Get A Job? Plan For A Career!

I was reading through the new issue of BusinessWeek, and came across an article about problems for a “generation” of folks in Japan. Well, that sounded serious, so I read through the thing. Turns out, “generation” was rather an exaggeration, and the article implied that Japan meant to use some rather Socialist practices to “fix” the problem, which seems to me a bit worse than the problem it is meant to address. I suspect that a lot of folks are somehow unclear on how employment works in a free society.

That is not as uncommon as you might think. Socialism and it’s more radical brother, Communism, are founded in the insipid notion that artificial controls on an economy will not prevent it from effective function, a notion long disproved by the histories of the Iron Curtain countries, and “worker’s paradise” locations like Cuba and North Korea. Labor unions, which were created for good reason and which have served great causes in the past, have also killed strong companies through their greed and mindless demands. And an appalling number of people under 30 seem to think that their company “owes” them their job, benefits, raises, and promotions. And they get bitter when reality refuses to let them live like Paris Hilton. Which explains a lot about why so many otherwise-sane people can support Democrats, but that’s another topic.

After reaching this point, I realized that it might actually be necessary to state the obvious. That whole ’Common sense is not very common’ idea. Take that BusinessWeek story on Japan, for example. The first guy they cited was a fellow by the name of Sadaaki Nehashi, who has a degree in Marine Biology but is working as a contract worker, effectively as a mailboy. All right, I have had hard times too, working for jobs well below my skill set, but it occurred to me that no one seemed to ask Sadaaki if he had checked with potential employers before getting his degree, to make sure that it mad sense to get a specialized degree like Marine Biology. Yes, the world needs Marine Biologists, and I am sure that Sadaaki Nehashi is a smart guy, but nowhere in the article did it seem that anyone asked whether he had some responsibility for his own financial condition. In the interest of disclosure, I will say that my undergraduate degree was in English, and that was a very poor panning decision on my part. And it cost me in my early work, as a direct consequence of my choices. That’s life folks, good things and bad things both happen, but some of them are the result of your choices, and simply are not someone else’s responsibility.

Basically, there are four kinds of jobs. There’s the temp job, which you do for a short time and get basic pay, which is fine for students and for a little pocket money, but you can’t really live on it. There’s the pay-the-bills job, where you take the job you can get fast, because you have bills to pay and don’t really have any options. A lot of folks go this route, and start down a dismal road that they never enjoy. There’s the vocation, which is a fancy word for finding a job that pays you to do what you love; most of us never have a chance at that job. So what’s left? The career.

What sets the career apart from the other types of jobs, is that you plan ahead for it, you acquire the specific skills it needs, you seek jobs which fit together in a pattern to show improved ability and accomplishments in that field, and you build a network that opens the opportunities for you. It takes more thinking, more commitment, and yes, more work, to create a career rather than just work a job, but in the end, the career is more satisfying, more rewarding financially and in opportunities, and the career is more stable.

Here’s how it works. To get a job, you simply find someone willing to hire you for a job you are willing to do under the proposed conditions of employment, and – boom – you have a job. In most states, the employment is ‘at will’, meaning your boss can fire you or you can quit, at anytime. You would work this job until you did something to get fired, you decided to quit, or unless your employer offered you another position in the company, which you accepted. Generally, because jobs are not that hard to get, it means you could be replaced easily by someone who doesn’t need much training, and so the company won’t offer you much money for the job. Also, since you were hired for a specific task, you won’t be a decision-maker in the company, and so you will often feel – correctly – that you have no real influence or power.

To build a career, you have to be able to make decisions independently, and to show discipline. You will have to decide your field, find out what is needed to get work in that field, earn the necessary educational certification for it (and plan on more school later; most serious fields require an advanced degree or Continuing Education Units), keep your grades up and look for entry positions in companies with openings in your field of interest. The first few years in that work, you will probably not be paid all the much, but you will make contacts with people who can either get you a better position within the company, or an interview with someone who will offer you a better opportunity. After that, your work will make your name, open doors, and buy your house. It’s a long process, takes a lot of work and a dedication to a core made of Integrity, Diligence, Inspiration, and Optimism. It also helps to enjoy life and have a sense of humor. You will likely find that the same skills which build a good career, will also help you find a good spouse and build a family. More work, but also well worth it.

Somewhere along the way, you will need a dog.

Good luck.

A Modest Proposal For Conservatives

Emotions among Conservatives have run high at times during the Bush Administration. Let’s – for once – step aside from the yelling and start with common ground. I think it is reasonable, as a starting proposition, to contend that everyone with a strong opinion on the issues under debate has thought about them at some length, and their emotion is the result of their concern for this country. So, for the first step in this article, I propose that we leave the weapons of ad hominem and character attacks outside the door; we do not need them, and they are not useful for the purpose of discussing the issues.

If that can be done (sadly, a doubtful prospect at the moment), I would also suggest that we should also leave behind the baggage of past debate. Guilt trips are not effective debating tools, and we will have quite enough on our hands to even begin working on the issues which matter most. I would further submit that, especially as Republicans are the minority party in Congress, and even among Republicans there is a wide range of opinions on certain issues, we must demonstrate a reasonable tolerance for different opinions. No, you don’t have to agree to a bill you find unacceptable, but at the same time it is suicidal for a faction to refuse to discuss points of a bill under consideration, or to refuse the possibility that getting some of what you want is better than getting none.

Let us also forego that practice of mis-portraying the other side. Let a proponent say what they would like to see done, why they think it will work, and how they would see that put into action. Those opposed or unconvinced could then properly ask for information, challenge assumptions and faulty contentions, and – most important – offer feasible solutions. This would be, of course, much lengthier and complex than the present smear-fest we see on radio shows and web forums, and it would require a much higher level of maturity than is usually presented in these debates, but it would have the salient effect of actually moving the debate forward. Deal with what people are actually and genuinely believe, rather than some ‘gotcha’ strawmen, and there is much better foundation for building a real solution.

Since Border Security and Immigration Reform are two of the most contentious issues at present, I think we might next consider the key problems to address in those issues. My list is not the be-all, end-all, but I think we could use it as a launch point for the forum to follow in this thread:

1. The presence of at least 12 million foreigners in the United States who arrived illegally and who continue to stay here illegally, represents a serious problem for the United States, which must be addressed in a manner which, in effect, closes the door to such numbers of illegal immigration.

2. There are organized groups who would desire to attack the United States, either as criminals (gangs) or as terrorists. This is the chief reason why the borders must be secured against entry by foreign nationals, especially organized operations.

3. The Immigration laws of the United States simply do not work as intended. Not only is there a serious enforcement problem with the laws already in place, but those immigrants who try to comply with the bureaucracy find the rules illogical, punitive, and arbitrary.

4. There are a number of American businesses which have no intention of complying with U.S. law regarding the hiring of illegals. Therefore, there is a strong market able and willing to subsidize illegals, and any legislation considered needs to contend with this problem.

5. There are a number of state and local authorities who oppose federal efforts to control illegal immigration. Substantive legislation should consider this interference, and legal recourse should be prepared for these conditions.

6. The overwhelming majority of these illegal immigrants are non-violent and could function as valuable members of society under the right circumstances. Accordingly, any plan to address the long-term situation must provide an opportunity for eventual citizenship for those families and individuals who can demonstrate the ability and will to act responsibly under American law, allegiance to the United States, and penalties for their illegal entry. Any plan must consider legal applicants first and with strong preference.

7. Because the Democrats can be counted on to oppose any substantive solution to Illegal Immigration, Republicans must maintain a united public face. Consensus therefore is the sine qua non for Republican in-house debate, and under no circumstances should a Republican, no matter his opinion, commit an action or statement which weakens the GOP’s position or advances the Democrats’ agenda.

All of these have been considered or proposed before, but unfortunately have been ignored by opponents, mis-characterized or mis-stated, or simply mocked. We have the means to find answers, but only if we act like the adults in this debate. We surely cannot expect the Liberals to even try to resolve these problems, and ignoring the problem is simply out of the question.

MLP Round 038

Game Scores:

McKinley at Madison, 33-25 McKinley
GW Bush at T Roosevelt, 37-33 GW Bush
Grant at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
B Harrison at Ford, 35-23 Ford
Washington at Hayes, 36-28 Washington
Hoover at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Arthur at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
Polk at Carter, 30-26 Polk
Clinton at Fillmore, 314-23 Fillmore
F Roosevelt at GH Bush, 30-28 FDR
Cleveland at Kennedy, 33-32 Cleveland
Van Buren at Truman, 32-25 Truman
Coolidge at Taylor, 30-25 Taylor
J Adams at Monroe, 31-30 Monroe
Eisenhower at Buchanan, 28-19 Ike
Jackson at L Johnson, 29-21 Jackson
JQ Adams at Taft, 30-29 Taft
Tyler at Nixon, 30-29 Nixon
Garfield at A Johnson, 27-19 Garfield
Wilson at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Pierce at Harding, 27-25 Harding


One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

The Knives of False Patriots

Readers may recall I used to write for a site called Polipundit. Nice place, often producing thoughtful ideas by the writers and readers. Good for the mind, good for the Conservative movement.

Then President Bush did the unforgivable: he used his own authority and opinion. Turns out some of the folks at Polipundit.com thought they should be able to control the President, that those 62 million votes for Bush in 2004 didn’t count unless he did as he was told.

I pointed this out, and immediately found myself shown the door by the site owner. And I was also falsely accused of all sorts of terrible things by people whose notion of “Debate” begins with character assassination.

At that same time, other writers on the site were also evicted, for having their own minds. It made some noise, and Polipundit’s readership dropped significantly. I found a new home at Wizbang, went back to school, was diagnosed with Cancer and got a dog. Meanwhile, the environment at Polipundit, sad to say, devolved to an echo chamber.

A few days ago, I wrote about a faction within the Republican Party, which I contend seeks to deny open debate on the key issues, but instead demands that they alone speak for the party and Conservatives. I rather strongly disagree with their contention that the extremists who resort to name-calling and threats are somehow the “base” of the Conservative Movement. I discovered today that I was referenced by Oak Leaf at Polipundit.com. The strange thing is, Oak Leaf mentioned my post but did not link to it. Instead, he linked to a post an another site which attacked not only my contention, but lobbed more than a few insults at me.

Interestingly enough, neither Oak Leaf nor the writer he praised made any attempt to address the contention in substance, and what’s more, I was amused to discover that the tactics employed by the readers in the comments amply demonstrated the problem in the tactics embraced by “the base”.

In that section, no effort was made to address the question, as I said, but I was called, just in passing, these sorts of things:

“Blind Loyalty”

“mindless republican”

“What Al Gore is to Global warming, DJ is to Bush/Republicans”

“the most appalling example of party hack i have EVER read”

“his clueless world view.”

This is not debate, nor does it seek to find common ground among Republicans or build a consensus. Such behavior by these people has gone on for several years now, prompted every time the extremists do not get what they demand, or any time the President dares to show his own mind on an issue. This is not to say, at all, that disagreement is not allowed; ironically, these character butchers try to shout down anyone with an opinion different from their own, yet they are quick to play the victim whenever they are called on it, a tactic we all to quite reasonably rebuke when the Democrats did it. Putting it bluntly, these people are trying to kill the Republican Party out of spite, and if they do they will try to frame President Bush for what they did. They trashed GOP control of Congress in order to ‘send a message’, and they are simply not willing to address the issues in substance or context.

Pray to God they do not become more powerful. The Republican Party should be the party of ideas and open discussion, not malignant thuggery.

The Impossible Just Takes Longer

I love reading books, and at one time my greatest love was Science Fiction. But wheeeeeew, there’s a lot of bad Sci-Fi out there, and I don’t mean just the fanfic. Sometimes that comes down to bad story-telling, but more often it’s because the author misjudged what things would be like, and cast a world which was obsolete soon after the publication of his story. In a perverse manner, I find it fascinating to read some of these visions of the future, and consider what happened to send them off-track. I am happy to say that a principal cause of the mistakes comes from the writer being too pessimistic in many cases; a lot of future histories assumed the continued rise of tyrannies like the Soviet Union, central-government bureaucracy, and the failure of capitalist economic and ecological systems. That is, the good guys really do win most of the battles, and God watches over us with grace and care. I don’t suppose I need to mention that many failed predictions fail to consider the power of faith and the intervention of God in human affairs. As if we managed half a century of intercontinental nuclear weapons stockpiles without blowing ourselves off the planet because we were, what, a mature race which never made big mistakes?

That’s not to say everything is better. The world of the 21st Century is no Nirvana or Utopia. We have millions of offenders in sordid varieties of criminal behavior which were far fewer in ages past. Slavery and Piracy have once again become common practices in parts of the world. We face serious threats from groups which eagerly contemplate the deliberate extinction of entire classes of ‘inconvenient’ people. Financially, the divide between Rich and Poor remains unacceptably wide, especially since being poor still includes threats from Famine, Disease, and dismal prospects for the rising generation. And while long proven invalid, many people still embrace Fascism, Communism, Caste systems and Racial/Gender prejudice. And we must add to this the increasingly radical tide of violent protests, from the insanity of individuals who speak for the ‘sanctity’ of life by bombing buildings, people who show their love of Diversity by vandalizing the offices and property of the opposing political party, and people who “support” their nation by cheering on monsters who want to kill innocent civilians, in the name of ‘dissent’. We have schools which neglect core academic skills in favor of politically correct curriculae, we see media which sometimes showcases entertainment which is vulgar and promotes immorality and violence, and we see a judicial system which rewards the side which has the most clever lawyer, but does not protect the innocent or encourage conscientious idealism. We obviously have a lot of work to do.

So we seem to be looking at a future somewhere between ‘Star Trek’ and ‘1984’. But in general, I’d say the good outweighs the bad. I was diagnosed with a form of Cancer which a generation ago meant dying within a couple years with no hope at all, but which today can be treated in a number of ways with excellent survival prospects. Systems like the Amber Alert, Code Adam, and Escape School provide the means for children to avoid abduction, and if abducted, for law enforcement to find them quickly. In most developed nations, the rule of law protects the rights of citizens far more consistently than ever before, and more nations have effective constitutions which make government accountable to the citizens than ever before. A person in the United States who is willing to make the effort, has better educational and occupational opportunities than ever before. My daughter, who is the result of a mixed-race marriage, has better reason than ever before to expect that she will not be punished for her race or gender, but allowed the same opportunity as anyone else to show her ability and character. Conduct by elected officials which used to be passed-over as ‘the way things are done’, is now regularly scrutinized by law enforcement, and when a crime is committed arrests are made and the official is tried in court. We have safer cars with better fuel efficiency than ever before, we have phones and music players that can go virtually anywhere conveniently and at low cost, more Americans own homes than ever before, and more nations are allowing private investment and ownership of property than ever before.

Sure, there are obstacles, problems, and challenges. But while we will never create a perfect world, we have the opportunity to improve everything along the way. It’s not impossible, and even the parts which are impossible, will not always be so.

Handing Weapons to Our Enemies

One of the strangest phenomenae I have seen in my life, is the way political sorts will swoon for a person at one point, then turn completely against them later. Mood swings worthy of a mental institution have become commonplace in recent years, and never more so than the present “Love You/Always Hated You” hypocrisy of the Right Wing.

Writing for Salon magazine, Glenn Greenwald is unfortunately all too aware of the hypocrisy, and worse for the Right, he has documented it in his latest article. While he pursues the obligatory “Bush is evil, inept, and a total failure” meme which is required of all Liberal writers these days, Greenwald is devastatingly ruthless in showing the way many Conservative pundits have ruined their integrity by changing their opinion of the President solely because of poll numbers. Greenwald simply posts what each pundit said, along with the opinion poll numbers at the time. The results are damning indeed, but not for the President.

Jonah Goldberg for instance, just a few days ago wrote that if you “look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal”. But back in 2003, Goldberg wrote this about the President:

"Georrge (sic) W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?”

Was Goldberg lying then, or is he lying now? That is, after all, how the Liberals will cast it, and it’s hard to claim Goldberg was honest in both places.

But Greenwald is not short of examples. He shows the same dishonest embrace-then-run-away from the President by Rush Limbaugh, by Bob Novak, and by Rich Lowry. It’s bad enough that such prominent pundits have engaged in such unethical practices, but it hurts the Conservative Movement that the Left can use it to claim moral superiority. Greenwald quotes Rod Dreher, who explains the behavior succinctly:

“It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner.”

I understand the frustration among Conservatives. I am still a Conservative myself, though many of the Bush-haters have pretended otherwise. And that’s the problem. We know there are many more Conservatives than Liberals, and we know that any serious consideration of the Conservative vs. Liberal arguments would prove the superiority of the Conservative position. We also know that the American people will follow a Conservative leader, indeed are hungry to do so. The only way Conservatives can lose, therefore, is when they allow themselves to become fragmented and factionalized. The only way that regular people can come to believe that Democrats are a better choice for leadership than Republicans, is if Republicans attack other Republicans and prove they cannot seek answers and solutions.

It’s too much, perhaps, to expect apologies from the people who have poured gasoline on the fire. But at least the rest of us can try to work with the other Republicans, and the other Conservatives, for the good of the nation and the hope of the future. Because if we do not, History shows us how painful the price of that hubris can be.

MLP Round 037

Game Scores:

Carter at McKinley, 37-19 McKinley
Reagan at GW Bush, 36-35 GW Bush
Lincoln at Garfield, 31-29 Lincoln
Ford at Hoover, 31-23 Ford
Buchanan at Washington, 36-22 Washington
T Roosevelt at Wilson, 28-25 TR
Jefferson at J Adams, 34-30 Jefferson
GH Bush at Polk, 33-28 Polk
Fillmore at Eisenhower, 31-30 Fillmore
Monroe at F Roosevelt, 33-27 FDR
Kennedy at Tyler, 32-28 JFK
Truman at Pierce, 33-18 Truman
Harding at Cleveland, 31-26 Cleveland
Taylor at Clinton, 30-25 Taylor
Nixon at Jackson, 28-27 Jackson
Taft at Van Buren, 33-23 Taft
A Johnson at JQ Adams. 27-21 JQA
Hayes at Grant, 29-25 Hayes
L Johnson at Arthur, 24-21 Arthur
W Harrison at Coolidge, 29-22 W Harrison
Madison at B Harrison, 24-22 Madison


One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

Online MBA – An Update

This past Tuesday, I began the summer semester at the University of Houston at Victoria. I took the spring semester off, as you may recall, to address my abdominal cancer, which I am happy to say has largely decided to behave itself and so far has responded well to treatment. Anyway, I had promised to report on the progress of my studies, I also want to warn that the frequency and topic choice of my posts is going to change a bit, and for those who are interested, I need to keep my promise of progress reports, even if they are a bit sporadic.

First, a recap about studying online. There are three kinds of students who might consider university study; those seeking Continuing Education Units (CEUs), which many professions require these days, those seeking their Bachelor’s degree, and those seeking their graduate degree. These three groups have sharply different goals and needs. This is because the school and the degree/certification are designed for different purposes. With the exception of those pedigreed scions who merely need, hmm, “finishing”, most folks get their college degree so they can hope to get a good job, and start a good career. Again repeating what I wrote before, the person seeking to begin their life work should take time and think well about what, precisely, they want to do for a career. They should then find out what is necessary to get into that career with good prospects, and from there find out which school provides the best opportunity for them. When someone is applying for a position with a company, they will find that work experience is the best quality which will get them a chance to interview for the position, and the ability to discuss their skills and abilities well will help them stand out from other candidates in the running. To that end, certain schools have a good reputation in general, and some stand out as excellent in the selected field. This is the chief knock against many online schools; the name sometimes suggests a lower level of academic quality. I hate to play into the tactic of snob appeal, but it has to be remembered that employers make hiring decisions on what attracts them, and until you have experience that tells someone you can do the job, the best indicators will be your grades, your specific degree, and the school where you earned your degree.

The school name is much less important with CEUs and the advanced degrees, but it still counts in the case of chasing the Masters’ degree. As I mentioned back when I explained my choice, what you want to do is start by finding the key attributes, which in my case was making sure the school was AACSB-accredited. If you are considering online education, you will need to understand that you will be gaining some convenience, but you should still seek a program which is every bit as challenging and thorough as any classroom-attendance course, because the first priority is learning the material well enough that your career abilities reflect it. Also, studying online means you will have to be very disciplined with your time; you will have just as many assignments, tests and term papers, and unlike the regular classes, where the professor may or may not note your participation every time, in the online class your participation will be documented to the second, and the quality of your answers will be there in print, which is very bad for the slacker but great support for the hard-working student.

I got some additional work to do for my concentration. Because I did not get my Bachelor’s degree in Accounting, and I intend to earn my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, UHV is requiring me to take some undergraduate Accounting courses as prerequisites to some of the higher-level Accounting courses. This is both bad and good. Obviously, the additional courses, which could be two more, three more, or five more courses depending on how the Department Head sees my work, means more time, work, and cost, which is a bit frustrating, especially since I will probably not be able to take those courses online. That part greatly complicates things. On the other hand, I have been advised that some of the prerequisites may be waived, since after this summer (presuming I pass my current schedule) I will have earned six hours of graduate Accounting credits, demonstrating a certain level of comprehension. Also, since I intend to sit for the CPA exam after I earn my MBA, and since I want to be sure I have full command of the subject in which I want to base my future career work and positions, taking these classes may well be essential to my plan, even from my personal point-of-view. But that will wait until after the Summer semester, which is already looking at me the same way an alley-cat looks at a trapped mouse.

I am, craftily or most unwisely, taking three courses this summer, which are Strategic Accounting, Management and Organizational Behavior, and Quantitative Statistics and Research Methods. All three have the usual complement of assignments, discussion boards, case studies or term papers, group work, and examinations/quizzes. The difference this time from the fall, is – first - that in two of the three classes the teams will be assigned by the professor, rather than letting us choose our groups. I certainly want to carry my weight, but I also hope that my group members feel the same way. The second difference is that the summer semester is shorter, and so we will be hitting due dates much sooner, and I am scrambling to cover my bases already. Nothing is actually due yet, except for an information sheet which I turned in two days before it was due. But since my plan all along was to stay ahead of the pace if at al possible, I am well aware that some of my classmates have already taken the lead, which means that the pace is definitely up-tempo. I have homework to do in all three classes, our group has an assignment to work on and present in QMS, and my outline for my term paper in Management is due within a week. Oh well, sleeping is over-rated.

And that’s where I am right now. The lessons for those considering online studies would include the following:

[] If you are considering getting your degree online, make sure you are disciplined enough to keep up the pace and stay on schedule;

[] If you have not chosen your school, make sure you know what you expect to get out of the degree, and use that information to determine whether the school is worth what it will cost, in money and effort, compared to what you hope to get back;

[] Know your degree plan, and look out for surprises before they cause bigger problems;

[] Do the job right. Make sure you respect the challenge, because you want the best result for all the work you have to do for it.


Good luck to my fellow students, and thanks to everyone for stopping by.

National Cancer Survivor Day

Today is National Cancer Survivor Day. The odds are high that you know one, or your life has been touched in some way by Cancer.

Please think about it, and let someone with Cancer know you have not forgotten them.

Thanks.

MLP Round 036

Game Scores:

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


One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

The new Rankings are as follows:

After Thirty-Six Rounds

.1. McKinley (35-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.2. Lincoln (34-2) beats Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
.3. Washington (34-2) beats TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.4. Ford (33-3) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, GW Bush
.5. GW Bush (34-2) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.6. Reagan (32-4) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (31-5) beats Ike, Clinton, Cool, loses to Wash
.8. Polk (29-7) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.9. Jefferson (27-9) beats B Harr, FDR, loses to McKinley, Polk
.10. JFK (25-11) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, loses to FDR

.11. Truman (25-11) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.12. J Adams (24-12) beats Harding, Nixon, LBJ, loses to JFK
.13. Fillmore (25-11) beats Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.14. FDR (24-12) beats JFK, LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson
.15. Taylor (22-14) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.16. Cleveland (23-13) beats JQA, A Johnson, Taft, loses to Truman
.17. Taft (20-16) beats Jackson, Tyler, Pierce, loses to Cleveland
.18. Monroe (21-15) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk
.19. Eisenhower (20-16) beats W Harr, loses to Reagan, TR, Taylor
.20. Garfield (18-18) beats Buchanan, Van Buren, Hayes, JQA

.21. Nixon (18-18) beats FDR, Arthur, loses to Polk, J Adams
.22. Jackson (19-17) beats Harding, loses to Taft, Truman, JFK
.23. Tyler (17-19) beats A Johnson, Harding, loses to Taft, Truman
.24. JQ Adams (16-20) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleve, Garf
.25. GH Bush (15-21) beats Hoov, B Harr, loses to GWBush, McKinley
.26. Hayes (15-21) beats Buch, loses to Fillmore, Garfield, Lincoln
.27. W Harrison (12-24) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Wash, Ike
.28. Arthur (13-23) beats Harding, loses to Truman, JFK, Nixon
.29. Grant (10-26) beats Buchanan, loses to W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.30. Carter (10-26) beats B Harr, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, Hoover

.31. Wilson (11-25) beats Carter, Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan
.32. Madison (9-27) beats Hoover, loses to Cool, Wilson, GW Bush
.33. Clinton (9-27) loses to Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harr
.34. Harding (9-27) loses to J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.35. Van Buren (6-30) beats Pierce, A Johnson, loses to Garfield, JQA
.36. Coolidge (6-30) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.37. B Harrison (6-30) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.38. Hoover (5-31) beats Carter, loses to Monroe, GH Bush. Madison
.39. LBJ (5-31) loses to McKinley, Polk. FDR, J Adams
.40. Buchanan (5-31) loses to Garfield, Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.41. A Johnson (2-34) beats Pierce, loses to Tyler, Cleve, Van Buren
.42. Pierce (2-34) loses to Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft

MLP Round 035

Game Scores:

Monroe at McKinley, 37-31 McKinley
Madison at GW Bush, 36-23 GW Bush
Buchanan at Lincoln, 37-30 Lincoln
Ford at Wilson, 34-25 Ford
Taylor at Washington, 36-27 Washington
Reagan at Coolidge, 37-22 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Clinton, 33-25 TR
Jefferson at Polk, 33-31 Polk
Fillmore at Grant, 31-25 Fillmore
L Johnson at F Roosevelt, 33-26 FDR
Kennedy at Arthur, 32-24 JFK
Truman at Tyler, 32-28 Truman
Taft at Cleveland, 32-31 Cleveland
Nixon at J Adams, 30-28 J Adams
W Harrison at Eisenhower, 30-28 Ike
Harding at Jackson, 28-25 Jackson
Hayes at Garfield, 29-28 Garfield
GH Bush at B Harrison, 26-22 GH Bush
JQ Adams at Van Buren, 32-23 JQA
Carter at Hoover, 23-22 Hoover
A Johnson at Pierce, 21-18 A Johnson


Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another four have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

Presidential Job Approval

It’s Friday, and that means Fun with Numbers time!

One of the most common political numbers touted by media, is the President’s Job Approval. It’s not well understood, frankly. Generally, the media reports a JA as if it were a referendum on an particular issue or personal scorecard, when in fact it is neither. For example, a composite of most major opinion polls gives President Bush a 32% Job Approval rating. If Bush were running again for President and got 32% of the Popular Vote, that would be a poor performance. However, we would have to consider the situation in better context if we wanted to draw that analogy. Would this hypothetical election be against a field of GOP candidates, like a primary? If so, 32% would be enough to win many such primaries. Would it be a one-on-one match-up in a general election against a Democrat? In such a case, the conditions change radically, as many voters who are not especially thrilled with a President, may choose to support him because the alternative is simply not palatable. The Job Approval numbers cannot, therefore, properly be used to suggest election conditions.

Also, Job Approval numbers are not static. In fact, you need to consider a variety of them to really understand what’s going on. What I mean, can be seen by looking at the term average approval ratings, the term lows, highs, and mean-values. This collection can be quite illuminating. For this article, I am taking data from the FDR through GW Bush Administrations. I used and recommend the Roper Center for accessing the requisite data. For this article I considered only the Gallup polls, for reasons of consistent questioning, historical constancy of results, and for a stable base of comparison.

First, let’s rank the President’s average ratings. From lowest to highest, here’s how they did:

Truman..........44.5%
Carter..........45.9%
Ford............47.8%
Nixon...........49.2%
Reagan..........52.5%
Clinton.........54.7%
L Johnson.......54.8%
GW Bush.........54.8%
GHW Bush........62.1%
Eisenhower......64.5%
F Roosevelt.....65.2%
Kennedy.........69.3%


Interesting, to note the difference between a President’s average popularity and his effectiveness. Next, let’s consider the Presidents in terms of their lowest Job Approval tracked by Galllup:

Truman..........22%
Nixon...........23%
Carter..........28%
GHW Bush........29%
GW Bush.........32%
L Johnson.......35%
Reagan..........35%
Ford............37%
Clinton.........39%
F Roosevelt.....48%
Eisenhower......48%
Kennedy.........56%

That’s intriguing. Don’t forget that JFK and Ford never finished a full term, and Gallup does not have numbers available from before 1938 on Job Approval but it’s interesting that FDR and Eisenhower had a low tide of 48%.

Next, let’s look at the Presidents in terms of their highest Job Approval in Gallup:

Nixon...........67%
Reagan..........68%
Clinton.........68%
Ford............74%
Carter..........75%
Eisenhower......79%
L Johnson.......80%
Kennedy.........80%
F Roosevelt.....84%
Truman..........87%
GHW Bush........89%
GW Bush.........90%

Think about that. Reagan, the best President in the bunch, had a high-tide mark of 68% approval, just ahead of Richard Nixon. And looking at the two Bushes and Harry Truman, it’s also obvious that Job Approval can be highly volatile.

If, just for fun, I mix them all up and count the high, low, and average all together and split the result by three, here’s my least-to-most popular results:

Nixon...........46.05%
Carter..........50.10%
Reagan..........51.75%
Truman..........52.00%
Ford............53.58%
Clinton.........53.80%
LBJ.............56.83%
GW Bush.........59.45%
GHW Bush........59.78%
Eisenhower......63.75%
FDR.............65.80%
JFK.............68.33%

Not what you might expect, is it? And more importantly, those who did the best job, may not show it in simple popularity while they were in office. Just something to think about when we choose the next Oval Office jockey.

Friday

Hi there. This beautiful animal gracing the header of today's site is Bingo, my daughter's Collie puppy. Bingo has a number of characteristics worth mentioning:

[] She is AKC-registered, which means I paid money to get a piece of paper proving she's really a Collie.

[] Bingo is 15 weeks old, but growing fast. About 3 months from now, she will still be a puppy, but will be almost twice the size she is now, and around 65 pounds in weight.

[] Bingo is what they call a White Sable Rough-Hair Collie. If you look closely, you will notice that her eyes are different colors.

[] Collies are a very smart breed of dog, which means that Bingo is probably smarter than 40% of the voting population, and also smarter than Lindsay Lohan or anyone appearing these days on MTV or "The View".

[] Bingo likes to chase things, and she likes to chew things.

[] And if you are still reading at this point, you probably love dogs in general, and have one yourself.

In other news, I have begun the Summer Semester of my MBA studies. This semester features Strategic Cost Accounting, Management and Organizational Behavior, and Statistics and Research Methods. The decision to pursue an Accounting concentration has added either three or five additional Accounting courses to my degree load, but that is to be expected. The difefrence comes from the fact that I was a moron while an undergraduate, and because my Bachelor's Degree was in Liberal Arts, UHV (being an AACSB-accredited school) demands that I prove I can handle the higher-order Accounting work. Two of the classes may be waived, since I have already passed graduate-level Accounting classes. I need to be careful to consider the overall need, however, since I also plan to sit for the CPA exam after earning my MBA.

In still other news, I will go back to M.D. Anderson for more tests on July 9, basically to make sure the tumors in my abdomen have not been naughty. Hopefully, the present non-surgical regimen will continue to prove effective.

Well, that's all for now.

MLP Round 034

Game Scores:

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


Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

MLP Round 033

Game Scores:

L Johnson at McKinley, 37-22 McKinley
GH Bush at GW Bush, 36-30 GW Bush
Taylor at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
Ford at Clinton, 32-25 Ford
T Roosevelt at Washington, 36-32 Washington
Reagan at Eisenhower, 37-30 Reagan
Jefferson at B Harrison, 34-22 Jefferson
Nixon at Polk, 32-30 Polk
Fillmore at Hayes, 31-28 Fillmore
Kennedy at F Roosevelt, 3-31 FDR
Truman at Arthur, 32-24 Truman
JQ Adams at Cleveland, 32-31 Cleveland
Harding at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Monroe at Hoover, 27-23 Monroe
Taft at Jackson, 29-28 Taft
A Johnson at Tyler, 28-23 Tyler
Buchanan at Garfield, 29-23 Garfield
W Harrison at Grant, 28-25 W Harrison
Carter at Wilson, 25-18 Wilson
Madison at Coolidge, 22-21 Coolidge
Van Buren at Pierce, 29-18 Van Buren

Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

Memorial Day

To U.S. veterans everywhere, thanks.

MLP Round 032

Game Scores:

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

Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

The new Rankings are as follows:

After Thirty-Two Rounds

.1. McKinley (31-1) beats Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.2. GW Bush (31-1) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.3. Lincoln (30-2) beats Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.4. Ford (29-3) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.5. Washington (30-2) beats Carter, Madison, Ford, loses to Reagan
.6. Reagan (28-4) beats Hayes, Grant, Washington, loses to Lincoln
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (28-4) beats Buch, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.8. Jefferson (25-7) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.9. Polk (25-7) beats Taft, Truman, Harding, loses to JFK
.10. Fillmore (23-9) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Buchanan


.11. FDR (22-10) beats A Johnson, Truman, Harding, loses to Taft
.12. JFK (22-10) beats Hoover, B Harr, Polk, loses to McKinley
.13. Truman (21-11) beats J Adams, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.14. Cleveland (20-12) beats Tyler, Garfield, Pierce, Van Buren
.15. Taylor (20-12) beats Garfield, Buch, Hayes, loses to Fillmore
.16. J Adams (21-11) beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.17. Eisenhower (19-13) beats GH Bush, Carter, Mad, loses to Ford
.18. Monroe (19-13) beats Clinton, Cool, loses to Wilson, GW Bush
.19. Jackson (18-14) beats Pierce, Van Buren, A John, loses to JQA
.20. Taft (17-15) beats FDR, J Adams, Arthur, loses to Polk

.21. Tyler (15-17) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, loses to JFK
.22. Nixon (16-16) beats B Harr, loses to GW Bush, Hoover, McKinley
.23. Garfield (14-18) beats Pierce, loses to Taylor, Cleveland, Fillmore
.24. GH Bush (13-19) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Ike
.25. JQ Adams (14-18) beats J Adams, Jackson, loses to Arthur, Tyler
.26. Hayes (14-18) beats W Harr, loses to Reagan, TR, Taylor
.27. Arthur (12-20) beats JQA, A Johnson, loses to Van Buren, Taft
.28. Clinton (9-23) beats Carter, Madison ,loses to Monroe, GH Bush
.29. W Harrison (10-22) beats Buch, loses to Fillmore, Hayes, Lincoln
.30. Wilson (9-23) beats LBJ, Monroe. loses to Jefferson, GH Bush

.31. Grant (9-23) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.32. Harding (9-23) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.33. Carter (9-23) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.34. Madison (8-24) loses to Grant, Washington, Ike, Clinton
.35. B Harrison (6-26) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.36. Coolidge (5-27) beats Carter, loses to Jeff. Monroe, GH Bush
.37. LBJ (5-27) beats Hoover, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, B Harr
.38. Buchanan (5-27) loses to TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.39. Hoover (4-28) beats Nixon, loses to JFK, LBJ, Jefferson
.40. Van Buren (4-28) beats Arthur, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleve
.41. Pierce (2-30) loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Garfield
.42. A Johnson (1-31) loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur, Jackson

For those who have been noting President Carter's rather disapproving verdict of George W. Bush, many have claimed that President Carter is, in fact, the worst of our Presidents. At this time, and with a 146-game season things could change, President Carter has a record of 9 wins and 23 losses, and is ranked 33rd on my list. Not an especially proud accomplishment, but far from the worst. My rankings should be taken with the knowledge that all polls have some degree of bias, but also that I did my level best to quantify abilities and term priorities prior to any potential match-ups.

MLP Round 031

Game Scores:

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


Three Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

Modern U.S. History, According to the Democratic Party of the United States

[ the following story was channeled through the mind of former Senator and famous hair model John Edwards ]


Once upon a time, there was a great leader in the White House, a man who loved everyone. His name was Bill. Bill loved everyone so much, he sometimes got carried away and had sex with them. Almost everyone understood this and did not mind, except the mean evil hater Republicans who never have enough sex and so hate the ones who have free love and flowers and stuff. The Republicans said that Bill was bad because some of the people he had sex with, did not want to be raped, but America knew how much Bill loved everyone, and so they did not listen to the haters.

Because Bill was so loving, everyone outside loved America. There was no war or crime or poverty or problems of any kind, and every nation loved America. But the evil Republicans did not like peace and prosperity for other nations, and so they went out and started evil groups like Al Qaeda, who would not have existed except that Halliburton wanted to take over the world, which was not cool. So Osama bin Laden started a group which wanted to help widows and orphans and puppies and kittens, but Halliburton said no, so Osama got mad and started blowing up things and killing people. The evil Republicans said that Osama was a terrorist for killing people, but America knew that was not true, that the real terrorists had to be people who built refineries and gave people jobs, because working cut down the time available for free love and for loving Bill. So Bill arranged for tax hikes, to take away more of the money which was poisoning people and making them evil, and that money went to good useful government programs which were all good and in no way wasteful, because after all Bill was in charge, and he put good people in charge of things, like Attorney General Janet Reno, who never used excessive force, and Secretary of State Madelaine Albright, who always blamed America so that the world would not feel bad about Communism and the things their own despots did, which after all were the fault of American corporations like Halliburton. The evil Republicans said that raising taxes was bad, but everyone knew that the Republicans only said that because they loved money so much, and everyone thanked Bill for taking the evil money away from them. Yaaay Bill!

Halliburton and other evil U.S. corporations continued to do bad things, like build schools and give jobs to people in other countries, which were obviously tricks so that they could take over the world. This was obvious because the jobs paid well and offered a different way of life, one without disease and which promoted independent accomplishment, which the world knew was bad. So Osama got angry and blew up some embassies. But Bill knew that Osama was only angry because the evil Republicans wanted Muslims to think for themselves and not just do as they were told by the Mullahs, so he apologized again for America and Osama calmed down. Everyone was happy again.

The evil Republicans schemed and schemed. They schemed mean schemes, they dreamed mean dreams. They found a woman who had been loved by Bill, but who said she had not wanted his love, which we all know is a lie, because who would not ant Bill’s love? Anyway, this woman sued Bill, because she wanted money, even though she said she wanted her honor back. Silly woman! The Republicans next found a judge who had a reputation for being honest – even Democrats had said so. The Republicans somehow made this judge turn evil like them, so he looked and looked and found a way to trip Bill up so that he would have to lie, because Bill loved America enough to lie to it. Even under oath and on national television. Bill wanted to protect his marriage, and his reputation, so he told the nation that he did not have sex with that woman, even though he did. But America loved Bill and knew he did nothing wrong, even if he committed felonies.

The evil Republicans impeached Bill. Mean Republicans! But AlGore defended Bill, saying Bill was the “best President in history”, and AlGore was right! Smart robot! Bill was better than George Washington, better than FDR, better than even Jimmy Carter! And of course President Bill was a better President than evil President Lincoln and President Reagan or President Eisenhower, because everyone knows that no Republican can be good. Silly Republicans, thinking that saving the Union or defeating the Soviet Union is as good as loving everybody the way Bill does! So America forgave Bill, and he loved America even more. Osama was angry at the Republicans for almost taking Bill from the White House, so he blew up a Navy ship! But Bill knew Osama was not mad at America but only at the evil Republicans, so he made sure no one hurt Osama. Three times the bad men came to Bill and told him how they could kill Osama, and every time Bill made sure no one hurt Osama. Yaaay Bill!

But it was soon time for Bill to leave the White House, because the Constitution said he could not run again, even though Bill said he would like to. Bad Constitution! And America wondered who would be President next? Maybe the good robot AlGore? Maybe Hillary, who forgave Bill for loving everyone else? Either of them could be trusted to keep evil money away from the American people, and to blame America so that the rest of the world would know we were sorry for being strong and successful. The robot AlGore was better programmed than Hillary, so Hillary went off to run New York and AlGore got ready to run America, as he knew the people wanted.

But the Republicans sent an evil trained money monkey they called “Dubya” to steal the election! Bad Republicans! The Republicans tempted many people away, by promising tax cuts – boo! – and a strong defense – boo! – and reforming the courts to do what the Constitution said, instead of listening to loving people like Bill – boo! Boo! AlGore did everything he could to make sure America got what it should get, instead of what the Constitution said, but the courts did not let him claim Florida because he did not win that state. Bad courts! The state court tried to give AlGore the state by counting votes over and over again until they got the result they wanted, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution would not let AlGore claim a state where he did not actually win. Bad Courts! Bad Constitution! Even getting military votes thrown out could not get AlGore elected, and so Dubya became President. Boo! Boo! All across America, the kind and loving people who voted for AlGore decided to reject President Money Monkey. If the Constitution made Money Monkey President, then they would reject the Constitution, and that’s what they did. Every Democrat running for office since 2000 has been careful to ignore the Constitution. Clever Democrats! Yaaay Democrats!

But Dubya the evil Money Monkey was not like Bill. Dubya wanted tax cuts, so that many Americans had to put up with extra money. Boo! Dubya wanted the courts to reform, to obey the Constitution, and so he appointed judges and justices who followed the Constitution. Boo! And over and over again, Dubya did what he promised he would do. Silly Monkey! Real politicians know you have to lie and lie, to show how much you love America.

Osama was angry again because the Money Monkey was President, and he must have been psychic too, because in 2001 Osama attacked the United States, using a plan he began working on years before while Bill was President. Osama must have known about the evil Monkey President plan, and got ready ahead of time. Smart Osama! But many Americans were sad and angry about the attack, which they blamed on Osama and the terrorists, not blaming the Money Monkey and Halliburton, who were the real bad guys, even if it was Osama’s people who actually killed folks. It’s complex, just trust the Democrats and say ‘Bad Republicans’. Bad Republicans! The Republicans wanted a war, a big war, because the Monkey President thought that Democracy is a good thing, even for Muslims, and that we should do what we warned Saddam we would do. Silly Monkey, thinking that Muslims are real people! Everyone knows Muslims cannot be trusted to govern themselves or to have a democratic government! But the Republicans controlled Congress and forced many Democrats to vote for the war, which was obviously mind control, since no Democrat would ever vote for a war, even if they made hundreds of statements indicating they would do so. After all, no war is worth an election! The war went badly at first, as the United States chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan and ejected the regime of Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Boo! Bad Republicans! Bad Army! But the Democrats did not give up, not even when Saddam was captured, not even when the top Al Qaeda operatives were killed or captured, not even when Zarqawi was stopped. Brave Democrats! Little by little, the Democrats made Americans doubt the military, little by little they lied about the Monkey President and his motives so that support would slip, and little by little the Democrats made America believe the war could not be won, and that quitting was the only real option. Clever Democrats!

The Democrats told stories and made up claims to make America realize that they were the party which should be in charge, and after a while America believed them. How clever of the Democrats, to make America hate Republicans for the same things Democrats did, and to ignore criminal action by the Democrats and overreact to mistakes by the Republicans. Yaaay Democrats!

As the next election approaches, America rejoices not only that there is no one like the evil Reagan or Dubya to worry about, but that both the good robot AlGore and the wise and all-knowing Hillary are available to support. America can soon expect the hated tax cuts to be repealed, and once again whenever an evil act is done, America will apologize and blame the Republicans and evil corporations. Bill must have planned this. Clever Bill! Yaaay Bill!

Mindsnap

The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 astonished the world. Rather than admit that the plot was well-designed and executed, many people fell back on acceptable assumptions and conceits. I call this behavior “mindsnap”. Another example of this may be found in the way so many analysts address the JFK assassination in 1963. There are, to be plain, a lot of questions which should be considered about that assassination, yet many who believe the government’s original case that Oswald acted alone (1964) refuse to consider evidence which contradicts the claim. On the other hand, many who believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, as Congress also concluded in 1978, also refuse to consider evidence which did not fit their own assumptions. The trauma of having to deal with a horrific event causes people to lock out difficult concepts and questions which cannot easily be answered. It is my belief that only be acknowledging the existence of such a behavior, can one begin to correct that bias and approach difficult questions with a fair hope for resolution.

Recognizing this syndrome is helpful in comprehending the behavior of certain groups. Mindsnap is why people afraid of Islamofascism can ignore that the horror or Terrorism is carried out by less than one-tenth of one percent of Muslims. It’s why millions of American Muslims can demand that they be respected without publicly denouncing the murder of innocents in the name of their religion. It’s why people will angrily denounce cartoons rather than stand up for helpless victims of repression, come to that. It’s why people who are determined to believe a conspiracy theory for major events will ignore all the evidence that they embrace an absurd fantasy. It’s why folks can support a leader at one point, then later pretend he is a fraud for maintaining the same position he always did. It’s why so many people feel obliged to refer to an unpopular leader as the “worst in history”. It’s why masses of people can blame the federal government for state and local government blunders, or for acts of Nature. It’s why people can still presume that folks will act a certain way, according to their appearance and genetic background. It’s why people can demand they and their community be respected , even as they show no such respect to anyone not aligned with their political and cultural opinion. It’s why various hatemongers can be not only excused for their venom, but lionized as some kind of hero for even the most vicious lies. It’s why some can claim they “support the troops”, when they do absolutely nothing to back them up in their mission or needs, or to care for their families. It’s why the MSM tosses off a few selected sound bytes which match their perspective and call it “news”. And it’s why rational attempts to discuss issues and reach a consensus are all but doomed before they begin.

So what does the mature mind do when faced with such a massive syndrome affecting the sanity and reason of the species? Well, that’s where you and I come in. The only cure is to sit people down, one by one, show them their false assumptions, challenge them to look at the broader perspective, and hope for a few grey cells to kick in and move the brain to cogency. The bad news is, this is a huge problem and it’s growing fast. The good news is, we’ve seen this before. Those who know History will remember the arrogant assumptions of the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Romans, and all the various monarchies throughout Time. Every time, someone took up the challenge and forced a look at the facts. It’s just that time again.

MLP Round 030

Game Scores:

Washington at Madison, 38-25 Washington
Grant at Ford, 35-25 Ford
Harding at McKinley, 37-24 McKinley
L Johnson at GW Bush, 36-20 GW Bush
Lincoln at Reagan, 37-31 Lincoln
Hayes at T Roosevelt, 33-26 TR
Truman at Polk, 32-30 Polk
Fillmore at Taylor, 34-30 Fillmore
Jefferson at Wilson, 29-25 Jefferson
J Adams at A Johnson, 28-19 J Adams
F Roosevelt at Taft, 30-29 Taft
Eisenhower at Carter, 29-26 Ike
Monroe at Coolidge, 27-22 Monroe
Kennedy at B Harrison, 30-22 JFK
Garfield at Cleveland, 31-29 Cleveland
Arthur at JQ Adams, 29-27 Arthur
Jackson at Van Buren, 29-23 Jackson
Nixon at Hoover, 26-25 Hoover
GH Bush at Clinton, 31-25 GH Bush
Tyler at Pierce, 25-22 Tyler
Buchanan at W Harrison, 35-23 W Harrison

Three Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

Spook Stories

I don’t agree with everything my colleague Jay posts at Wizbang. I, for example, give a lot more credit to the Bush White House for competency than he does, although I have to admit that on the subject of Immigration, Dubya’s mental acuity is far less than optimal or his usual standard. Jay has mentioned that recently we have been thinking along the same lines, so much so at times that it is eerie. In this case, his article about the CIA operations in Iran gave me a nudge to think about past performances.

It is somehow not commonly understood about Intelligence people, that they like to be thought of as ‘incompetent’ and ‘stupid’. As in, ’That guy? He’s not smart enough to have figured out what we’re doing, much less be part of any group which could do something about it’. The Intelligence Community is counter-intuitive that way, preferring to avoid stories which raise awareness of their successes, even choosing to embrace stories which make them look like they could not possibly do the job. The image of the suave and brilliant spy makes for good movies, but such people are always watched too closely to be truly effective as operatives. In the actual case the ideal spy, whether collecting information or performing an operation, wants to be nondescript, impossible to remember or identify with any specificity, and so common that he or she is taken for granted. Like a janitor or a clerk, like some ordinary schmoe who attracts no attention. Ordinary, casual, nobody.

I could point to obvious works of impressive effort and brilliance, which are to often taken for granted. It is understood that the National Security Agency can monitor and track thousands of international telephone calls and radio transmissions. A large reason for this is the network of cables laid in oceans and tapping into foreign telecom lines. Few people think about how we did that. Or for that matter, how the United States anticipates, then thwarts online warfare efforts, such as the repeated efforts to crash the NYSE transaction records or the Treasury Department internal servers. Yes folks, there are fed-geeks protecting America’s data infrastructure. And what about multi-lateral data mining for referent decisioning by crisis managers? The integration of universities into the national infrastructure predates FDR, but has been radically reformed in recent years. The image of cloak and dagger has been obsolete since before you were born, and the ubiquitous black helicopter is so last-Century.

Personal stories do come out from the field, though. They tend to be anecdotal, so that verification is impossible, but every so often you hear one which reminds you that the spooks may be invisible, but not inactive. I try to be somewhat careful with the stories I hear, because I have friends in the business, and so nothing new or particularly detailed can be relayed, even if someone scrubs a story before I hear it. But I can remind the reader of some of the older stories, classics if you will, which convey a sense of what’s going on. Like the incident where the crew of a Soviet submarine in the Pacific killed their political officer and captain, and radioed the U.S. Navy about defecting to the West – after surfacing in the middle of San Diego Bay. Like the defection of the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations in 1979 after denouncing the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, which required the armed assistance of the United States BDS and a helicopter rescue. Like the steal-and-switch of a nuclear warhead which Hussein tried to buy in 1994, replacing a small plutonium warhead from a Warsaw Pact device with radioactive waste. Like the Chinese couple given ten million dollars for the purpose of setting up a network in the United States, who chose instead to go on the run and live off the money, neither defecting to the West nor serving their Communist paymaster. Like the field technicians who “repaired” countless Soviet ICBMs with weak wire connections which would be likely to fail if they were ever actually launched. Some of those stories are bound to be garbage, some true but unverifiable, but the emphasis here is that there are many brave and hard-working people in the Intelligence Community, whose anonymous efforts have saved the world many times over.

Have you hugged your spook today?

Reformation

"Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days"

- Fred Thompson, about the proposed Immigration Reform bill under debate and attack


For the past few days, I have addressed weak spots and gaping holes in the various plans to address the problem of illegals in the United States. The response has been contentious, and more than a few people have proven themselves unwilling to do anything more than spew venom and insults. Even among those who claim to be experts in this area. Several people have challenged me to announce my own plan, which sounds fair enough, except that most of those wouldn’t give it attention except to attack it and target their present phobias and malice upon it.

I also held off presenting my ideas for three additional reasons. First, I wanted the readers to note that many of the Blogosphere’s leading figureheads are not presenting any substantive ideas. They’re quick to condemn others and to attack anything someone tries to do, but they are not doing much to try to solve the problem, and therefore they become part of the problem. The Democrats and Liberals have tossed out a lot of garbage, but it’s too easy for me as a Republican to just focus on why Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have neither the inclination nor the mental acuity to present a cogent plan, to say nothing of the wisdom needed to plan for the long term and the nation’s welfare. It is necessary and appropriate to sometimes rebuke the self-anointed “leaders” of the Conservative Movement, who collect lots of money and attention but do not feel that they should be answerable for their decisions and positions. The second reason, was that I wanted readers to realize how much of this depends on recognizing the complexity of the problem and the crucial need for each of us to participate in our own interest. The third reason, was that when one seriously thinks through the problem, one inevitably comes to the hard conclusion that the real solution is not the specific plan to address this issue, so much as it is that we as Conservatives have lost what we once were, and we need to reform – once again – for the good of the nation.

Not so long ago, Democrats were soiling their pants on a daily basis. America had acted unilaterally, and worse – successfully – in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our enemies fled before us, and from National Security to Tax Cuts to Supreme Court picks it seemed that Common Sense had returned home and taken up residence, even in D.C. to a degree. This was very good for Dubya and the Right, and awfully scary for the Left and the Wrong. But suddenly it was gone, and the Donkey Kong took over Congress and the Old Media sneered in its renewed influence.

Where did those days go?

The corruption of a few, the indolence of many others, and the self-serving routine of almost everyone else in the GOP is what happened. In a matter of months almost too fast to believe, the ‘Party of Lincoln’ devolved into egos and petty feuds. An unpopular pick for the Supreme Court was hounded mercilessly, rather than let her have the hearings which the GOP once said were the minimum reasonable standard. A trusted ally was insulted and told – in effect – that the United States would rather have Communist China in charge of our ports than them, simply because they are Arab. Our strongest voice for sanity in the United Nations was deserted by our Senators because the Left didn’t like him. And promising initiatives to reform Social Security, pursue Tort Reform, and yes, to set comprehensive, effective, and consistent laws and metrics on sealing the borders and stopping the flood of illegals entering the United States, were all ignored because the politicians did not see personal gains for tackling them. We had chances, many of them, but the Republicans did not want to do the hard work when they had the majority, so it seems more than slightly naïve to imagine that being in the minority will make things better, especially given the way most Republicans have acted since the 2006 elections. Yeah, elections have consequences, and the 2006 elections seem to have turned most Republicans into spineless narcissists. I mean, besides those who were already that way.

Fixing the Illegal Migration and Border Security problems is not really that hard, fortunately. All it really takes is the will to get the current laws enforced, put up the means to physically enforce the law, like a good fence and document sweeps at businesses, and after some consideration, pass laws to cover the grey areas and what was missed before. But what that will require is the willpower, the party discipline, to make a plan and have everyone support it. To understand that getting some of what you need now and some later, is much better than all-now-or-nothing. That’s why I kept poking at the suggestions made, because while some were good and some were poor, none of them has a prayer of happening unless the Conservatives realize they have to support the Republican Party, and Republicans realize that they have to stand together. The good news is, that the specific actions which will make it possible to seal the borders and reform Immigration, will also make it possible to tend to the other needs of the nation.

So, here are my specifics:

First off, we have retake Congress. There is no chance, whatsoever, that a Congress under the thumb of the Democrats will ever address the key issues with an attendant sense of responsibility or accountability. To that end, even a RINO is more desirable than a Democrat who sounds reasonable but votes along party lines. Obviously, the more conservative the better, but the first critical action is to seek out and support Republicans. All Republicans.

The second step is just as hard, will take just as long, but is just as important. The original Republicans banded together on one key issue – abolishing Slavery – and never yielded on that point. The new Republicans will also have to decide where their home turf is. I had believed that turf would be National Security, but if it is, then anything and everything – including Immigration Reform – comes after that, and cannot be allowed to break ranks. That does not mean that Republicans should not have a party platform on secondary issues, but we must agree to stand together as a party in order to advance the main issue, even when we disagree on other important decisions. I know that some people want to call dealing with the Illegals a National Security issue, but diluting our position with regard to our response to Terrorism has allowed the Left to call for a retreat from Iraq. If that happens, they will next want to quit Afghanistan and anywhere else that our Democracy is incompatible with the Left. The defense of the nation must not fail, no matter what else it costs.

The third step is to remember that the GOP is the party of ideas and open discussion. No, not all ideas are equally valid or good, but the GOP has always allowed for a range of opinion and even dissent. Slamming alternative proposals by other Republicans goes against the spirit of decades of Conservative and GOP ideals, but this repression of simple conversation is an appalling practice which must end now. Bloggers may certainly prefer one program or proposal over others, but I personally find it obscene how often leading figureheads will deliberately misrepresent alternatives in order to avoid a serious debate. Let’s leave that to the Democrats.

MLP Round 029

Game Scores:

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


Three Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

Seeking the Facile Mind of the Hewitts and the Malkins

Almost everyone outside Washington D.C. agrees that the Immigration Reform bill cooked up this week by a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Idiots, Poseurs, Bureaucrats, Gullible, and their assorted staffs, is at best a poorly-designed and incomplete work. For example, in my opinion the bill has some good points and some weak ones, but is useless because it has absolutely no enforcement provisions, as if the federal government will enlist the help of the Keebler Elves to make it work.

But that belief in fairy-tale mechanics is not limited to the proponents of this bill, either. For a long time now, it has been quite the fashion for some people to savagely attack the President and the Congress for whatever they suggest, while presenting no substantive proposal as an alternative. What always happens is that they toss out a goal, like securing the borders, and call it the action, which would be how to make that happen. This is dishonest on its face, especially when it is practiced and repeated by the very people who complain about weak spots in the plans pur forth by the serious people.

This is particularly poor conduct by the media, and there I include the web media and bloggers, especially Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin. There was a time I respected Malkin's well-considered opinion, but she has dived into the sea of 'hate the foreigners' so often and with such clear malice that I cannot consider her work balanced. As for Mr. Hewitt, I generally respect him but have been forced to conclude that on this issue he is not reasonable, and seems unaware that he is using the same rhetorical tactics he has - quite properly - rebuked in others before. So I have a challenge for the Hewitts and the Malkins of the Blogosphere.

The President and the Congress have not been able to come up with an effective, functional plan for securing the borders and addressing Immigration Reform proactively. What specific, detailed plan do you have or know of, which will accomplish the following essential goals:

[] Secure the national borders from constant and pervasive penetration by illegals, and potentially terrorists?

[] Enforce the laws already on the books, which address illegal possession of documents, especially forged and stolen documents, which address employment of illegals by American companies, and which address the disposition of persons found to have entered the United States illegally?

[] Address the presence of more than twelve million foreign nationals already residing in the United States, in a manner which is compliant with the U.S. Constitution, viable given available resources, and realistic regarding the response by those persons to the initiative?


The President has already made specific proposals on these points, and so any claim which effectively tries to take the same suggestion without crediting the President for the idea will be disallowed. Vague homilies such as 'make all illegals leave', or 'we should force businesses to obey the law' will be ridiculed. And in keeping with your own past behavior, ignoring this challenge will allow me to claim that you do not intend to seriously address the issue.


My point is not to harangue or heckle Mr. Hewitt or Ms. Malkin. In the actual case, I frankly do not expect either of them to respond, because neither of them seems interested in solving problems, but only in making a noise about the issue, which is common for media. What I do hope to accomplish, is to remind the reader that complex issues are difficult to sort out in the best of times, and even politicians can be credited with trying to find a good solution with little support or cooperation from the very people who claim they care the most.

MLP Round 028

Game Scores:

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


Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.


The new Rankings are as follows:

After Twenty-Eight Rounds

.1. Washington (27-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.2. Ford (27-1) beats Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
.3. McKinley (27-1) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
.4. GW Bush (27-1) beats Taft, Truman, Harding, JFK
.5. Lincoln (26-2) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.6. Reagan (25-3) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (25-3) beats Garfield, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.8. Polk (22-6) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.9. Jefferson (22-6) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Washington, Clinton
.10. J Adams (20-8) beats Tyler, Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleve.

.11. Truman (20-8) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush
.12. FDR (19-9) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.13. Kennedy (19-9) beats Clinton, Cool, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.14. Fillmore (19-9) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.15. Monroe (17-11) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.16. Taylor (17-11) beats W Harrison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.17. Nixon (15-13) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.18. Jackson (15-13) beats Arthur, Tyler, Cleveland, loses to Garfield
.19. Cleveland (16-12) beats J Adams, Arthur, loses to FDR, Jackson
.20. Eisenhower (16-12) beats LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson, Monroe

.21. Taft (14-14) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.22. Tyler (12-16) beats Arthur, Garfield, loses to J Adams, Jackson
.23. Garfield (13-15) beats Jackson, W Harr, loses to TR, Tyler
.24. Hayes (13-15) beats GH Bush, Madison, loses to Carter, Ford
.25. Quincy Adams (12-16) beats B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.26. Arthur (10-18) beats Pierce, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.27. Carter (9-19) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.28. GH Bush (10-18) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Wash
.29. Harding (8-20) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.30. W Harrison (9-19) loses to Reagan, TR, Garfield, Taylor

.31. Grant (8-20) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.32. Madison (8-20) loses to Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln
.33. Clinton (7-21) beats LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon, Jefferson
.34. Wilson (7-21) loses to Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.35. Coolidge (4-24) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.36. B Harrison (5-23) beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.37. Buchanan (5-23) beats Madison, loses to Carter, Ford, Reagan
.38. LBJ (4-24) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.39. Hoover (3-25) beats A Johnson, loses to Taft, Truman, Harding
.40. Van Buren (3-25) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.41. Pierce (2-26) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.42. A Johnson (1-27) loses to Hoover, B Harr, McKinley, Polk

Original Sin

Original Sin is one of those concepts which few people really want to seriously address. It’s not surprising – those who believe we are sinful tend not to care too much about detailed histories and conjectures, because they really just want to be healed from sin, and those who do not believe we are sinful by nature reject the whole environment as invalid from the start. As a result, people tend to miss the intention of the concept, and to take the good news it offers.

The first thing I would say in addressing this phrase, is to remind the audience that God is indeed good and loving, and therefore, if Original Sin exists as a condition, it is there for a good reason and not to trip us up. Some of the weaker preachers out there try to scare folks into believing in God, by warning they will go to Hell if they do not surrender. And to that end, they sell Original Sin as a way to say ’It doesn’t matter if you do good and love everyone, you’re born condemned and you need Jesus – or else!’

I mean, sheesh, God as Tony Soprano? I don’t think so!

So what’s the deal? Well, I start from the fact that we all sin. We all sin, and that’s just a fact. So we have to do something about it, because sin is a poison, one which an eternal being cannot tolerate. And when I say ‘eternal being’, I’m not saying God has that problem, I mean that we are eternal beings, and the sins we commit in our lives must be addressed or we will forever be pained by them.

For here, I will leave off the importance of being Christian, because I think that’s another major issue which has gotten greatly misunderstood. But we do need to reconcile with God, not because He’s standing off somewhere with His back to us and His arms crossed, angry because we broke His precious rules, but because He is perfectly pure and holy, and we cannot be with Him unless and until our sin is removed.

Basically, we need three things with regard to Sin: We need to clear our souls of sin, we need to change our nature to a holy one, and we need to put our faith into action and produce good fruit. This is the common theme throughout the Bible. The forgiveness of Sin comes from God, who after all desires that we should be free of evil and the pain it brings. The production of faith into good works is the natural result of a grateful soul aligned with God, so the only missing piece is the change in nature. The concept of Original Sin is important to this part, because when properly understood it explains why that change is possible. It’s “Original Sin”, not “Eternal Sin”, meaning that while we must wrestle with moral and ethical questions throughout our lives, we can be comforted in the knowledge that just as our bodies will be left behind when we die, while we receive perfect bodies in the life to come, so too our nature for sinful behavior is also locked into the body, and no longer torments us when we pass over to God. Therefore, the concept of Original Sin should be seen as the promise of hope, not a threat or condemnation.

MLP Round 027

Game Scores:

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


Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

What Is, Is What? Immigration Reform and Congress

There are some things that you just know are a bad idea. Leaving teenagers unsupervised on a weekend. Letting the neighbor who can’t even remember your name “borrow” your new rider mower. And trusting a “bipartisan” bill from Congress.

What a piece of work, this latest thing on “Immigration Reform”.

It’s got something for everyone, which is what usually happens when committees of poll-driven narcissists put out public policy. There are Republicans who like it, there are Republicans who hate it, there are Democrats who like it, there are Democrats who hate it, there are both Republicans and Democrats who won’t say whether they like it until they find out from their staff which position is more poll-popular in their state or district. The whole issue of Immigration Reform has been a total mess for years, and it’s not as if putting Pelosi and Reid in charge of the whorehouse has improved the character of the lineup.

As you might expect, I give President Bush a little slack for this. The GOP-controlled Congress sat on its hands rather than deal with this for years, so it’s not as if he could expect Donkey Kong to get it right. And like it or not, President Bush’s 2007 position on Immigration Reform is the same as it was in 2000 when he first ran for President.

On the other hand, I have to say this bill will hurt Bush in the long term. Most of his decisions were made with a proper attention to the ethical results, doing what was right rather than what was easy or popular. I think that in this case, however, the results as time passes will be disappointing, because of one critical flaw in the bill.

Oh, the bill has more than one flaw in it. As self-serving political postures go, this one actually has some good points, but also more than a few warts. But there is one aspect to it, which is so serious that even if the rest of the bill was perfect in its intent and design, would doom it to failure.

Enforcement.

People who work with Immigration and who know the issues first-hand, have always said that a lot of the problems we face could be solved by simply enforcing the laws which are already on the books. There are a number of reasons why this has not happened, including friction between local and federal law enforcement agencies, politics played by local governments which do not wish to obey the law themselves, and gaps in the legislation which need to be fixed. Congress, as you might guess, is not in the habit of going back and fixing its mistakes, and the Pelosi/Reid team is not about to show the maturity and diligence needed to address the matter in depth now. And the present bill demonstrates that fact. There is no mention about how the fence being built will be repaired when, as is inevitable, ‘coyotes’ and leftist activists cut into it. There is no mention about who will prosecute the businesses caught hiring illegals, or how they will be caught (It’s already illegal now, you know, just not enforced). And so on.

The Senate ought to vote this bill down, but it will not. Bush ought to veto this bill, but he won’t. And we ought to know better than to believe that this Congress would seriously try to address the flood of illegals crossing the border, but you know Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charles Gibson will sing the praises of Senora Pelosi for a long time on this.

At least with the teenagers, you could ground them.

MLP Round 026

Game Scores:

Washington at Jefferson, 35-34 Washington
Fillmore at Ford, 35-33 Ford
McKinley at Quincy Adams, 39-27 McKinley
GW Bush at Truman, 35-32 GW Bush
Lincoln at GH Bush, 36-28 Lincoln
Taylor at Reagan, 31-28 Reagan
W Harrison at T Roosevelt, 33-28 TR
Polk at Van Buren, 27-23 Polk
J Adams at Cleveland, 31-30 Cleveland
F Roosevelt at Pierce, 30-22 FDR
Eisenhower at L Johnson, 32-21 Ike
Grant at Monroe, 30-27 Monroe
Coolidge at Kennedy, 32-30 JFK
Hoover at Taft, 30-25 Taft
Garfield at Jackson, 31-28 Garfield
Clinton at Nixon, 30-23 Nixon
Hayes at Carter, 26-24 Carter
Arthur at Tyler, 32-30 Tyler
Buchanan at Madison, 26-25 Buchanan
Wilson at Harding, 27-23 Harding
B Harrison at A Johnson, 20-19 B Harrison


Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

The Dubya Standard

I watched the Republicans debate in South Carolina on Tuesday, and I noticed how many of them tried to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan. It was, frankly, laughable. The Reagan Aura has grown far beyond anything a mortal man could hope to claim, but even the real Reagan was much more than any of these yokels could hope to compare.

I happen to think that the Republicans in the race would be very wise to try to show how much they are like our current President, George W. Bush. Yep, that’s right. For all the conventional wisdom that folks should try to avoid being seen with Dubya, I argue that anyone who wants to get elected in 2008 had better start moving towards him, not away.

There are many reasons why I believe this. Let’s start with the obvious fact that somehow got lost; Dubya collected more than 62 million votes in 2004. And at that time, his Job Approval, the number most media hacks were noting, was floating around 50 percent. The present media number is an average Job Approval of 34%, according to Real Clear Politics, which by simple math means that President Bush still has over 42 million people who vote by the Bush Standard. Not that 42 million would be enough to win, but only a complete moron would drive away 42 million or think that they could win without them.

Before I continue, I should be careful to say that I am not looking for a Bush clone. Much as I admire Dubya, the man has made mistakes, not least in ignoring the political consequences of a decision. It’s laughable, how many Democrats accuse the President of politicizing a decision when it is plain that he does nothing of the sort; after all, a man who wanted to play politics would have timed the ‘Fort Dix’ story to break last fall, or would have spun the capture of key Al Qaeda operatives for maximum press, or might have ignored the welfare of two Middle East countries in a bombastic effort to produce the corpse of Osama as some kind of bloody trophy, rather than let the military do their job and keep his mouth shut for the most part. Not that I want a Macchiavellian type of politician, but that Bush most definitely has steered clear of deceit and hype, and a successful politician, like it or not, has to consider how to build that political capital. James Carville may be a soulless monster, but he is popular in D.C. for a reason. Any successful President, like it or not, is probably going to need something of that killer instinct, or to trust an advisor who has it.

The next reason for would-be Presidents to consider Dubya, is the accomplishments he has made. I know it’s quite the fashion to tab Bush as a “failed” President somehow, but in reality his work has been effective. His tax cuts unquestionably eased the 2001 recession which followed the 9/11 attacks, his Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary nominations have been superb from the perspective of judicial reform (rolling back the tide of activist judges who ignore the Constitution), his National Security doctrine has prevented another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and has severely damaged the capabilities of Al Qaeda and other Islamogfascist organizations (far too many people judge the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the peculiar assumption that terrorists would have stayed home and been peaceful, rather than grown in ambition and violence, if we had just let Saddam go on in his murderous ways). And yeah, Dubya has done a pretty good job of helping Americans understand the signature differences between a Republican President and a Democrat President.

Folks also forget how Bush got elected. Every President has a certain element which makes the difference in election, and for many that difference comes down to, well, likeability. People like Dubya, and always have. Next to him, Kerry and Gore were stone-faced goons. And we’ve seen that before. Republicans should remember that Bill Clinton worked hard to show himself as relaxed and comfortable, a nice guy, while Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush came off as stuffy and self-absorbed. And yet “Poppy” Bush was a heckuva lot more likeable than Mike “mechanitron” Dukakis. And do I need to remind you how much more Ronald Reagan was, than Walter “Sourpuss” Mondale or Jimmy Carter? Sure, it’s not everything, but time and time again we see Presidents win in part because they just come across as a good guy. Shewt, remember “I like Ike”?

By now, you can see where I am going. Hillary, McCain, bye-bye, thanks for playing, but you’re both outta-there. I will keep up the suspense somewhat by not going further here, but it’s not that hard to understand, that the person with the “right stuff” to be the next President of the United States, ought to be studying George W. Bush.

With attention and respect.

MLP Round 025

Game Scores:

L Johnson at Washington, 36-28 Washington
Ford at Taylor, 32-30 Ford
Van Buren at McKinley, 37-25 McKinley
Taft at GW Bush, 36-26 GW Bush
Monroe at Lincoln, 37-33 Lincoln
Reagan at W Harrison, 37-35 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Garfield, 31-29 TR
Pierce at Polk, 32-21 Polk
Madison at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
Jefferson at Grant, 31-25 Jefferson
Tyler at J Adams, 30-28 J Adams
Truman at Wilson, 30-25 Truman
Cleveland at F Roosevelt, 33-29 FDR
Nixon at Eisenhower, 31-30 Nixon
Kennedy at Clinton, 31-25 JFK
Quincy Adams at B Harrison, 31-22 JQA
Jackson at Arthur, 29-26 Jackson
GH Bush at Hayes, 28-25 Hayes
Carter at Buchanan, 22-20 Carter
Harding at Coolidge, 27-22 Harding
A Johnson at Hoover, 29-21 Hoover


Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.

MLP Round 024

Game Scores:

Washington at Nixon, 36-30 Washington
Ford at W Harrison, 33-25 Ford
McKinley at Pierce, 35-18 McKinley
GW Bush at A Johnson, 35-19 GW Bush
Jefferson at Lincoln, 37-31 Lincoln
Reagan at T Roosevelt, 37-33 Reagan
Cleveland at Polk, 32-29 Polk
Carter at Fillmore, 31-19 Fillmore
J Adams at Jackson, 29-28 J Adams
Coolidge at Truman, 32-28 Truman
Madison at Taylor, 30-21 Taylor
Eisenhower at Kennedy, 33-32 Ike
Tyler at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
Monroe at Hayes, 29-28 Monroe
Wilson at Taft, 30-23 Taft
Hoover at JQ Adams, 27-23 JQA
Garfield at Arthur, 29-26 Garfield
GH Bush at Buchanan, 31-20 GH Bush
L Johnson at Grant, 25-22 Grant
Clinton at Harding, 28-27 Clinton
B Harrison at Van Buren, 26-23 B Harrison


Four Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 2 have 2 wins, and one President has one win.


The new Rankings are as follows:

After Twenty-Four Rounds

.1. Washington (23-1) beats Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.2. Ford (23-1) beats Garfield, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.3. McKinley (23-1) beats Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Pierce
.4. GW Bush (23-1) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.5. Lincoln (22-2) beats JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson
.6. Reagan (21-3) beats Madison, TR, loses to Ford, Garfield
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (21-2) beats Carter, Mad, loses to Ford, Reagan
.8. Polk (18-6) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.9. Fillmore (18-6) beats Monroe, GHB, Carter, loses to Jefferson
.10. Jefferson (19-5) beats Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Lincoln

.11. J Adams (17-7) beats Garfield, Arthur, Jackson, loses to FDR
.12. Truman (17-7) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Washington
.13. Taylor (16-8) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Monroe
.14. FDR (15-9) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.15. Eisenhower (15-9) beats Taft, Harding, JFK, loses to Truman
.16. Monroe (15-9) beats Taylor, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Fillmore
.17. Kennedy (16-8) beats Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington, Ike
.18. Cleveland (14-10) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk
.19. Taft (12-12) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Ike
.20. Quincy Adams (11-13) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GWB

.21. Garfield (11-13) beats Arthur, loses to Ford, J Adams, Reagan
.22. Jackson (12-12) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.23. Nixon (11-13) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Washington
.24. Hayes (11-13) beats Nixon, LBJ, loses to Jefferson, Monroe
.25. GH Bush (9-15) beats W Harr, Buchanan loses to Taylor, Fillmore
.26. Tyler (10-14) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.27. Grant (8-16) Beats Harding, LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon
.28. W Harrison (9-15) beats Carter, Madison, loses to GH Bush, Ford
.29. Arthur (9-15) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Garfield
.30. Clinton (6-18) beats A Johnson, Harding, loses to Taft, Truman


.31. Madison (8-16) loses to Reagan, TR, W Harrison, Taylor
.32. Wilson (7-17) beats Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft
.33. Carter (6-18) loses to TR, W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore
.34. B Harrison (4-20) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Tyler, Cleve
.35. Harding (5-19) loses to Grant, Washington, Ike, Clinton
.36. LBJ (4-20) beats Buchanan, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.37. Buchanan (4-20) loses to LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.38. Van Buren (3-21) beats Hoov, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, B Harr
.39. Coolidge (3-21) loses to JQA, A Johnson, Taft, Truman
.40. Pierce (2-22) beats Hoover, loses to GWB, B Harr, McKinley
.41. Hoover (2-22) loses to Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.42. A Johnson (1-23) beats Coolidge, loses to Clinton, Wilson, GWB