style living in hopes of creating a network which will, they say, be repaid for by bonuses and perks from their future employers. Maybe it’s my Scottish blood speaking, but if I owned a major company and I heard about these wane-be jetsetters, I would be careful to make a list of their names, and instruct my recruiters to under no circumstance hire any of them, as the people who are so quick to spend company money even years before they expect to get it, cannot in my mind be trusted with the responsibility for the company’s success and growth. It may sound harsh, but anyone who figures they deserve the highest pay grades before they have done a single thing to earn them, is a dishonest con artist in my book.

I understand that companies consider the schools which prospective executives attend. And as much as I like the University of Houston at Victoria, I am not confusing it with the Wharton School or Harvard. Even so, when I have my MBA, I shall be qualified for all the nominal duties and responsibilities which that degree portends, and combined with my experience I consider myself a formidable force if my talents are properly utilized. OK, so a lot of business people feel that way, but my point is that a lot of the people who get paid the big bucks do not seem, speaking bluntly, to earn their base salaries, let alone the perks and bonuses. I don’t blame them for having those things – I respect anyone for the ability to succeed in their personal wealth, and would like to be wealthy myself some day. But any competent businessman can tell you that you need to watch your costs, and to make sure you are not wasting money. And boy howdy, there sure seems to be a lot of waste in the executive suites of many companies. How hard is it, for example, to understand that it makes no sense to buy a company like Tribune for around eight billion dollars, when it’s thirteen billion in debt and it’s revenues are in free-fall? How stupid does someone have to be to propose buying TXU with private equity money, and not consider that the Public Utility Commission might have doubts and questions about a gas and electric company hiding information from the public? Some things are counter-intuitive, I know, but a lot of the major action these days smells a lot like gambling. And the guys gambling are doing it with stocks and bonds owned by regular folks, so the average fella is getting all the risk dumped on him. I mean, shouldn’t a decent business school be focusing less on tricks of manipulation, and more on core principles? Shouldn’t a company looking for a top executive consider a track record that has at least as much practical experience as theory? Why is this even a question?

Maybe I am too blue-collar for the haute cuisine set, unable to understand why an expensive golf club membership should be necessary for a business plan to be considered, or why someone who wants his mind to be taken seriously, should have to plan on “being seen” at the “right” parties. But I know what makes businesses fail or fly, and this idea that snob appeal should be a critical component in nabbing the attention of a top company, strikes me as a critical flaw.

#^%# Taxes!

Well, I finished working up my taxes, then I did what I always do these days - I took my finished work to my tax preparer anyway.

Why? Wel, in spite of some of my posts, I am not a complete idiot, and where the government is concerned I have learned - through painful experience - to take as few chances as possible. If the blinkin' tax code would stay the same from year to year, I could have confidence that I could learn how they want things. But the Congress of the United States lives - to some degree - to serve other interests than the needs and ideals of the common taxpayer, so every single year they change the rules.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

YEAR.

I have more than a sneaking suspicion, that there is not a single person who has been elected to the House or Senate, who has doen his or her own tax preparation in many years. If there were, they would long ago have noted that this ritual of self-disembowelment to satisfy the IRS that we are complyng with their draconian edicts. I'm not blaming the Internal Revenue Service, actually, but those narcissistic mandarins in D.C. who contend that the fairest tax system must be one where everyone is led to worry that they have made a mistake which will cost them, and to miss a few details which could let them get a few bucks back. So we are driven to either deliberately short-change ourselves in the hope of staying out of trouble, or else we pay someone to check our work and get a little bit more of our own money back, but for which we pay a fee.

Withholding from each and every paycheck is not enough, we have to do more paperwork to prove what is already known.

And I do not recall a single politician in the last half-decade, who seriously proposed a bill to change that racket.

Well, that's my rant for today, but I am strangely confident that someone else may share my sentiment.

MLP Round 005

Game Scores:

Washington at GW Bush, 36-34 Dubya
Jefferson at Taft, 32-30 Jefferson
Jackson at T Roosevelt, 33-32 Teddy
Truman at LBJ, 32-21 Truman
A Johnson at Monroe, 30-21 Monroe
McKinley at Hayes, 35-28 McKinley
B Harrison at Lincoln, 37-20 Lincoln
Eisenhower at Wilson, 33-25 Ike
Polk at Buchanan, 34-20 Polk
Tyler at Reagan, 31-25 Reagan
Garfield at Kennedy, 32-24 JFK
Cleveland at Ford, 35-33 Ford
Harding at Nixon, 30-24 Nixon
F Roosevelt, at Fillmore, 31-30 Fillmore
Carter at Van Buren, 25-23 Carter
John Adams at Taylor, 31-30 J Adams
Hoover at Grant, 25-23 Grant
GH Bush at JQ Adams, 31-30 JQA
Madison at Pierce, 27-18 Madison
Arthur at W Harrison, 26-25 Arthur
Clinton at Coolidge, 27-22 Clinton


6 Presidents remain undefeated, another 8 have one loss, still another 6 have two losses, another 10 have three losses, 5 have four losses and the remaining 7 Presidents are winless.

I would remind the readers as well, that this is very early in the season. Some of the top "ranked" Presidents right now, have enjoyed "home" conditions for critical match-ups. But even after today, only 3.4% of the regular season's games have been played, and for every home game early, there will also be an away game later. Some of the results have been interesting, but please do not read too much into early results.

MLP Round 004

Game Scores:

Wilson at Washington, 36-26 Washington
Jefferson at A Johnson, 31-19 Jefferson
Arthur at Teddy Roosevelt, 33-29 Teddy
Nixon at Truman, 32-28 Truman
Jackson at Reagan, 32-31 Jackson
Monroe at Quincy Adams, 31-27 Monroe
McKinley at Buchanan, 37-20 McKinley
Grant at Dubya Bush, 36-27 Dubya
Hoover at Lincoln, 37-25 Lincoln
Eisenhower at Coolidge, 30-23 Ike
Polk at Filmore, 32-31 Polk
Ford at Tyler, 33-28 Ford
Kennedy at Harding, 30-27 JFK
Hayes at B Harrison, 28-22 Hayes
Taft at L Johnson, 30-21 Taft
Madison at Cleveland, 31-24 Cleveland
W Harrison at John Adams, 30-27 Adams
Taylor at F Roosevelt, 33-26 FDR
Pierce at Carter, 26-19 Carter
Garfield at Clinton, 27-19 Garfield
Van Buren at GH Bush, 28-25 Bush


7 Presidents remain undefeated, another 9 have one loss, still another 11 have two losses, another 7 have three losses, and the remaining 8 Presidents are winless. The new Rankings are as follows:


Rankings After Four Rounds (out early)

.1. Washington (4-0) beats Eisenhower, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.2. Jefferson (4-0) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQ Adams, A Johnson
.3. Teddy Roosevelt (4-0) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.4. Truman (4-0) beats Garfield, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.5. Monroe (4-0) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.6. McKinley (4-0) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan
.7. GW Bush (4-0) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.8. Lincoln (3-1) beats Coolidge, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.9. Eisenhower (3-1) beats Garfield, Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Washington
.10. Polk (3-1) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, loses to T Roosevelt

.11. Reagan (3-1) beats FDR, J Adams, Arthur, loses to Jackson
.12. JFK (3-1) beats A Johnson, Taft, Harding, loses to Truman
.13. Hayes (3-1) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harrison, loses to GW Bush
.14. Ford (3-1) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, loses to John Adams
.15. Nixon (3-1) beats JQ Adams, A Johnson, Taft, loses to Truman
.16. Cleveland (3-1) beats GHW Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Monroe
.17. Jackson (2-2) beats Carter, Reagan, loses to Madison, Ford
.18. John Adams (2-2) beats Ford, W Harrison, loses to Reagan, Teddy
.19. Tyler (2-2) beats GHW Bush, Madison, loses to Carter, Ford
.20. Fillmore (2-2) beats Hoover, B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk

.21. FDR (2-2) beats W Harrison, Taylor, loses to Reagan, T Roosevelt
.22. Carter (2-2) beats Tyler, Pierce, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.23. Grant (2-2) beats Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Wilson, GW Bush
.24. Taft (2-2) beats Harding, LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon
.25. Garfield (2-2) beats Harding, Clinton, loses to Truman, Eisenhower
.26. LBJ (2-2) beats Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQ Adams, Taft
.27. GHW Bush (2-2) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Tyler, Cleveland
.28. Madison (1-3), beats Jackson, loses to Arthur, Tyler, Cleveland
.29. Taylor (1-3) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.30. Wilson (1-3) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Washington

.31. Arthur (1-3) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.32. Quincy Adams (1-3) beats LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson, Monroe
.33. B Harrison (1-3) beats Buchanan, loses to Taylor, Fillmore, Hayes
.34. Buchanan (1-3) beats Hoover, loses to GW Bush, B Harrison, McKinley
.35. Clinton (0-4) loses to Grant, Washington, Eisenhower, Garfield
.36. Van Buren (0-4) loses to LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.37. Harding (0-4) loses to Taft, Truman, Garfield, JFK
.38. W Harrison (0-4) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, John Adams
.39. Pierce (0-4) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GHW Bush, Carter
.40. Coolidge (0-4) loses to Lincoln, Grant, Washington, Eisenhower
.41. A Johnson (0-4) loses to JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson
.42. Hoover (0-4) loses to Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln

MLP Round 003

Game Scores:

Lincoln at GW Bush, 37-35 Dubya
Coolidge at Washington, 36-25 Washington
JQ Adams at Jefferson, 34-31 Jefferson
T Roosevelt at J Adams, 33-30 Teddy
JFK at Truman, 32-29 Truman
Reagan at Arthur, 37-26 Reagan
Van Buren at Monroe, 29-22 Monroe
Fillmore at McKinley, 37-31 McKinley
Grant at Wilson, 25-20 Wilson
Taft at Nixon, 30-28 Nixon
Tyler at Madison, 30-25 Tyler
Jackson at Ford, 35-27 Ford
Clinton at Eisenhower, 31-23 Eisenhower
Polk at Taylor, 32-30 Polk
Carter at Cleveland, 31-24 Cleveland
Hayes at Hoover, 30-23 Hayes
LBJ at A Johnson, 24-19 LBJ
Buchanan at B Harrison, 27-21 B Harrison
FDR at W Harrison, 29-25 FDR
Pierce at GHW Bush, 28-21 GHW Bush
Harding at Garfield, 29-23 Garfield

9 Presidents remain undefeated, another 11 have one loss, still another 14 have two losses, and the remaining 8 Presidents are winless. New Rankings will be posted on Monday.

Thought For The Day

Saying you "support the troops", but refuse to let them finish the job of stabilizing Iraq and training the army and police it needs to defend its people, is a lot like saying you support firefighters, but won't let them go near a burning house with children inside.

MLP Round 002

Games Scores:

Lincoln at Wilson, 31 - 25 Lincoln
Washington at Clinton, 34 - 23 Washington
Jefferson at Van Buren, 29 - 22 Jefferson
FDR at Teddy Roosevelt, 33 - 30 TR
Truman at Harding, 28 - 27 Truman
Madison at Jackson, 30 -28 Jackson
Garfield at Eisenhower, 30 - 27 Eisenhower
W Harrison at Polk, 32 - 28 Polk
John Adams at Reagan, 31 - 27 Reagan
Monroe at Pierce, 32 - 18 Monroe
Taylor at McKinley, 37 - 30 McKinley
Fillmore at B harrison, 30 -22 Fillmore
Hayes at GW Bush, 37 - 29 Dubya
Taft at JFK, 32 - 30 JFK
Grant at Coolidge, 23 - 22 Grant
Ford at Arthur, 28 - 24 Ford
A Johnson at Nixon, 30 - 21 Nixon
JQ Adams at LBJ, 29 - 21 Quincy Adams
Tyler at Carter, 26 - 24 Carter
Buchanan at Hoover, 24 - 23 Buchanan
GHW Bush at Cleveland, 31 - 26 Cleveland

After two games, there are 13 Presidents at 2-0, 16 Presidents at 1-1, and 13 Presidents at 0-2. New Rankings will be up Monday afternoon.

MLP Season Openers

Today’s Game Results:

Eisenhower at Washington, 36-28 Washington
Ford at John Adams, 31-30 Adams
Pierce at Jefferson, 34-21 Jefferson
Arthur at Madison, 26-25 Arthur
Cleveland at Monroe, 30-27 Monroe
Nixon at J Q Adams, 30-27 Nixon
Carter at Jackson , 28-26 Jackson
LBJ at Van Buren, 25-23 LBJ
McKinley at W Harrison, 35-25 McKinley
GHW Bush at Tyler, 26-25 Tyler
Teddy Roosevelt at Polk, 33-32 Teddy
B Harrison at Taylor, 30-23 Taylor
Hoover at Fillmore. 31-23 Fillmore
George W Bush at Buchanan, 37-20 Dubya
Coolidge at Lincoln, 37-25 Lincoln
JFK at Andrew Johnson, 27-19 JFK
Clinton at Grant, 25-23 Grant
Wilson at Hayes, 28-23 Hayes
Truman at Garfield, 32-29 Truman
Harding at Taft, 30-23 Taft
Reagan at FDR, 37-30 Reagan

The Iranian Plan

It’s fun but foolish to stereotype one’s enemies. It leaves you open to missing a critical perspective, or worse it can lead you into bad mistakes. While it is comforting to believe that the men running Iran have blundered into a minefield of bad options, in actual fact they have a strong hand in some ways, and we would be well advised to consider their intentions on different levels.

Mahmoud Ahmedinijad has often been colored as a puppet of the mullahs, and a zealous fanatic bent on bring about the end of the world in hopes of producing the “Hidden Imam”. While there is some substance to this charge, it is not completely true, and fails to credit Mr. Ahmedinijad’s intelligence. The reason this mistake is important, is because Adolf Hitler was similarly underestimated during the 1930s. This does not mean that Iran will be able to start a World War the way the Nazis did, but long before Ahmedinijad, or even before the mullahs came to power, Iran has been hungry for power.

The Soviets looked at their maps, and they noticed that Iran was a logical juncture for controlling the whole Mid-East. During World War 2, both the allies and the axis powers wanted to control Iran, because having it would deny control of the Middle East to the other side. Ever wonder why one of the mid-war summits was held in Teheran?

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Shah and his generals took eager note of Western withdrawal from Southwest, then Southeast Asia. They accordingly ramped up demands not only from the West, but from their neighbors. The oil revenues were enticing enough, but centuries-old disputes were also revived. The bloody Wahhabist thirst for Jihad and sectarian feuds was also born in the cowardice of diplomats trained at Eton but not Sandhurst, and the type who thought Foggy Bottom a proper training ground, but not Quantico.

This plan is long in its planning, and truly Iranian in its origin. Had the Shah held on to power in 1978, one of his sons would be behind the plan now. That is the bad news, but also the good. What is popular in Iran is not often a winner everywhere else, no matter how the conjured street protests appear. Iran is hoping to challenge American resolve, the one great weakness in our power. To do that, the Jihadists (led by Iran) have worked to strip away our allies. England is our greatest and oldest ally (France does not count, having abandoned their friendship long ago), and so separating the UK from the US is seen as a crucial blow to the Eagle. Not least because the whole world would see it.

Iran is long acquainted with long-term strategy. The Persian Empire ruled the region until Alexander shattered it, and that classic game of strategy, Chess, is generally accepted to have been created in Persia; ‘Checkmate’ is the English translation of the Persian phrase ”Shah Mat”, signaling not only the end of the game but regime change in general. Even during the Ottoman Empire, the various potentates in Iran fancied themselves kingmakers and men of significant influence. It surprises no one to understand that Iran uses Oil as a weapon (although those foolish mannequins who protest a fictional Western ‘War for Oil’ never seem to notice this fact), but the greater strategy in which supply and price manipulation are used is not often considered. During the years when OPEC was coming into its power, Iran directly made, then broke, dozens of commitments and agreements, with an eye to deliberately destabilizing the oil market. Some observant individuals have noted that the present crisis has already benefited Iran by raising the price of oil simply by creating instability; it must be understood that this condition was not spontaneous, but planned.

The humiliation of hostages by Iran is another traditional tactic, a favorite in no small measure because there never seems to be an effective resistance to it. The media is only too happy to air video which has been crafted and produced to the precise intentions of propagandists, without a moment’s consideration about whether a company based in the United States should so act against her interests and safety. For here, it is salient to understand that Iran knows enough about media to play it to its advantage, an effective and common use of unconventional and asymmetrical warfare.

I should be careful to avoid drifting off into discussions of tactics, where the strategy is so important for our focus. It is enough for here to understand that Iran has carefully considered that it must avoid direct confrontation against our main military force, and so it does as it has for the past three decades, seeking incremental gains through asymmetrical attacks against targets of opportunity. Through such actions, Iran hopes to gradually gain the upper hand and approach a ‘tipping point’ beyond which it would be ruinous for the United States to initiate overt hostilities, and futile to ask our erstwhile allies to join the effort. The cultivation of timidity in Western diplomats and the continued threat of economic impact have borne fruit for Iran, and may be expected to continue in that manner.

When Iran reaches that tipping point, its modernized and expanded military will then be able to pursue its regional goals, which I expect will manifest initially by consolidation of controlling the Wahabbist effort. Therefore, seizure of Mecca and Medina under the pretext of protecting those cities from the West will be the most visible signs, although the replacement of OPEC by a Teheran-based entity is also likely. Promises to respect the remaining territory in Saudi Arabia, accompanied by veiled threats of military responses to any action from the West, and economic punishment for any nation(s) which refuse to sign on to the conquest, will be sufficient to fuel the next stage. The intention is not outright invasion, but control through economic and religious influence, of the Middle East. At some point a symbolic military strike against Israel may also be expected, though that will wait for a clearly deficient Western leader in the mold of Carter, along with a pretext and indecision by Israel. The chief plan for now in those lines is highlighted by the Muslim special interest effort in Congress to drastically reduce support for Israel, especially military aid.

Street protests, already carefully manufactured by political wings of terrorist groups, will become even more common in Europe and the East and West coasts of the United States. Savvy Wahhabists are learning to play up alleged ‘Civil Rights’ abuses against Islamists, with an eye to blurring the distinction between honest Muslims who assimilate into American communities and those who actively disrupt the government and legitimate American interests and security concerns. Financial warfare may also be expected in the future, with web transactions a weak-link target of online attacks, and web fraud an easy and effective means to disrupt the U.S. economy, which in turn would disrupt the European and Asian economies. Conversely, the Nikkei and Shanghai bourses have shown an alarming susceptibility to manipulation, especially when the aggressor wants to create volatility, and a crash in Asia would be certain to affect the rest of the world as well. This avenue of attack must be anticipated and defenses prepared.

The kidnapping and mistreatment of the fifteen British sailors is an outrage, but it is the butter-willed response from London which bears the worse omen for the future.

Major League POTUS – Season Openers

I am now getting to the part which will be the most controversial, and yet also likely to get the least interest. However, since I set up the table, it’s time to show how the Presidents play. After today, I will be releasing scores of the match-ups, but only at Stolen Thunder.

The contests will be Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday through the year until each President has played his 146 games. Here are the match-ups for Monday, April 3:

Eisenhower at Washington
Ford at John Adams
Pierce at Jefferson
Arthur at Madison
Cleveland at Monroe
Nixon at J Q Adams
Carter at Jackson
LBJ at Van Buren
McKinley at W Harrison
GHW Bush at Tyler
Teddy Roosevelt at Polk
B Harrison at Taylor
Hoover at Fillmore
George W Bush at Buchanan
Coolidge at Lincoln
JFK at Andrew Johnson
Clinton at Grant
Wilson at Hayes
Truman at Garfield
Harding at Taft
Reagan at FDR

In each match-up, the dominant conditions are established by the term of the “home” President. For each of our five responsibilities, there is a first-to-last ranking of scores, with 5 points possible down to 1. The top priority gets no less than 3, and the bottom no more than 3, and so on, with no more than two 5’s or 1’s allotted.

For each area of responsibility, there is a prime concern, worth triple value, two areas of “important” value, worth twice value, and two areas worth normal value. The rest is basic math, and the higher value wins that individual match-up.

Major League POTUS – Home Turf

The discussion up to now has been a bit muddled, as many people fall back on old methods of general “who’s best/worst” labeling. I have tried to suggest an alternative method for evaluating the performance and capabilities of Presidents, emphasizing that each President has areas of relative strength and weakness. The next step in setting up the contests, is to evaluate each of the five areas of responsibility, relative to each other for the same President. That is, we already know the top and bottom for each, but now need to assign a place for the other three. Because my “season” will be starting soon, I am leaving that alone for now, but I wanted to mention it so it would be known.

After this is done, we can turn our attention to the terms of office. Since George Washington first took office in 1789, we can count 55 terms for our Presidents, giving us 55 sets of responsibility priorities. As with the Presidents, the five areas of concern are these:

[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests

And as with each President, the emphasis varies of needs. For each term, there is a principle need, and the other four areas have lesser importance to the moment. During the Civil War, for example, the state of the economy was useful but not at all as important as the military aspect. On the other hand, the 1928-36 terms did not face an immediate military threat, but the economy was in great need. At other times the need has been for a President to expand his office to meet the needs which Congress and the Courts could not meet, and at still other times the context of the Constitution was primary in need. So today’s article opens the question of which category of responsibility was most and least important during each term. Bear in mind that I am talking about the 55 4-year terms, regardless of whether a President may have served for more than one term, or whether a four-year term may have seen more than on President (like Gerald Ford filling out the last part of the 1973-6 term).

The “season” starts on Monday, so all these preliminaries are moving towards resolution in comparison. Don’t ask me how long it took to work up the “schedule”.

‘England Expects’, No Longer

Historians have longed agreed as a consensus, that the greatness of Great Britain was brought to bear by its navy. The Royal Navy has been the scourge of pirates, rogue despots, and various pretenders to world power for centuries, yet the events of this month have demonstrated a pathetic cowardice which was heretofore unknown to Parliament with regard to Jack Tar and his mates. Yet Whitehall has swallowed the anchor and scuttled the pride and patriotism of the Andrew, all in hopes of placating a worthless pissant of a man who cannot properly shave himself, much less lead a regional power. The shame of the situation was made clear this week past, when it was revealed that the HMS Cornwall, the escort ship which could easily have prevented the kidnapping of the sailors, was ordered not to interfere, to allow innocent sailors to be seized in Iraqi waters by the Iranian raiders. One can scarely imagine a less British sentiment, notion, or resolution.

But even worse for the long-term look, is the savage and foolhardy destruction of the Royal Navy's budget and capabilities; one need look no further than the five-year moratorium on promotions to be imposed on all British naval officers. The intent is clearly to drive the most qualified and professional officers out of the service, an act so dangerous to the safety of Britain and so malicious against her citizens' welfare, that it may properly be called traitorous.

If the next Nelson is to come, he shall not be found in England, for England has abandoned her history and her greatness, by scorning her navy.

Major League POTUS – The Hard Part, Part I

It’s been an interesting few days, as readers come to grips with my outline of how Presidents may be compared to one another on something like even ground. A lot of off-topic sniping and character bashing has been going on, which I removed to clarify the discussion. I have to say again, that while expression of opinion is fine, for this topic the gutter stuff is not going to be allowed.

Which brings me to the really hard part of today’s post, a condition which I suspect will sharply limit the number and depth of valid responses. It comes down to my contention that every single President, regardless of what else we can say about them, had certain qualities which helped them ascend to the office. They were also all human, meaning that they all had blind spots, weak areas, and personal foibles to some degree. Once again, this is not an attempt to say that all Presidents are the same, or that one given President may not soundly thump an opponent in a match-up; it is simply an observation that people tend to paint leaders in solid colors, bright or foul. Such glorification or demonization detracts from the worth of examining the Presidents, and diminishes these men to caricatures.

So, for this part, the instruction is this: Consider the five areas of Presidential Responsibility which I described yesterday.

[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests


With those in mind now, for each President (or as many as you care to note) list the category where he was strongest and the one where he was weakest. It is possible that the “strongest” category could still be one where you are not impressed with the man, and in the “weakest” category you may happen to believe that this President was strong, simply not as amazing here as in the other areas. But this exercise, in addition to helping folks discover some of the more intricate details in evaluating Presidents, may also serve to help folks see the men in more than one dimension. As an example, one of the more commonly mocked Presidents, if he is remembered at all, is Millard Fillmore. Fillmore became President upon the death of Zachary Taylor in 1850, and he is often pilloried as a man who did not stand up against Slavery. However, on closer examination Fillmore, who opposed slavery but suffered from a lack of influence with Congress, understood better than most people the peril of his position. Even in 1850, the South was discussing the possibility of secession, or what amounted to the same thing, the refusal to follow Federal law. This was the reason for the drafting of the Compromise of 1850, which was tied to the crucial decision to admit California as a state to the Union. Fillmore understood that as things existed in 1850, the United States could not withstand a Civil War, and the Union could not hope to compel the South to remain in or rejoin the Union. He needed time, and a build-up of the Union Army. Few Whigs understood Fillmore’s wisdom, and the decision helped break the party. But Daniel Webster, writing of Fillmore’s resolve, wrote “I can now sleep of nights”. Understanding this facet of a man unfairly considered ignoble, is a key step in comprehending the work done by all the Presidents.

What Makes A Good President? Maybe, Not What You Think!

I mentioned that my approach to matching Presidents against each other in competition would be somewhat radical. This is, in part, because I mean to challenge the common assumptions made, and for that I must begin with the criteria which is so often used in comparing Presidents.

I did some looking around, and I found the following six words used the most often to describe an effective President:

Honesty
Integrity
Intelligence
Leadership
Judgment
Patriotism

These are all good, desirable qualities, but there is a glaring problem with any of them. They are all subjective values, determined by how the grader feels. That’s a big red flag for me, and one reason why time often changes the position which Presidents occupy. And it gets no better when you look at professional historians. A site called “History News Network” examined President George W. Bush, mainly in terms of whether or not he is the “worst President ever” or merely just a “failure”. The article is no better than a smear job, obvious when one notes that the qualities of famous failures are subdued in favor of slamming the current Commander-in-Chief. The historians were every bit as biased and subjective as popular polls have been, with the exception that the worthy folks at George Mason University attempted to present their tilt as an objective finding. But that is neither here nor there, for our purposes. It means for us to consider, carefully, how we shall avoid the same blunder in measuring these men. The historians used a largely negative yardstick, measuring all Presidents in such categories as “economic damage”, “imperialism”, “dishonesty”, and “arrogance”. All words which can be, and are, liberally applied to paint a selected target in foul colors. Such a circular argument is useless on its face.

I also eschew the complex examination. That is, if great detail matters, one should endeavor to read some of the many fine biographies of Presidents, but the sheer volume of information would be unwieldy in the extreme here. So, I have determined to walk through five basic qualities of Presidential responsibility, and to try to set out some standards for certain levels in each skill. These five areas are determined by the needs of the United States through its Presidential History (since 1789, that is). They are:

[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests

With apologies to Mr. Gore, I am afraid that “green” activism is not a mark of a responsible President of the United States. With apologies to Ms. Clinton, I must contend that advancing Socialism is not in the best interests of the Nation. With apologies to Rev. Sharpton, I observe that the President of the United States is not obliged to show preferential treatment towards a racial minority, and is in fact obliged to rather oppose racial, gender, or cultural bias in his performance and decisions. The careful reader will observe that the responsibilities of the President of the United States are, in some ways, much different than the responsibilities of the Congress of the United States and of the Judiciary of the United States, to say nothing of the state, county, and local levels of government. There is, admittedly, still a risk of subjectivity in even these more-clearly defined areas of duty, but at least we can establish certain benchmarks for these categories before we assign values to individual Presidents. And as I mentioned earlier, each of these areas will differ in their weight of significance according to different conditions and times.

Next, defining the benchmarks.

Men Among Men – Scoring the Presidents

I have read a few requests to explain how I am going about the games between our Presidents. To answer, I would begin by noting that there seem to be generally three methods used when comparing Presidents. The first style is to write about a President one likes, then sketch out thin and lifeless comparisons of other Presidents to make the chosen one look really good. While sometimes these essays can provide good background on a certain individual, they are useless in terms of presenting a fair look at the field. The reverse of this method is also common, where a President disliked by the writer is described in terms to make anyone seem better in comparison.

The second method is a bit more organized and balanced. The graders assign values for each President in a set number of qualities, tally them up and the highest grade is the winner. This was a popular method for many years, and was used by such notable historians as Arthur Schlesinger, Wikipedia, and popularity polls. There were and are, however, fatal flaws in this method as well, not least the clear bias of the graders, the assumption that each quality is equally important to the President’s job, and that a President would perform the same in other conditions as in his actual time and circumstance. This fails the common sense test.

The third common method is one which I have used myself; setting Presidents alongside each other and asking folks to discuss their accomplishments and disappointments. Such discussions are seldom popular, in some degree due to the poor level of history retained in the craniums of many Americans, and there is often no clear winner, as each person tends to hold to the President he or she originally preferred, but such discussions have improved understanding of the President’s job, the complexity each Chief Executive faces, and they have helped the discerning realize the difference between an attractive quality to a candidate, and an essential attribute we need in any potential President.

But the debate rages on, albeit in limited circles, and this year I am suggesting a somewhat radical alternative. It is my contention that to properly match up Presidents, we must see them compete in a variety of circumstances and conditions, which is why my “schedule” uses a “Home & Away” method to compare Presidents. I would establish five key sections of Presidential competence measures. I also believe that the frame of time available, from 1789 to 2007, should be broken up into 4-year segments, each of which would highlight one of the five competence areas as its critical focus.

I would also, to be blunt, do away with marble statues and monuments at the outset. That is, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and their like, often enter comparisons with an unreasonable advantage – many people are afraid to criticize them, as if there was something disallowed about not revering a ‘Founding Father’, or constantly praising ‘The Man Who Saved The Union’. No, I am not saying that the favorites have not earned their laurels, but I do see a habit of presuming that the first sixteen Presidents are so far ahead, say, of the last sixteen that no valid comparison is possible. I dissent with that notion. George Washington had an iron will, but he also had a bad temper. Abraham Lincoln also responded harshly at times to criticism, as Mr. Taney could tell you. I rather suspect one reason we do not see candidates in their mold anymore, is because I doubt such men would have the sort of temperament to endure the Primary season, convention, debates and then the General campaign, with the media all the while trying to keep the media from mangling their message beyond all sense. Andrew Jackson once killed a man in a duel; imagine what CNN would do with that in a candidate today!

It’s my take that the same things which are a strength in one situation can be a liability in another case. So it will be interesting, I think, to work out the match-ups and see where they take us. As always, comments are welcome, although I admit I have not yet set up merchandising opportunities.

For no reason in particular, I am setting the “pre-season” rankings by using Wikipedia’s ranks. As they play out, the records will move our guys up and down. Here is the starting Top 10:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry Truman
8. Andrew Jackson
9. Dwight Eisenhower
10. James Polk

Major League POTUS 2007

Oddly enough, there seems to be some mild interest in my 2007 match-ups between Presidents. For here, I will simply outline how the "League" works, and later I will post how each contest will be decided.

In early years of these match-ups, I simply posted Presidents one-on-one matching certain catagories of work and reputation, counting each equally and assigning a score. While there is a certain value to that system, it lacked what I wanted in this sort of thing, so I have revisited it. In terms of qualities, it seems to me that while a President does establish his name in certain ways, what is important at one time and place may be less important somewhere else. It is even possible thet a President who stands out in his own term, may have done a poor job in another time and condition, and vice versa. So, my Presidents will have "Home" games, where the conditions match their actual term of office, and "Road" games, where they are judged by the standards of another President. I have also set up a schedule based on two "Conferences", with three "Divisions" in each Conference of 7 Presidents each, set up chronologically. Since Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, our 43 Presidents are acually 42 people, which fits neatly. After 2008 this will be a problem, but for now no big deal.

Each President will play a home-and-away with each President from the "other" Conference (21 Presidents for 42 games), two home-and-away with each President in his own "Conference" but different "Division" (14 Presidents for 56 games), and four home-and-away with each President in his own "Division" (6 Presidents for 48 games), for a total of 146 games. This will play out in a fashion similar to the Major League Baseball season.

If you find this intriguing, just check back every so often and have a look. If it bores you, you may simply ignore any title which refers to MLP or "Major League Presidents".

Thanks!

Making the Grade 2007

George W. Bush, in my opinion, has done a fine job as President, certainly top ten in terms of meeting his duties of the office and accomplishing the most important jobs. Some folks would agree with me, though to a different degree, while others would disagree with me. And some brain-dead vipers would be so consumed by their hatred of Dubya, that they would be unable to accept even the slightest of his successes.

Why mention this? Those people who have known me for years, know that every so often I like to compare Presidents in ranks, usually by a form of competition. And as the NCAA Basketball Tournaments wind down, my mind has once again found itself pondering POTUS match-ups. I do not intend to inflict that condition on anyone unasked, which is to say I will have the competition up on Stolen Thunder later this spring, but for now I am simply asking the reader, once again, to consider what it is that makes a President a failure or success.

The test is not one of popularity. I like whom I like, but that proves nothing in any objective sense. And it should be obvious that politicians in general seek to do what will make them popular, which is one serious reason why significant challenges go unanswered for so long – it takes real guts to try to address what has no easy answer, what does not promise immediate rewards, and which can usually only succeed where the leader in charge is selfless and humble to a degree scarcely found in people who run for elected office.

I would also say that accomplishments are not of even weight. A good President will understand that what solves the day’s problems is not as good an answer as one which solves threats to the generation. This is one reason why Reagan is properly acknowledged as so much greater a President than many who came before him; his actions – though controversial at the time – strengthened America and advanced her interests far beyond the moment. This is also why Clinton’s legacy will stand against him – he sought what worked for the season, never considering long-term effects of his decisions.

What I am throwing out for today, is discussion about which five Presidents you think have done the best job (let’s leave off failures for this discussion) and why, and then note which people today seem to have the most qualities in common with the great Presidents. If you see no such contender worthy of comparison, please note what you think might be useful in bringing such a person to consideration. This could be a useful tool is helping filter the dreck from the quality candidate, and less than a year from the primaries, such an exercise could be vital for both parties.

Why The Democrats Are Still Angry

There is just no pleasing the Democrats these days. They have taken control of both chambers of Congress, they have several candidates for President who seem to be doing well in the polls, and they even managed the combo of getting Mr. Libby convicted where there was no crime, while people on their side up to their ears in dubious undertakings are enjoying wealth and power unscathed. Yet the mood in Donkeytown is still one of anger and bitterness. And there are three good reasons why this is so.

The first reason is, of course, President George W. Bush. The Democrats have hated him for years, most since he first laid hand on the Bible and took the oath. I remember hearing threats that he would be impeached from the spring of 2001, not that there has ever been the slightest rational reason to pursue that course. Dubya has been called every name the Left can come up with, denigrating every possible human characteristic, and in recent times there has been a chilling thirst for blood from the Left, as many on that side have publicly pronounced a hope for his death by assassination. Yet he has not only managed to avoid the vast majority of traps set by the Left, and won re-election in 2004 by the first clear popular majority since his father, Mr. Bush has steadily demonstrated that he is not concerned by the opinion the Left has of him. He fears and serves the Lord, he loves and serves the United States, and he loves and protects the ideals he has sworn to uphold. George W. Bush sleeps well at night, knowing he has done his best to do what was right, not what was easy.

The President also rests well, in the knowledge that he has a trump card in his plans: Karl Rove. The Libby affair, like so many cartoonish plans from the Left, began in Democrats' plans as a way to get at Rove. Unable to accept the better qualities of President Bush, Democrats have assigned the strength of his victories to his advisors, chiefly Karl Rove. The attention given to 'get Rove' has thrown the Democrats off opportunity and into confusion more than a few times. Also, abilities, Rove will certainly play an important role in the 2008 election, whether as a valuable advisor to a serious candidate, or also as foil to Democrat strategies.

There is also one crucial reason why the Democrats have never been as eager as their rabid-frothing sector to impeach Bush, besides the fact that such an attempt would be a brazen frame job on completely false charges: It would lead to increased authority for Richard Cheney. If Democrats were somehow able to remove Bush from office, Cheney would become President, and there is no question that Dick Cheney would not be soft on the Left. The Democrats have begun to consider another nasty possibility; the deft politician has no desire to run for the Presidency himself, but like Bush is determined to protect America from its enemies, and if the Democrats attempted to smear the President with a campaign to weaken the Republican position in the 2008 campaign, the weak field of candidates presently available could well inspire Cheney to do one of two things - lead from within as a strong center to the party, or if necessary run himself. Don't laugh, but this is genuinely a fear in the DNC. Under nominal circumstances, a Cheney campaign would be insignificant, unlikely to develop the momentum needed to win the GOP nomination. However, if the Democrats changed conditions through a direct assault on the Bush White House, the mood among Republicans - and the voters as a whole - would change, and the new dynamics would create demand for new conditions. Even if his participation was limited to advising the party and a selected candidate, Cheney's experience and political ability could be devastating to the Left, and they know it. Cheney is the bear the Left must let sleep, for fear of his teeth.

Knowing this, the Democrats proceed in their futile rage, which is good news for America.

Tom DeLay – An Example of What is Wrong with the Right

Tom Delay, former Congressman and much-feared “Hammer” for the Republican Party, has written a book. A disappointing whine of self-pity, actually, and nothing worth your time, attention, or money. In brief, DeLay wrote a warped, bitter perspective on the present political condition, a paranoid delusion where he is at no fault but everyone else, from opponents to his (former) closest friends, is to be blamed. I find myself troubled to discover that a man who did so much to help lead the 1994 Republican Revolution, should now prove to be so petty, disloyal, and shallow.

I wrestled for a while about what to write here. Tom DeLay did a lot of good for the nation and for his district while he was a Congressman, and for that he deserves respect and thanks. But that hardly excuses his present conduct and arrogance, so common among many men and women on the Hill. But there is a point where Republicans, especially, should remember not only their worth and value but also their limits and responsibilities, including the so-often-ignored duty to take orders from the leadership for the advancement of promised legislation, and party discipline in order to prevent the opposition from playing divide-and-conquer in order to gain power. Of course, even though I was saying this last year, it was ignored in preference of personal feuds and individual empire-building. DeLay’s lie that President Bush is “compassionate … but no conservative” is not only popular among men inclined to excuse their derilection of duty, but also those many people who love a television camera more than remembering their promises to their constituents.

The Democrats do not seem inclined to do a better job of governing than the Republicans, but that is hardly the goal we should seek. Reaching, then defending a party consensus for the nation’s needs is more than just a nice idea; it is the essential mission which must be pursued right now. And unfortunately, before that can happen the GOP needs to sit its members down, point out Tom DeLay, what he was and what he has become, and explain clearly that the DeLay of 1994 helped create greatness, while the DeLay of 2006 helped tear down the party. It is well past time to clean house of egotists and unaccountable mandarins.

Prayers For The Edwards

John and Elizabeth Edwards announced today that Elizabeth's cancer has returned. The biopsy results have been confirmed, and so despite surgery and radiation treatment, the Edwarsd will once again have to find this monster.

Despite strong political differences with Mister Edwards, my own recent good news about my own cancer reminds me that not everyone is lucky in their fight, and that everyone who must go through this battle deserves prayers and support.

Medical Update

It has been a busy two weeks!

Two weeks ago, I was training the guy who would be replacing me while I was out on FMLA leave, for surgery and convalescence. My schedule was full of preparations, as I readied myself for a series of tests on the 9th of March, to be followed by consultation on the 12th with Dr, Lambert at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

The tests on Friday March 9 were long, detailed, and uncomfortable. But they were worth it for the news I got the following Monday. Dr. Lambert sat me down next to my wife Mikki, and informed us that - at this time - surgery is not necessary to treat my cancer. Essentially, what happened is that Dr. Thomas got everything in my surgery on November 7th, and what was left has not appreciably grown. They can treat it with chemicals, and in July I will have another CT scan at MDA and a laparascopic exam to see what's going on in there. Dr. Lambert hastened to warn me this is not 'cured', but it is very good news. Both Dr. Thomas and Dr. Foote has insisted that major surgery was inevitable.

Just one more reminder about doing your own homework, and ALWAYS get a second opinion.

A Bad Sign From the GOP

People who know me can tell you that I am by no means a man of significance. The mailman has to think about whether I am worthy to receive mail addressed to ‘occupant’, for instance. So I should have known from the start that a letter addressed to me from the Republican National Committee would be something other than earth-shaking. But what I read was very unsettling.

The letter, of course, was basically a form letter. I noted that although it claimed I was part of a “select group of Republicans”, it did not bother to greet me by name. It seems that I have been selected as “a representative of all Republicans in your voting district”. Well, that sounds ‘special’, but wait and see.

Like everything from the RNC these days, it included the standard plea for money, making me think of all those charities that tell me that my “small donation” will make such a difference. The RNC informed me that money from me will somehow “rebuild and reunify our Republican Party”. Just how they got me confused with Bill Gates I guess I will never know. But to the meat of the letter; the “census” included an urgent plea to let the leading Republicans know how we “grassroots” Republicans feel. You know, “grassroots” like something they feel they can wipe their feet on. I don’t recall the RNC asking for my input when it mattered, but oh well. There were twenty-six questions on the “census”, and few of them were worth the ink and paper. The RNC divided the questions into sections titled “Homeland Security Issues”, “Economic Issues”, “Domestic Issues”, “Social Issues”, and “Defense Issues”. They also asked if I had voted in the last several elections, the only useful questions in the set.

Why am I so sure the questions were useless? Here are some of them:

“If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?”

If there is a single Republican in the House or Senate who does not already know the answer to that one, things are far worse than I thought!


“Should President Bush’s successful income and capital gains tax cuts be made permanent?”

Hmmm, ‘should the taxpayers keep more of their own money’? Would the RNC kindly explain why this was not done during the years we had the majority in both chambers? Was this a tough decision, too?


“Do you agree that we must stop illegal immigration?”

Are you telling me that there are Republicans in favor of illegal immigration?


“Should we fight Democrat efforts to impose Clinton-era cuts in the Pentagon’s budget?”

I’m afraid to ask why this is even a question.


Seriously, if those kinds of questions are what the RNC is wondering about, then our leadership is as stupid as Harry Reid is corrupt. And that is plain scary.

The Reluctant Virtue of Severus Snape – Part 2, AVR

In my post on Sunday, I observed that the question of Snape’s loyalties really depends on his actions beginning with the discovery that Lord Voldemort was returning. We know from the second prophecy and the statement by Voldemort himself, that he had no followers from the time he was physically vaporized as his killing curse rebounded on him in October 1981, to the time he compelled Wormtail to make him a new body, in early 1995. As Wormtail’s process evolved, the Dark Mark – the brand on the arm of each and every Death Eater minion of Voldemort – began to become more and more visible, and when Voldemort gained possession of his new body, the mark burned hotly on every arm, demanding the immediate return of the Death Eaters, to swear renewed fealty and service to the Dark Lord. We know this courtesy of the cowardice of Igor Karkaroff, who was at that moment the Headmaster of the Durmstrang institute. Igor twice confronted Severus regarding the imminent return of Voldemort, an event which filled Igor with fear. We know, from the pensieve memories Harry has been able to see, that Igor Karkaroff reduced his time in the Azkaban prison by giving up the names of a number of Death Eaters, something which would cause him a lot of trouble at any Death Eater reunion, and endangering his skin so far as the Dark Lord is concerned. I find it interesting, that Karkaroff thought he could speak with confidence about this to Severus Snape, since Severus was one of the people whom Igor tried to implicate (Dumbledore had already cleared Severus with the Wizengamot, through evidence we readers have not yet learned). I cannot tell from the text whether Karkaroff believed his friendship with Severus was strong enough to get past that, or whether Karkaroff was simply that desperate. But for here, it tells us that the Death Eaters had time to decide their response several months before it was time to deliver in person. This makes Severus’ decision significant; the fact that Severus delayed his return by two hours after the other Death Eaters on purpose, and that purpose tells us something about the mind and character of Severus Snape. You see, there could be only three reasons why Severus Snape would intentionally delay his return; to set himself apart from the other Death Eaters in the mind of Voldemort, to speak privately with Voldemort [yes, Severus wanted to be face-to-face with Voldemort!], and to deliver Dumbledore’s message to Voldemort without interference. Crazy as that sounds, this was part of a strategic plan.

The next strategic decision for Severus Snape comes in the fifth book, ‘Order of the Phoenix’. Here too we see Severus doing things that make no sense if he was truly loyal to Voldemort. Severus meets with the Order, but we observe that Dumbledore comes to and goes from the Order’s headquarters without direct contact with the Order as a group; if Severus’ orders from Voldemort were to spy on Dumbledore, then he should have been tailing Dumbledore, but he does not. At the end of OOtP, when Harry and five classmates from the D.A. set out to the Ministry to rescue Sirius Black, it is Severus Snape who calls in reinforcements from the Order. And I can promise you that this was never part of any order from Voldemort. Not only would Voldemort never give up a chance to kill or capture Harry Potter if he could, the whole point of Voldemort’s plan at the Ministry was to collect the prophecy, which Snape’s actions directly thwarted. There is no possibility whatsoever that Severus Snape was working for Voldemort when he called up the Order.

Next: But What About Murder?

The Reluctant Virtue of Severus Snape – Part 1

On July 21 of this year, the seventh and final book of the Harry Potter series written by J.K. Rowling will be released. This book has the highest expectations of all the series, as fans of the “Boy Who Lived” will demand answers to their many remaining questions, not the least of which is the true allegiance of Severus Snape.

There have been four large groups formed with regard to that question; those who believe Severus Snape is basically evil, those who believe Severus Snape is basically good, those who believe Severus Snape is simply out for himself, and those who admit that they have not decided. No wonder, really. The six books written so far each show scenes and statements which at times indicate evil, at other times indicate goodness, at times indicate selfishness, and anyone who thinks about Rowling’s Potter stories understands that many times the true meaning is not what appears on the surface.

This article simply looks at the available evidence, laying out what we know to give us a few bits of solid indication for guidance. Some of the things I note here, I will have to show in more than one context, as they could serve more than one meaning on their own, but there are some points which may surprise folks if they consider them all together. Hopefully, this will be useful in clearing some of the fog.

The first thing to understand about the Severus Snape contentions, is that we have two distinctly separate periods of time to address; the period before Lord Voldemort returned in bodily fashion at the end of “Goblet of Fire” (GoF), and the period after that. The reason this is so, is because we have two clear evidences that Voldemort did not have allies until his recovery of a body, except for a dismal few. The evidence for that comes from two places – a prophecy by Sibyl Trelawney, and statements by Lord Voldemort himself.

First, the prophecy. We all know that Sibyl Trelawney has a reputation as a self-serving fraud. For instance, she predicted at the Yule dinner once that whoever was the first to rise from the table would be the next person of that group to die, but although Harry and Ron both rose at the same time, it turned out to be Dumbledore (who did not rise at all) who died, at the end of “Half-Blood Prince” (HBP). But on two occasions, Sibyl made predictions which Rowling clearly indicates are true. The first one is a prophecy we actually do not hear completely until the fifth book, but which is treated by the major characters as true, not least because several parts of it appear to have been confirmed. The other prophecy, later in the timeline of the books but which actually appears first, is presented in this way:

From the “Prisoner of Azkaban” (PoA), page 324:

But Professor Trelawney didn’t seem to hear him. Her eyes started to roll. Harry sat there in a panic. She looked as though she was about to have some sort of seizure. He hesitated, thinking of running to the hospital wing – and then Professor Trelawney spoke again, in the same harsh voice, quite unlike her own:

”THE DARK LORD LIES ALONE AND FRIENDLESS, ABANDONED BY HIS FOLLOWERS.

The prophecy went on to predict certain other events for the story which did come to pass, but this first line is the salient one for here, since it means that whether or not they were allied with Voldemort before, they are not his followers at this point. This does not make them good by default of course; in the course of the story we still see individuals who return to Voldemort, and even a few who remain devoted to him but were physically prevented from seeking him (the Lestranges, I mean). But in the context of this discussion, it means that whatever his mind and motives during the first three years of Harry’s years at Hogwarts, Severus Snape was not working for Voldemort during that time. He certainly could have joined Voldemort again after Voldemort summoned his Death Eaters in the graveyard scene in GoF, so this fact does not decide the question of Severus Snape’s loyalty, but it does close a number of doors to decide that question for the purpose of the resolution of the series. The events prior to GoF can shed light on the character of Severus Snape. But they do not speak to his allegiance; only the last three books can do so.

The next witness to this condition of fact is none other than Lord Voldemort himself. When he rose again in power at the end of GoF, Voldemort was not at all happy about how long it took the Death Eaters to get back to him, specifically that except for a single devoted follower who sought him out, a cowardly follower who came back to him after years of hiding, and a few loyal followers locked in prison, his “loyal” followers basically ran off and forgot about him. From GoF, pages 647-8:

”I smell guilt,” he said, “There is a stench of guilt upon the air.”

[ snip]

“I ask myself … why did this band of wizards never come to the aid of their master, to whom they swore eternal loyalty?”

[snip]

“And I answer myself”, whispered Voldemort, “they must have believed me broken, they thought I was gone.”

That explains a lot, actually. And again, it does not commit Severus Snape to the side of Albus Dumbledore, nor even to himself, except that it does strike, if a small one, against the notion of his loyalty to Lord Voldemort.

So from this we have a separation of sequence, and may sort out the significant events not only by date, but also by what they affect. So far as Severus Snape is concerned, then, I divide our timeline into two sections: Before Voldemort’s Return (BVR), and After Voldemort’s Return (AVR). And since they weigh more strongly, I will first address the AVR events, those described in the last three books. I will discuss those significant events in my next post.

Adventures in Medicine Update

Moo.

Today I got a good sense of what it is to be cattle. While the process made a sort of sense at the intellectual level, and it was a good thing to get several things out of the way at once, the experience was less than satisfying for me. Having promised to write a straightforward (if somewhat sporadic) journal about what it is to have cancer, today’s events require a mention, because if you should find yourself battling a serious disease, it is very likely that you too will encounter the same sort of obstacles.

I drove down to the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Medical Center (or MDA) this morning for a series of tests, to track the progress of my tumor growth. Since the plans for my treatment have up to now assumed the continued indolent state of my tumors, these tests would serve as important indicators. I noted earlier this week to my wife, that my work required me to be in the office by 8 AM, but for these tests I would need to be present to check in at 7 AM. A small thing, but also an early warning that my ‘day off’ for the tests would hardly be a relaxing one.

The first obstacle, besides traffic in the area of the Medical Center (a number of hospitals all sit within blocks of each other, creating a location convenient for medical professionals, but decidedly unfriendly to patients and their families), is parking. There are several large parking garages, but they are expensive, difficult in places to navigate, and there never seem to be a lot of spaces available. To say nothing of the fact that everyone seems to be impatient, so that as you try to squeeze your car into a place you finally locate, cars are flying past you and quite nearly clipping your end off. Not the best way to begin the morning.

Once I made my way into the main building, I found my way easily enough to the 7th Floor, where the Gastro-Intestinal office is located. I then wasted a few minutes looking for someone with whom to check in, because the person who ought to have manned the front desk was absent. I found a nurse who helped me with al my paperwork and it went smoothly, but again I should remind the reader that several times in my appointments, I have found that the medical profession is not always altogether punctual.

There’s no reason to go too much into the details of my blood work, the x-rays, and my several CT Scans, except to observe that I spent six hours with what amount to a temporary faucet in my arm, to expedite the collection of blood and the insertion of an IV solution. In addition, when I showed up at the location for my CT Scan, I first discovered a collection of overworked and absolutely dispirited staff who quite clearly no longer thought of the patients as people, but very much like cattle. And when my name was finally called to go to the rooms for my actual scans, the nurse who greeted me and flushed my vein attachment took my paperwork and set it down in the wrong place, so that the staff forgot about me for 45 minutes. By itself this was no big deal, but in addition to the other events of the day, it struck me as just a bit less than professional, and another indicator of why we were referred to by our “patient number” as often as by our real names.

At this point I must hasten to note the truly professional standards to which MDA normally performs. The blood work was done well and quickly, even though my veins played hard to get. So too, the X-ray portion was smooth and seamless, as if it were no difficulty to navigate several dozen people an hour through that one office. I should be deficient and misleading if I did not compliment those offices on their fine work. The actual performance of the CT Scans by the technicians was thorough, professional in its detail and attention to the task, and I have every confidence that the results of these tests will be comprehensive and suitable to the needs of the doctors. I also would note that the nurse in the GI office who handled my paperwork was polite and fast, even though she was doing someone else’s work. On the whole, then, I accomplished what I set out to do, and most of the staff I met were courteous and professional. I would even go so far as to say that the problems I encountered were singular and limited to the individuals directly charged with the task, rather than a systemic problem. But it also needs to be observed, that even so fine a place as MD Anderson has areas where they fail at times, and where they could stand to pay attention to problems. And of course, we patients need to be aware that these aggravations will come along to bump us along the way.

Moo.

The "Twenty-Eight"

The conviction of Mr. Libby has sent Liberals into fits of ecstasy, many of them now voicing hope that having convicted one innocent man, they can set their sights on greater targets. The proof of the last several years has shown that a Liberal can commit felonies without worry, while an innocent Conservative can be railroaded unless he is quite careful to watch his steps. Small wonder such worthy individuals as Condi Rice have declined to seek elected office, but that’s for another time. My point for this article is to address the condition of those remaining Americans who refuse to be swayed by media propaganda and the expedient lies from the likes of McCain and Reid and Pelosi, who stand behind their commitments and their elected President. A sneering Liberal in the comments one one site derisively tagged us as “the few, the proud, the 28%”, implying that President Bush only has a 28% Approval Rating. That is, like so much from the Left, a false claim and shows a bit of the malice which colors everything from the DNC and the MSM these days, but even so I will claim that label as a badge of honor. Not that I am as good as a United States Marine, to which the rest of that phrase alludes, yet there is something to the core of that comparison which defines a condition of honor which the miscreant missed in his chortling.

Some time back, I made a statement that Liberals could not be engaged productively in a discussion about National Security. In noting that fact now, I need to be clear that this does not disqualify people with Liberal perspectives, in political terms, from holding valid perspectives and presenting useful thoughts. I would go so far, and I know this will offend those who are easily offended, as to say that fewer Liberals than Conservatives can hold onto firm and consistent ethical positions across the spectrum. There is a reason for that, and one which Conservatives should consider.

Life works sometimes like a hot furnace, burning away dross and a fair amount of skin. In the process, many people quite naturally try to avoid the flames and protect their feelings at the cost of hardening assumptions into committed principles, which errors sometimes lead to greater cost. Also, there is a pervasive sense among many people that violence is always wrong, that the majority (or at least the appearance of a majority) is always right, or that we must subordinate the missions of the greatest among us to the will of the weakest among us. The obvious hypocrisy that such people never hesitate to call the police for their own protection, that they will try to change the definitions of victory whenever they realize they have lost a battle, and that they will put their personal ideology ahead of even the US Constitution whenever they stand to lose something, is a matter which such folks reject out of hand. This does not mean that the obvious is true, but rather that we must test claims and assumptions, in that very fire of consequence and cost I mentioned. Defeat has a cost, but it teaches lessons as well. And between 1932 and 1994, the Conservatives in America were forced to learn many such lessons, but they resulted in Ronald Reagan and the 1994 Revolution. In that same time, many Liberals suffered no losses of consequence, and so they never firmed their principles into anything stronger than the personal character of individual leaders, whose substance gradually fell to the mockery of “leadership” we see today in the Left.

It is not really hard to see what happened to the Left; just look at what passes for their leadership. They are, to the last person, wealthy and obsessed with their personal privilege, convinced not only that they are entitled to special privileges but that this is the natural order of things. The aristocracy in pre-Revolution France was never so arrogant. And this, be sure, is also a problem for some on the Right. When in the past two decades has John McCain done hard labor? Could you even imagine Chuck Hagel working a 40-hour week for a paycheck? Does anyone seriously believe that John Boehner has done his own driving, his own taxes, or mowed his own yard in the last ten years? One problem Republicans had in the 2006 elections had nothing to do with President Bush, but everything to do with how out-of-touch Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert were with the average American. They had gotten too insulated, and became convinced that they did not need to answer to anyone, and so found themselves – in the end – rejected by the people they forgot about, who turned out to matter.

Conservatives and Liberals who are elected to office are often protected by the system in place, and by groups which act to protect and promote their special interests. But the Conservatives have fewer such crony groups, largely because the Democrats had more time in power to attract such people. The largest unions, for example, came to support Democrats not only because the Democrats molded their legislative priorities to match union demands, but because the Democrats/Liberals were clearly in power for so many decades, and so paying money and privilege to the Left was the way to prime the pump for payback to the unions.

Conservatives also benefited from the fact that their support groups were more willing to re-examine their ideals and goals, and many of their groups were committed to justice far ahead of expediency. This is one reason why the military gradually became stronger and stronger supporters of Republicans; not because the GOP was perfect by any means, but because the Democrats were less and less committed to the ideals to which soldiers swear fealty. The same for religious groups, who often tested their support for a candidate by how well his voting record was aligned with their ideals. This meant of course, that sometimes Conservatives lost ground because they could not lock in support for groups they needed, but it provides an essential moral compass which is missing from the Left.

Doing the right thing is not often easy, and it often comes at a cost. So it is hardly surprising that not everyone can commit to it, or that such commitment would be sporadic even among well-meaning people. And it is not surprising that so many, on the Left and the Right, may find it easy to fall back to habit rather than carefully consider their course and commitments, and then stand by them for the duration of the promise. The media and the Liberals have done a rather effective job of preventing folks from hearing what President Bush has done right in Iraq, or in the Economy, or in Judicial Reform, or in so many other areas of his job. Lies and slander are the currency of the day for so many who pretend to hold Truth as their ideal. When an arrogant liar like Gore can be lauded and lionized for false claims and hypocritical behavior regarding his own demands, while the President’s clear policies are mis-stated and mocked if they are considered at all, it is no surprise that many folks would fall away and say they do not approve of him, even when the other party provides no effective answer for how they would meet the challenges of the nation.

I stand with the President, as a Republican and a Conservative, and as I always have. I do not change my mind because the weather gets rough. And unlike many who will lie and equivocate later when asked about their support and commitment, I will always be able to look querants straight in the eye and confirm that I never wavered. If few stand with me, those few have passed a test most people fear to even face.

Democrats and Justice

Well, now it's official.

A Republican accused of a crime can expect Justice from a D.C. jury in 2007, to about the same degree a black man accused of a crime in Alabama could expect Justice in 1907.

The Stakes of the United States Presidency 2008

In just about a year, the two political parties of significance in the United States will effectively decide their candidates for the Presidential election of 2008. When that happens, a large part of the participation of regular people in the decision will end, and the remainder of the election campaign will devolve to no better than an artificial process – political Velveeta, so far as the results matter. There will be no way to redeem the quality of the remaining pair from which we must choose, so now is the time to press hard questions and for clear quality of character and integrity.

For some reason, the media seems intent on ignoring the fact that many enemies of America are becoming more dangerous. North Korea and Iran certainly have nuclear weapons to some degree, a number of terrorist groups have been chasing them, China is ramping up a strong renovation of its military, especially its ability to deliver ICBMs and SLBMs. Also, a number of countries which have claimed friendship with the United States have been discovered dealing with America’s enemies for strategic resources and economic gain, usually personal gain. The scope and depth of the strategic international threat could scarcely be growing more quickly than it is now. Yet few media outlets seem interested in addressing this matter, and still fewer Presidential candidates.

The clock is running.

What It Is, To Be Christian

Interesting. It’s harder to make a case that Christianity is a success, than it is to defend against the charge that it’s a failure. That is, I think, because there is a sort of middle ground where something is clearly worthwhile to a point, but difficult to sell as a universal solution. I do believe that Christianity is good and worthwhile for anyone who would accept it, yet I certainly stop short – well short – of suggesting that it should be imposed on folks. And saying that everyone should accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, especially when combined with insinuation that non-compliance means torture and agony, certainly heads down that road towards oppressive installation of a theocracy. So I would like to start by qualifying what I mean, personally anyway, when I talk about Christianity.

For me, Christianity is about being Christian, which in turn means to be a follower of Christ. Follower as in, I like where He’s going and what He’s done, so I am following Him in order to be more like Him and go where He goes. Fair enough?

One of the odd bits about being Christian, is that it’s different for everyone from each other Some folks seem to enjoy a deeply personal relationship with Christ, while others have a more, formal I guess would be the word, relationship. Some folks experience miracles while some seem to have a pretty common-sense experience. God seems to have as many facets to His nature and character as we human beings do. Tempting as it is to try to describe what the “True Christian” looks and acts like, that too is a variable, and I would not try to diminish the hand of God in so great a thing as how He works among us. But I digress, as I tend so often to do.

I would describe, from my perspective, Christianity as “the Greater Life”. It’s that dance which begins when we accept that we cannot ever be all we want to be on our own effort, but that there is a plan for us to be greater than we ever imagined. Not “great” in the sense of physical wealth or influence among men, but in finding meaning in our identity and becoming something of which we would otherwise only be able to dream, in detached and wistful moments. For me it began, really, with gratitude. When I am not grateful, I am ill-suited to my condition and situation, but when I accept grace and hold it loosely in thanks, then I am raised up to something and someone worth the effort and the moment.

Christ made that possible, and that is how I would explain the success of Christianity.

The Meaning of Death

Howdy folks, it’s been a weird week, and that means it’s time again to come up with something different on the blog. I’ve got some political notions in my head, but nothing really original, and most attempts to be brilliant are nothing brilliant at all. But something that happened Monday got me to thinking.

I was giving an annual review to my employees, and in the middle of one, while the employee was discussing her notion of what she planned to do to improve her results this year, I had an - 'image', I guess I will call it.

I felt just like I did as I was being wheeled in for my appendectomy back in November last year, only this time it was for my upcoming surgery at MD Anderson. I saw, in my mind but in a perception seemeingly of its own volition, the team of doctors waiting for me. They set me on the table, the anesthesia began -

and that was it. Not the end of the image, but as time passed I realized that in this image I died on the table. No white light, no happy or frightening recap of my life, no end credits or music.

Just black silence, and the sense that this was all there would be.

Now, I do not for a minute believe that what I saw was a real "vision", nor do I think I was hallucinating. I will be chewing the matter over in my head for a while, but I began to think about that. I was worried that I might be ready for those fashionable jackets with the sleeves which tie in the back, and should look for a comfortable and affordable tailor. But some good friends explained that it was very likely just a panic attack.

But to the topic at hand. Barring a radical departure from the known Laws of the Universe, we all will die sometime. With that in mind, we all wish to live Life to its fullest, although we don't fully understand that ideal. We also want to make a difference, to be glad of our choices and decisions. We all have decisions to make, with real consequences and real development of our lives decided by our choices. When we die, we don't want it to be anytime soon, but since it must happen, we want to go in such a way that, well, we will be missed. The higher order of person wants to go without leaving problems or pain for someone else, which is one reason why a person should never commit suicide.

We also understand that some people die in ways which, well, are magnificent. Men who die in battle, firefighters and policemen and medics who die while saving others, martyrs (the real ones) who die in the name of Peace and Justice and who build Hope for many through their sacrifice, are a sort of people difficult to understand completely, yet whose honor is so wondrous that all who see it cannot help but salute in some way. All who are truly human, sense and applaud the person who does something greater than should be possible. In a smaller, yet similar, way, we note the work of authors, composers, and creators of different sorts who bring something truly good into being. And this does not touch the subtler masters of Life, like truly good and wise parents and the True Friend. Death serves, in a strange fashion, to illuminate the greatness of such people.

Death also serves a function without which we should despair of Life. Inevitably, there is a friction to Life, some of it physical but most of it emotional and psychological. Every loss, every defeat, every serious wound leaves its mark and over Time it becomes a great difficulty to continue in anything like a normal fashion. Like Frodo at the end of the Lord of the Rings saga, it is too much to bear, and there must be an answer which serves to relieve the soul of its burden. As much as we love our families, our friends, and all the blessings which the Good Lord bestows on us, there is a time when it is meet for us each to leave the stage. Where to, we do not know, but we are bound for that journey nonetheless, as much in hope as in obedience to greater forces than we control.

Party of the Demented

David Remnick, writing in the “New Yorker”, has done a service to psychologists; he has demonstrated not only a cause for the now-infamous “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, which has inspired countless luminaries to spew the most vacuous yet vitriol-laced screeds against the President seen in the past half-century, but also demonstrated the depth of insanity to which BDS sufferers not only sink, but indeed cling, preferring their malicious delusion to the truth, no matter what.

In the column, entitled ‘Party Talk’, Mr. Remnick gushes with prolonged and wholly undeserved praise for failed Presidential candidate Al Gore. After hinting that a Gore Presidency beginning in 2001 would somehow have been fantastically better in results than the real-world version (and fantasy is a key component to Remnick’s thoughts), Remnick falls back on a convenient lie, saying: “It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate.”

While Gore did win a greater percentage of the Popular Vote in 2000 than Bush, it was a small amount, but more to the point the “wishes of the electorate” are constitutionally established through the results of the Electoral College. Not only is Remnick claiming that we should have ignored the Constitution of the United States, he is claiming that the electorate of thirty states which preferred Bush to Gore should have been ignored.

Remnick, having started lying, smoothly moves on to the next big lie, claiming that “the attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his.”

I will say bluntly, that no such evidence existed, or exists now. Al Qaeda engaged in a declaration of war against the United States in 1995, and the Clinton-Gore Administration took no specific action at all to address the threat from Osama bin Laden whatsoever. It is, again, a typical tactic of the Left, to throw out a lie and hope it is unchallenged.

Personally, I have to say I see a bitter irony that a man unwilling to address the threat of Global Terrorism, to such a degree that he pretends Gore’s timidity would be preferable to Bush’s decisiveness in the Middle East, should try to claim that an election long proven to have been decided to have been both valid and Constitutional, should be the case to claim that “the historical damage is too profound.”

So why bring up Gore again? His reputation in the Democratic Party, circa 2004, should have been lesson enough, but no. Remnick and other minions gush about Gore’s “quality of judgment”, never mind his episode of campaigning for funds at Buddhist temples, that his campaign to coerce selected nations to be punished for unproven charges in climate change somehow makes him a man with “visionary leadership”. And of course, to Liberal minds the nomination for an Academy Award and the Nobel Prize (in demagoguery) makes him all but a front-runner.

When the Republican Party deserted President Bush in 2006 because they wanted to play up their own egos, the voters saw little difference between the corruption of the Right and the corruption of the Left, and put the Democrats back into power. I was worried that the Democrats would learn the lesson the Republicans ignored, and that we might see an honest, sane, candidate from their party in 2008. When so many of the left see the pompous, self-serving Al Gore as qualified in any way, they seem to me to be repeating their blunders of the last two Presidential campaigns, and thank God if they do it again. Provided of course, that the Republicans can ignore their strong desire to present a buffoon of their own.

Harry Potter and the President of the United States

I have not been feeling well this week, so I have been enjoying myself at a forum to discuss the ‘Harry Potter’ books. No, this is not going to be an article about my latest Harry Potter theory, though I am working on a few of those. What I am thinking about for here, is how people love to make noise, even when they do not have the first idea about what they are discussing.

The Harry Potter site I mean is the “Chamber of Secrets” site, named for the second book in the series. A fan can lose themselves for a very long time in the threads of essays, discussions, links and such. The forums fall into a variety of categories, but the liveliest by far is “Divination Studies”, where fans can discuss ideas about what will happen in the last book. This is also where goons try to bully people into accepting their opinion as fact, and where know-it-alls build empires of impressed minions. I love the place, because some very bright and thoughtful people present great ideas, but you sure run into a lot of dull and nasty types as well. All in all, very much like a political blog.

But it also struck me, how when someone reads an opinion they disagree with, how some of them are not content to simply say they disagree, they try to shout down anyone who does agree, to tear down anyone who wants to explore the topic, and attack anyone who supports their target. That struck me as very much the way that the Left goes after President Bush and anyone who stands by him.

There is one distinct difference, however. The people running “Chamber of Secrets” find the trolls irksome and are trying to control them. The same cannot be said for media personalities who could put the nation’s welfare ahead of their personal vendettae, but who will never do so.

I'm Not Dead

Hullo, sorry I have not posted since last Friday. I kept trying to come up with witty insights, but instead I wrote such utter dreck that even I knew better than to post it.

This particular post is not to make any wise or clever insight; I'm franklty tired and likely to be very, very boring. I will warn you ahead of time, that my next few posts are very likely to be Potterish, although I can't help but comment on the ANS syndrome - I mean, it's a really slow news week, when CNN and Fox both feel compelled to announce the latest gossip on the corpse and court fight of Anna Nicole Smith. You'd think we could find out about Darfur, or have a good laugh at Al Gore's 'Global Warming' expedition in glacial setting, or maybe consider the threat from Iran and Syria ... but instead it's lawyer time.

Sheesh, no wonder I'm fatigued.

More soon, next time with a litte more focus, I promise.