Just a Reminder: It’s a Bad Idea to Ignore History

The readers who know me are well aware that I said early on, that a Republican would win the White House in 2008. I did not make that prediction in 2004 or 2005, but 2006 when it seemed as though the Donks were doing a ‘reconquista’ on everything the Reagan Revolution had given to the American people. And I made that prediction on the basis of two key traits:

[] While they are absolute morons at times, Republicans in general will put the country ahead of everything else, and the voters know this;
[] Democrats always end up going to extremes, having abandoned the center to the degree that they cannot find it, even when they most need it.

In short, I am confident that the GOP will nominate someone capable enough for the job, who will demonstrate love for America and a commitment to American interests, and I am also confident that the Donks will ignore history to a degree sufficient to cost them the election. Lord knows, they’ve shown that propensity beyond dispute in recent years. A simple example of this can be seen in the results of past Presidential elections, and what it means for 2008. The following are the results of Presidential elections since World War 2 by the class of candidate’s occupation, that is the role most voters identified with the candidate:

2004 - President defeats Senator
2000 - Governor defeats Vice-President
1996 - President defeats Senator
1992 – Governor defeats President
1988 – Vice-President defeats Governor
1984 – President defeats Senator
1980 – Governor defeats President
1976 – Governor defeats President
1972 – President defeats Senator
1968 – Vice-President defeats Vice-President
1964 – President defeats Senator
1960 – Senator defeats Vice-President
1956 – President defeats Governor
1952 – General defeats Governor
1948 – President defeats Governor

Looking at that run, we see the President running 10 times, winning 7 of them (70%). Vice-Presidents ran 5 times, winning twice (40%). Senators ran 6 times, winning once (17%). A retired General ran once and won (100%), and Governors ran 8 times, winning 4 of them (50%). If we considered just those numbers, Wesley Clark would look much more formidable (but it would be foolish to over-count the results of one instance), but in general the results tell us that whatever a party wants in a candidate, nominating a Senator is a bad idea. Sure, JFK won as a Senator, but that was against Richard Nixon, and even then it was a squeaker and some folks would argue that Kennedy, umm, “had help” in that election. It’s a lot more interesting to see the other five Senators:

1964 – Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona; a popular champion of Conservatism and seemed a formidable match against Lyndon Johnson. But Goldwater only collected 38.5% of the popular vote, and won only 6 states;

1972 – Senator George McGovern from Minnesota; very popular with the Left, who believed Vietnam would be the issue to drive Nixon from office. But McGovern claimed only 37.5% of the popular vote, and won only 1 state;

1984 – Senator Walter Mondale from Minnesota; the Democrats though his ‘straight-talk’ style would appeal to Americans. But Mondale claimed only 40.6% of the popular vote, and won only 1 state;

1996 – Senator Bob Dole from Kansas; the GOP believed his war record and impeccable personal integrity would win over voters against the scandal-ridden Bill Clinton. But Dole took only 40.7% of the popular vote, although he won 19 states;

2004 – Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts; Democrats thought his medals from Vietnam would make him credible as a critic of Bush and the war in Iraq. Kerry did the best of the losing Senators, claiming 48.3% of the popular vote, and like Dole he won 19 states.

So these five nominees were all impressive at the time to their party, and carried something like charisma into the general election. But when the ballots were counted, they won a collective average of 41.1% of the popular vote, and an average of only 9 states. Whether Democrat or Republican, in peacetime or war, running a Senator as the party nominee is a poor choice, tactically.

So, looking at the two major parties, what does this mean about the races? The Republicans have a Mayor and a Governor in the lead, with another Governor and two Senators a bit behind. Kick out the Senators from the GOP race and you still have three healthy contenders. For the Democrats, things are a bit different. Both of the heavy front-runners are Senators, and so is the guy in third place. Only Governor Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis “I See Green People” Kucinich are left if you scratch off the Senators. So, it looks very much as if the Democrats will nominate a Senator to run against a GOP nominee who is not a Senator.

Bad odds if you’re a Donk fan, but hopeful for Americans.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 12

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


12. What is your first proposal to balance the Federal Budget?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 11

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


11. Should undocumented aliens have the ability to get legal drivers licenses?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 10

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


10. Given that many states give equal treatment U.S. citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens, just what does it mean to be a U.S. citizen (besides not being hassled by Immigration?)

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 9

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


9. What are the limits to judicial authority?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 8

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


8. What will you do to ensure the integrity of the voting system?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 7

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.



7. Where do you stand on eliminating the income tax and SSI tax and replacing them with a national consumption tax?

Liars For Libel; Hollywood Still Badly Misses the Target

A new film is opening up this month, a little “make you think” piece directed by Robert Redford, whose ego demands that he also show up in the film as an actor. "Lions for Lambs" is essentially three stories, ostensibly representing three different views of the war, not in Iraq but in Afghanistan. The first story examines the overview of the war, and contends that no one knows how to fight terrorism, which is a bald lie, but a convenient one for Redford, since it attempts to establish a moral equivalency between Left and Right; if no one has the right answer, no one can claim the other side is wrong, hmm?

The film is a clear bit of Democrat propaganda; a heroic and idealistic Liberal reporter (played by Streep) taking on the claims of a fairly bombastic Republican Senator (Cruise), and while on the face it appears that the debate is balanced, I found it biased, which is hardly surprising given the director, the screenplay, and the casting.

The second story is even more hard-Left, casting Redford as an idealistic university professor who worries that students simply do not care about the world in general, and it is somehow up to him to convince them, as the film’s tagline goes, “If you don’t stand for something, you might fall for anything”, which in the context of the film never explores the possibility that the Left might be the side harboring the con men, but this is to be expected from Redford.

The third story pretends to be the ‘conservative’ side, focusing on two soldiers trying to stay alive while surrounded by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Like so many offerings from Hollywood, the story presented is completely alien to actual events and true military doctrine used by U.S. forces, but then it would be stunning indeed for Hollywood to actually pay attention to what real troops really do, to examine the true tactics or listen to real accounts of battle in the present war. The truth, as always, is inconvenient for the Left, and so Redford uses nothing of the sort in his work.

This character of film-making is nothing surprising. Before this film, Redford’s work included a disillusioned spy trainer in “Spy Game”, a hacker working against both the NSA and the Mafia in “Sneakers”, a soldier betrayed by a blundering government in “A Bridge Too Far”, an idealistic reporter in “All The President’s Men”, and an innocent man being hunted down by the CIA in “Three Days of the Condor”.

As for Meryl Streep, her history includes “Rendition”, an already-infamous account of how Iran is good and Israel and the United States are bad bad bad, “The Machurian Candidate” (the 2004 remake) where conservatives brain-wash candidates and kill anyone trying to stop them, and of course “The Deer Hunter”, where Vietnam Vets suffer horribly from trauma caused, you guessed it, by a callous U.S. government.

As for Tom Cruise, it’s true he did “Top Gun” as a hot-shot Navy pilot, but he also did the “Mission Impossible” movies, where the U.S. government is always up to no good, “A Few Good Men”, where he plays an idealistic Liberal attorney determined to prove that Marines abuse their recruits, and of course his early work in “Taps”, playing a beserk Cadet Captain who kills dozens of people in a spree of blood lust. It is hardly coincidence that Redford loaded his film up with anti-American propagandists. It is fortunate in that respect, however, because the American public, contrary to Redford’s “disappointment” in their standards, has a fairly good memory, and most of us are not willing to pay money to sit and see our nation and its leaders smeared with lies and insults. We can see that for free every night on network television, after all.

Separate Discriminations

There is a hot debate going on, and it has been going strong for some years, about how we should treat detainees at places like Guantanamo and in the custody of allied nations. The odd thing to me, is that I see discrimination in the points of view of both Left and Right, but the preference shown is in opposite directions. The way I see it, the Left wants to protect perceived “rights” of persons apprehended by our troops, even if that protection endangers innocents, our troops, and the mission. The Right wants the mission to succeed in Iraq, even if by that effort individuals suffer injustice to some degree, and certain innocents may suffer pain, loss, and even death. This is the hard truth to the matter. I am not saying that the Left desire the mission to fail or innocents to die, nor do I say that the Right does not care about what happens to a particular person, but the choice is made and consequences result from the decision. We should be honest about that, even though if we have a functioning conscience that fact should make us all uncomfortable.

Moral choices with consequences happen all the time. If someone takes hostages and negotiations do not appear to be working, yes there will be a sniper positioned to kill the person who has taken the hostages, and if the hostage-taker dies in that situation few of us would have a good reason to complain about the action. If someone is part of an organization which murders innocents and continues to pursue such actions, then to my mind that person’s life is forfeit. No, I am not saying that a terrorist who surrenders or swears off his old ways has to be killed, but whether or not someone is personally committing an act of violence at the time he encounters our troops has no bearing on his fate; Admiral Yamamoto was not flying a bomber when we shot him out of the sky in World War 2, but it was still the right and necessary thing to do. And terrorists hardly match the moral standards which Admiral Yamamoto was known for.

Basically, I see it this way. 9/11 started the war, and all the claims otherwise don’t budge that fact. And no, it’s not just Al Qaeda; that group is basically a front for a number of different organizations, in sort of the same way that the old ‘Islamic Jihad’ of the 1980s was a hodgepodge of different groups that took the name for their own purposes. The Madrid train bombing is an example of the was/was-not aspect of Al Qaeda’s activity. Terrorists are not ‘freedom fighters’ or simply practicing guerrilla warfare, either. They kill indiscriminately and their chief purpose is to destabilize governments and provoke enemy forces to waste resources in many places. So, the United States and its allies (and yes, we have allies) moved into Afghanistan and Iraq because it was necessary, because if they did not the whole region was headed for a bad blow-up. You can believe it or not, the evidence has been plain for years and until 2003 even the Democrats said so themselves in public. Those who opposed the invasion of Iraq fell into three basic camps: The Saddamites who would personally lose from his fall, which includes those countries who enjoyed special deals with Saddam, especially Germany and France and Russia; those nations whose appetite for conquest was thwarted by a force they could not hope to overwhelm (Iran and Syria, for example); and Socialists, whose greatest fear for the Middle East was that a stable Middle East would advance American influence and power. It’s hardly a shock that most of the public protests were organized and paid for by Communist-front groups like ANSWER.

The Left had its day, and may again, but now that the Surge is clearly working, that ordinary Iraqis are making clear that they will not accept the likes of Al Qaeda or Iran’s infiltrated thugs, and that the U.S. Military is making Iraq far better than it was under Saddam for the regular people, more and more people are realizing that the troops were neither duped nor stupid, but were right all along in their commitment and spirit. But the war continues, and the key question still haunts us: What do we do with these monsters we catch?

First, let’s be clear that we are not talking about your average criminal on ‘Cops’. These are the kind of people who build bombs to kill women and children in schools, they kill people at Mosques in prayer, they are too cowardly to face anyone in straight-up combat, they depend on hidden bombs and ‘soft’ targets. They increasingly have no connection to the area where they operate, but have been imported and outfitted by alien forces. They are, therefore, not a native ‘resistance’ but hired thugs and fanatics, whose whole worldview centers on death; theirs or someone else, in many cases they don’t even care. Their actions merit execution, not protection. They are extremely dangerous, to themselves as much as anyone else. I would not blame the military, frankly, if they just locked them away somewhere and provided sufficient protection from escape, and if they killed each other off, no great loss. But the U.S. military is made of better ideals than that.

The utopian solution would be where a just system could weigh the evidence and choose a fate appropriate to the deeds and the need of the society for accountability and deterrent force. In the case of terrorists, however, problems begin at the outset. There is no suitable local venue for trials, nor are terrorists the sort of people to face the consequences of their deeds realistically; these are monsters which revel in blood and pain, and have become convinced, against all reason, human sensibilities and logic, that they will receive an eternal reward, not punishment, for their crimes. The more heinous, the more glory they think. Man learned long ago that when an animal reaches such a condition, it must be destroyed, as much for the good of other animals as for the humans. The same hard rule applies here; if it is known that a man has committed the sort of acts we see so common to Al Qaeda, not merely murder or violence in the heat of the moment, but the thirst for the blood of innocents, a creed of cruelty performed as we have seen done to children and other innocents, then death is the only possible consequence – swift and as merciful as the situation allows, but to spare such monsters is to doom more innocents. There are those who quail at such a hard determination, but no one who has seen the work of Al Qaeda could be fooled into thinking they remain human. In terms of practical effect, the knowledge that Al Qaeda members will summarily executed will drive people to make a quick decision either to join them in all aspects, or to give them up to the Coalition to avoid sharing their fate.

If someone is apprehended on something less than certain knowledge, however, the matter becomes more difficult. Such situations must not be confused with common crime, yet there must be a system whic grants appropriate responses to conditions of doubt or extenuating circumstances. For that purpose, I defer to the proven success of military tribunals. While those who cannot respect the American military officer will bridle at the notion, the fact remains that military officers are the people most competent to judge by the facts rather than the emotions or politics of the moment, and they are as a group impressively successful in addressing individual cases with the right mix of justice and mercy. I can think of no better system than the one in place, however much the Left scorns and mocks it.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 6

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


6. What specific measures would you recommend to protect Social Security for coming generations?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 5

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


5. If you could write an Amendment to the Constitution and know it would pass and be ratified, what would that Amendment be?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 4

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


4. What are your intentions regarding Tort Reform?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 3

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.

3. Is there a better solution to Middle East turmoil, than the establishment or promotion of freely elected democratic republics? Why or why not?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 2

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.

2. What will you do to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and/or terrorists?

Thank you, John McCain

40 years ago today, Lt. Commander John McCain, USN, was shot down on a combat mission over Hanoi. As the son of then-CINCPAC Admiral McCain, John was subjected to even more torture and humiliation than the other prisoners at the infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’. Commander McCain served five and a half years as a prisoner, several times refusing to leave before prisoners who were shot down before him. John McCain’s service during his captivity represents the finest traditions and honor of the United States Navy, and whatever one thinks of his politics and stature to run for the office of President, he is indisputably one of our finest heroes from the Vietnam era.

Thank you, John McCain, for your service and for your sacrifice. May the nation you love never forget, nor cheapen, all you have done for her.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.

1. Should photo ID cards be required in order to vote?

We SHOULD Question Their Patriotism

One of the snottiest demands from high-profile Leftists, is that we on the Right may not question or challenge their Patriotism. Frankly, any reasonable look at some of the statements and behavior on the part of Leftist leaders, demands just such a criticism.

I have to start with a recent, and fairly stupid, example: Senator Barack Obama. The new reported a little while back that Obama was not wearing a flag pin of the United States. Frankly, in itself that’s a pretty dinky deal, hardly the stuff of great debate. But Obama, never one to defuse a ticking time bomb when he can play with it, turned it into a serious issue by saying,

” as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.”

Nice double-shot. Parents who wear a flag pin to keep their kids in mind who are serving are “substitute” patriots, while arrogant cynics who attack the troops’ mission for their own political gain are the “real “ patriots.

I defy that, and am frankly appalled that anyone who wants the job to direct where and when troops are deployed could make such a statement. Of course, this is a man who doesn’t put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played; he holds his hands over his crotch.

But Obama is an easy target, an inexperienced con man who has not yet learned to hide his true allegiance in double-talk.

A stronger case for Democrats’ deliberate disloyalty comes from Senate Majority Leader Harry “Land Deal” Reid. Reid, you may call, decided to show his ‘support’ for the troops by declaring “this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything”.

Well, let’s see. Casualties in Iraq are down, way down, and not just soldiers. Iraqi civilians are also doing much better, and Al-Qaida is getting downright desperate. In fact, one of our milbloggers blogging while he serves over there doesn’t say we’re winning in Iraq, he flat-out says we have won the war there.

You may note that ‘Happy News’ Harry has not retracted his dour claim, nor apologized to General Petraeus for the shabby treatment his report received from the DonkeyKong party.

Need I go down the list, to mention John “Stuck in Iraq” Kerry’s slap at serving soldiers, or Pete Stark’s wide smear against both the President and the troops for claiming “amusement” at their casualties, or that the soldiers’ support for the mission is wrong? Do I need to mention Mister Durbin, who compared our troops to Nazis, or Charlie Rangel’s insistence that the troops don’t want to fight, but are in there because they are not “smart” or “bright” enough to get a job anywhere else? Perhaps I need to recall Chuck Schumer’s claim that “the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here.”

How anyone can read or hear that and conclude that Schumer is an American, let alone a patriot, defies Rationality itself.

I do not claim the Democrats are traitors. But they are certainly none of them patriots.

Why Christ Died for Us

Well, it’s Monday, so I guess that means it’s time to make some folks angry at me again. What I mean, is that I have to explain just why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die on the cross.

A lot of people come up with arguments that they think are clever, somehow ‘proving’ that God does not exist, or cannot exist as the Bible says He does. It’s a lot like the excuses we see in court, some crook trying to sell the jury on how he is innocent because of some loophole or dinky detail, that the jury and judge should – indeed must – ignore the fact that he quite deliberately did wrong and deserves punishment for it.

Let me step back for that. You see, whatever else we want to argue about, we can agree that you and I exist, right? Now, whatever I am may be in some dispute, since you only know me from your perception, just as I only know you by what I perceive. Similarly, we may each of us be wrong to some degree about the reality of our own existence. But, we can at least start with the premise that we exist.

From that, we should be able to agree that we exist and “live” in a world of some sort. Again, we may debate specifics on its form and so on, but we operate in an environment which allows us choice of actions, but which also acts upon us. From this, we see actions which we perceive to be desirable, and others which we perceive to be undesirable. Most of these are obvious in their worth to us; we enjoy pleasure and satisfaction, and dislike pain and discomfort. But even so, we at some point also decide that we dislike certain actions we perceive to be done to others, because we see them as “wrong”. Again, for now I won’t go into specifics, but I want to set our stage, which is that we inhabit a world of multiple beings whose interaction is a mix of chosen actions and imposed conditions, some of which lead to conditions we consider to be unjust. Further, we observe that some beings commit actions so unjust that we would apply the label “evil” to them, particularly when those actions are deliberate and cruel. We also observe that for all the desire of Mankind to establish Justice, there are many who not only commit unjust acts, but who seem to be rewarded for doing evil. We also see a world which seems to ignore the rights and needs of innocents, from children to the poor and weak, throughout History in every place and time.

It seems to many reasonable people, therefore, illogical to try to defend the existence of God or assert His goodness, in the light of the existence of Evil. Enough so, that many folks decide that God is evil, does not exist, or that Reality must be very much different from the way it is described in the Bible. Accordingly, people who trust and believe the Bible as true and trustworthy are often considered simple-minded and foolish. What I want to do here, is not to “prove” the existence of God or His qualities – I happen to believe that belief in God and His Holiness must be born of faith, another quality I shall try to address in a bit. I freely admit that I shall fail to some degree, not only because all humans are fallible, but because I am putting this together in less than a perfect structure, and with less time and consideration than something of this sort deserves. But I do mean to present something of an explanation as to how Christians can be intelligent and aware of the world in all its imperfections, yet believe in a good God and a Savior sent on our behalf, suffering through our fault and victorious for our benefit and hope.

It is my firm conviction that God exists, that He is utterly Good, and that He is Holy. I begin therefore with those assumptions, and apply them to the conditions set out at the start; a world of prosperous evil, where goodness seems naïve at times, and punished without consequence to many. We live in a world, as I said, which is a mix of our choices and outward conditions. In a sense, that is my explanation of Original Sin; not an attempt to make everyone feel guilty for things done long before they were born, but to remind us that what we do carries on long after we die, that the poison of evil must be dealt with or it will continue to cause pain and sorrow to future generations, and that we inherit a world which results from all done to it before. There are those who would like to claim that on the whole, Mankind has done more good than bad, but I hold the opposite opinion.

So, what does this have to do with the Goodness and Holiness of God, that he would allow evil to exist, or – knowing that we would commit evil – create a race of beings who would be allowed to do evil and prosper for it? To understand this, we must step back and look at the beginning conditions, and contemplate what God wanted for us in the first place. What I mean is, every contemplation of Satan sees him as a rebel against God, and there is a certain attractiveness in that rebellion, the ultimate underdog striking back against an ultimate power, hopeless yet courageous beyond anything else ever even imagined. Morally, how does God compete with such a notion? Indeed, many people ask whether Humanity really has a choice at all, since in the end God will surely prevail, and to exist requires submission to His will. Goodness seems immaterial, where God’s absolute power decides whether we shall even exist, let alone in what state. The answer comes down to the fact that God knew Satan would rebel, and prepared His defense by allowing for Satan’s small, temporary victory. It is the reason why we humans live on Earth at all, instead of being born in Heaven, why we are allowed to sin yet hope for a Glorious eternity, why the Angels themselves envy us. It shows up in the teachings of Jesus, the secret to God’s Might and Righteousness and Holiness – a truth utterly impossible for any human to accept on any basis but faith.

To exist as a specific person requires an identity of self. And that self exists apart from the Creator. This further requires allowing for independent action, even if the Creator intends for the created being to be like Him. The potential for rejection is automatic in the premise of freedom. So, if you are God and know that the freedom you intend to allow will corrupt the perfection of your creation? You make a separate Reality, a “Genesis” if you will, while protecting the greater Reality for the reconciliation you have planned.

Here’s the bad news – we all sin, every one of us. If we get a chance, we sin, and what’s more, we mean to do it. We hate people and we act on that hate. We put ourselves ahead of others, usually just strangers, but in some cases we don’t even care for family and those whom we know love and care for us. I’m not talking here about the ones who die very young or those who are unable to tell right from wrong; they are special cases and do not represent the main, and in any case do not represent a life of choices, which is the true human condition. Those who dwell on these rare occurrences ignore the issue, which is not surprising given the significance of our condition, but which does not help understanding. The fact of the matter is that we love our selves, but everything else tends to tie into that self-love. We like other people who make us feel good, we tend to prefer those who look, talk, and act the same way we do, who share similar beliefs, and we tend to resent and hate those who are different, and the more different the greater the hate. It’s a hard class, this Earth, and the reality of it is we made it the way it is. We have the means to end every evil that is, but we do not do that. There is collective guilt, but also individual guilt. Enough of it for each of us, that pointing fingers and blaming others is just another dishonest response, a desperate attempt to deny the truth we cannot bear to face.

OK, so some of you are rolling your eyes at this point, and waiting for the big hypocrite (that would be me) to start in on his demand that you all believe what I believe. Well, I’m not going to do that. I said at the start that I am explaining how I understand the situation, and this was necessary to set the stage. We live in a world where evil exists, not because God wanted evil to exist but because Man wanted evil to exist, because Man chose evil. It doesn’t matter if you do your best on your own strength to do good, you will still have to live in a world full of evil, where evil always has the advantage.

Some folks will stop me at this point and demand to know, ‘what about the good people?’ Good question. I’m an odd duck, because in addition to believing that Man is inherently sinful (and men moreso than women, by the way), I also believe that people are basically good. How is that possible? Well, like the old saying goes, we are all children of God, and God does not make trash. In our heart of hearts, we know good from evil, and we do not want to be evil, even though we choose it over and over again. The beginning of good for many people, I think, comes from the surprise of family. We are all pretty selfish while growing up, and part of that is a strong desire to get away from Mom and Dad as soon as we can live on our own. Yet, along the way as we meet and get to know people, we discover that we come to like people, some enough to become close friends, and one enough to marry; we learn to love someone besides ourselves, although that someone is usually a lot like ourselves. And then comes family, and the world changes for many of us. To be a parent is like nothing else in the world. A good parent would do whatever is necessary to look after their child. And we learn to care for someone we did not choose to have in our life; at least, we did not know the child before the birth and bring it into the family as a choice of keeping or not keeping the baby. Rejecting an infant for not being what you want, is to my mind among the worst of evils, but I must leave it at that for this discussion. As the child grows, the parent will be struck by the combination of ways in which the child is both like his/her parents, and yet very different. And yet, a good parent comes to love that child more and more. Even during their teenager years. This sort of selflessness is intentional, I think; we learn to love despite ourselves, the true kind I mean where we love without thinking about what we are getting back for it. The kind of love that demands sacrifice and a whole lot of patience, and which trusts that the child will someday understand, so that they can bring their own kids up the right way. Kind of the way God raises us up, and this is why God is depicted as the Holy Family.

So, all this talk and we finally get around to the Crucifixion. You see, Man has a great love of self-importance, and so he sets up laws as he sees the universe should be. Never mind that the lesson of Nature is imperfection. Everything dies, after all, and every perfect day still ends. We might hope, therefore, to maintain a level of perfection for a time, if we limit the definition to a few carefully chosen rules we can pay attention to for a time, but even then, we invariably fall from perfection after a time. The whole history of Mankind is a series of stumbles, and we rightly pay attention to the fact that we get back up again, yet we can not often admit that we fall again and again, and this is inevitably our way. We lie to ourselves, that this time we will be perfect. The problem is that we depend on our own strength. Man dreamed of flying, but as long as he believed that he could do so under his own power, he was doomed to failure. It was only in harnessing the powers of aviation and building a tool to reach the sky, that the dream came true. So much more, we cannot hope to be morally perfect in our own bodies and with our old selves. God makes the impossible available to us, however, and the whole of Man’s rise from its crude beginnings owes itself to God’s inspiration of Man. This is what the Bible teaches; not so much the specific laws in one place and time, but the constant availability of God to those who seek Him. You see, even though this world is evil and flawed and Man its regent has failed his charge, God watches and has made provision for our help. He has spoken throughout History to anyone and everyone who asks and listens. It requires that a man go outside his own interest, to do what is right rather than what is easy, that a man live by faith rather than the arrogance of human standards, and that a man stands for something greater than himself. Every great work has these characteristics. But it is also wrong to imagine that God takes no part in our course. There are certain times where He chooses to act, though these are necessarily rare, since we have this place to show the fruits of our own work and will. Even so, God came down to Earth as one of us, because of His love for us.

The paradox of Jesus Christ is the essential focus on the world’s religious identity. At some point, everyone is compelled to respond or react to him, who he was and is, and what he said, taught, and did. For here I simply claim that he is hat he said he is – the only-begotten Son of God, yet a brother to any of us who will accept him as our brother. By right King of all the world and everyone in it, he chose to live in poverty and claim no dominion of us. And this, in sum, is the command of Christ for all who would be like him – Serve, help, and above all, love everyone. It is a hard task, one we all fail at constantly, yet a worthy mission I would not trade for any other. This does not mean that only Christians are able to love, or that Christians somehow do it better than other people. We have been warned in Scripture that many who can say the words will not follow through in deeds, and those people shall have to answer for that.

But as for the debt of blood. We all must die, as I said. It is the curse of this world, and yet also the blessing, for when we die, we are brought out of this fallen world and into the greater Realm, where we become what we have chosen to be. It is where Justice comes into play, remorseless and yet compassionate, like a hot iron which cauterizes our wounds so we may heal, yet it is unbearable even in thought. And because it is unbearable, God Himself acted to save us from it. You see, it is Man’s sin which demands punishment, a wickedness based on a desire for destruction, the heart of Satan and the core of his nature, to seek human pain and the destruction of Humanity. He cannot touch God, so his fondest hope is the devastation of humans. Knowing this, God set a series of defenses for people, and His centerpiece was his Son, Jesus Christ.

The ultimate penalty in human justice is death. And in an unjust decision, a dead innocent man cannot be brought back, representing the ultimate injustice. So it is that God brought Himself through Christ to show His compassion for us by his Son’s bearing of the shame and punishment we ourselves demanded for our own sins. That is, the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was demanded by men and by Man, and the Lord Himself bore it for our behalf. Now, there can be no demand that anyone be destroyed to serve human Justice, for God Himself has rendered that a moot point by paying all. Further, the perfect life lived by Christ and his obedient death on the cross have completely derailed Satan’s plans to destroy Man; Jesus’ sacrifice was demanded by Man, but because of God’s love that death redeemed Man, if Man will take it. The difference is this – before, we feared the end of this life because it brought us to a terrible judgment on a standard we could not meet. Now, that requirement has been waived and we may choose, if we wish, to simply pursue good and do good. To do good, that is, not in hopes of scoring points to be used in our defense when we must face the consequences of the wrong we did, nor in some mercenary hop of sucking up to the ultimate Boss, but out of love itself, the desire to help others and to do good for its own sake. What’s more, because God is eternal, Jesus’ sacrifice not only reaches the people of his own time and afterwards, it also reaches back to all before him, so that the option of choosing love over evil is possible for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Not everyone believes what I do, of course. In fact, I am doubtless wrong on a number of points, and theologically my presentation is shakier than a big Jello mold at a family dinner, but on the main points I think I am secure. The point is not to sway anyone, not that I could do so, but to explain my understanding and try to show how the key elements of the faith fit together, and to explain just why it was that Man demanded Jesus did, and why Jesus agreed to do that for us all.

The Next Black Swan

Twenty years ago today, the New York Stock Exchange fell off a cliff, the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing 22.9% of its value (508 points) in a single day. As a percentage of value, this was the greatest single-day market loss in U.S. history. The US crash was preceded and followed by crashed in other markets throughout the world. By the end of October 1987, the U.S. market had rallied a bit, climbing from 1739 to over 2000, but the Hong Kong market had lost 45.8% of its value, Australia 41.8%, and the UK 26.4%. To put this in modern context, if the DJIA had lost the same proportion today, it would have to lose 3,181 points. The modern market has grown 618% in the last 20 years, recovering – for some investors – everything they lost and providing a strong return for half a generation. Consequently, there is a certain sanguinity regarding the situation, which may or may not be a wise attitude. The reason I say this, is because the specific cause for the one-day crash has never been adequately explained. Assumptions were made and blame placed on a number of causes, largely focused on automatic trading programs which trigger actions on certain conditions – and yes, such programs are still in operation right now, although the companies running them promise there is no chance that 1987 will happen again, don’t you feel safe and secure now? But there was also concern about the effect of the U.S. dollar’s strength on market conditions, as well as the collateral effect of one market on other world markets Once again, officials rush to assure the public that there is no similar danger now, although the need for consumer confidence is so great that they would certainly say exactly the same thing if there were no protection at all.

The 10/19/87 crash is described by some analysts as a “Black Swan Event”, a term used to describe something utterly unexpected and impossible to predict. This provokes the obvious question; what will the next Black Swan look like, and when will it happen?

Race and Intelligence

Dr. James Watson has started up an old firestorm again. In an interview with the Sunday Times, Dr. Watson, whose work on the structure of DNA won a Nobel Prize back when it meant something, said that he believes Blacks are intellectually inferior. From CNN:

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

As you might expect, such a statement met immediate and extreme reaction from many sources, including the British government. I too am surprised that Dr. Watson would make such a statement, especially when Watson seems to base his opinion at least in part on personal experience with selected co-workers. Essentially, while I am no scientist, it appears to my unenlightened eyes that Watson saw certain data and read conclusions into them without considering all the relevant factors. At the very least, this should warn us against trusting too much the opinions of designated ‘experts’. It seems to me obvious, that anyone can make a great fool of himself, and we should keep that in mind when considering the weight of someone’s opinion.

Economic Suicide

BusinessWeek is a fine magazine, and many of its articles are useful discussions and analyses of significant business trends and issues. They do, however, sometimes play too much to one point of view, and this was the case in a recent book review. In their review of Iain Carson and Vijay Vaitheeswaran’s screeding “Zoom”, BW properly notes the stridently leftist tone of the book, but fails to challenge the over-riding assumptions of the Eco-Left. In so doing, BusinessWeek shows its own bias on the issue. What I found surprising, is that people so well-grounded in business should be so unrealistic about what causes the present condition, and what will be needed to resolve it.

Let’s start with one of the pet assumptions of the Eco-Left; that to improve things environmentally, it is necessary and overdue for the United States government to levy hefty taxes on oil products in the same way that Europe does. At this point I direct the reader to observe the names of Zoom’s authors; rather European, which is to say that they have the myopic focus of the European. If it makes sense to challenge American bias when addressing global issues, as I think is correct, then it just makes sense to be wary of assuming that the Euros have it right. I do not, in fact, see anything to indicate that high gas taxes have done anything – at all – to improve ecology or business conditions in Europe. And I see compelling reasons why such a move here in the United States would be catastrophic.

You see, the conventional wisdom for many years, was that Americans were in love with cheap gas and would not tolerate a rise in price above a certain level. For many years, it was assumed that if gas crossed a dollar a gallon, we would demand alternative sources. Then it was two dollars, then three … now gas goes as high as four bucks a gallon in certain places and times, and demand remains very high. Sales of SUVs and trucks remain strong, with no sign that anyone plans to give up their way of life in order to save a little bit. So, on the evidence from history, a tax on gas will not encourage people to support different energy sources. More on that in a bit, but for now it’s important to know that anyone pushing a tax is doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment or a responsible government. Next, it must be understood that whenever a tax is assessed and collected, the money from that tax goes into the general revenues, and will always be so. Therefore, any politician who tells you that a gas tax will be used to fund ecological programs or alternative energy sources is lying to you. Even if such programs are set up and funded by the government, they will be paid from general funds, and there is no direct connection between the tax collected on gasoline and the programs enacted by Congress. Again, history shows us that Congress spends money exactly as it pleases, and programs will be funded or neglected without regard to how much is being taken at the pump from the people.

It must also be understood, that if Congress sets up additional taxes on gasoline, that Congress will have no interest whatsoever on reducing demand on gasoline, because reducing demand would have the effect of reducing revenues, and if that happens you can be sure Congress’ appetite for that revenue would drive it to seek that money from somewhere else. Look at the taxes on cigarettes, as an example. The sole effect of an additional tax on gasoline that you can count on, is that this tax would become permanent, and if gasoline consumption were reduced, the tax would expand to collect money from some other activity, regardless of the nature of that activity. The reader will note that the United States government has never reduced, let alone abolished, the federal tax on gasoline that already exists, even in times of crisis, so there is no chance whatsoever that a higher tax would be temporary or limited to gasoline only.

It should embarrassing enough to BW that their staff ignored the evidence of History, but they even display an appalling ignorance of Economics. It is an inexorable law of Economics that a tax on a commodity makes that commodity more expensive, without adding anything to the value or supply of that commodity, which therefore increases costs across the spectrum, lowering productivity and economic strength in every sector of the nation’s economy. Given the ubiquitous presence of petroleum products in every industry and business type in the United States, a heightened national tax on gasoline would undeniably and immediately be inflationary, lower productivity and consumer confidence, and inevitably create recessionary conditions, as companies scaled back on expenditures to adjust for the increased costs of operations. This in turn slows down hiring and lowers expectations, as capital expenditures would drop precipitously and the sharp fall in consumer confidence would kill demand. How do I know this? Because this is exactly what happened during the Carter Administration, when similar efforts were undertaken; conditions came to exist which had never existed before or since, including double-digit Inflation rates at the same times as double-digit Unemployment. It would be, to put things bluntly, the worst possible economic decision the Congress could make, with utterly disastrous implications for future economic opportunities. It is a decision which no sane steward of the public trust could countenance.

There may yet be a few naïve EcoLeftists crying in favor of these draconian measures, crying out like Chicken Little that the sky is falling, that we must abandon oil even at these horrendous costs in order to save our future. But such claims, once again, fail to stand up to scrutiny. In the first place, those critics of American policy often complain that Americans fail to think about the rest of the world, but the notion that an American gas tax will do anything for the world at large shows an even more U.S.-centric fallacy. There is no chance, at all, that any industrial nation will lower its own consumption in response to a U.S. tax on gasoline. If such a tax were actually to lower U.S. consumption, there would be an inevitable rise in consumption by India, China, and even some of those much-idolized European nations, as the thirst for Oil is in no way abated by a tax. Second, just as the Kyoto accords were in reality nothing more than an extortion attempt, to cripple the United States’ economy so rival nations could gain on them, so too a higher U.S. gas tax would only benefit foreign rivals, many of whom have far lower standards on emissions and fuel economy than does the United States.

But in the end, the Eco-Left simply does not understand what is necessary for Progress to occur. It is unfashionable these days to ever say anything good about Oil, but if you go back far enough, you will find that Oil was the solution once to a serious global problem. That problem was a world which ran on coal. Coal was inexpensive, easy to use, and everywhere. Trouble is, coal was dirty, and many cities found their buildings coated in soot and their people choking on coal dust. Oil was the solution, because engineers found a way to make petroleum cheap for consumers, easier to use in engines and machinery, and it burned cleaner than coal. That’s right, there was a time when Oil was the ecological choice!

My point is simple. Oil will remain the fuel of choice, not until someone makes people feel guilty enough about using it, or punishes folks for using it, but until something is made which is cheaper, easier, and cleaner. Possibilities are under development and some of them are exciting, but lies and threats from the Eco-Left are part of the problem, not the solution.

Listening – We Should All Try It

Thanks for your patience. I have not blogged all that much recently, for several reasons. On the one hand, I have been busy getting my car repaired and handling work, family, and school, all of which have been demanding of late. A small medical issue also came up, but nothing worth mentioning now. But along the way, I spent some time listening to people, and I was disappointed to realize that I had been out of practice on that count. Two ears, one mouth and all that, yet I kept forgetting that the ability to say something did not mean I necessarily had anything worthwhile to say. But it also occurs to me that this is the primary problem of all our self-obsessed elected officials in D.C.; they are great at communicating, in so far as that means making sure we hear what they are saying, but there’s not many at all in that fine city that remember they might want to listen to us common folk. We are, after all, ‘common’, which is a detriment in the mind of the professional canardist, and so disqualifies us from any right to be heard, much less the consideration that we might have some perspective of worth. Not a single one of our elite field of Presidential candidates in either party strikes me as interested in the slightest about what the majority of Americans think. Not one.

Well, that’s it for now. Right now, I’m interested in what you think, so I’m listening. It’s something we could all do to practice.

Unintended Lessons

There is a new show on one of the MSM channels, called “Cavemen”. I have no intention of watching it, since the commercials have courteously advised me that the show is apparently based on a character from a car insurance advertisement series. Think about that; a show about a demographic class which does not actually exist, where the actors are so heavily made up that the viewer has no idea what they are really like under all that stuff, and the point of which seems to be to promote a banal fiction to no purpose other than spending money and wasting time.

For some reason, the whole idea reminds me of the field of contenders running for President of the United States …

Death, Too Close An Acquaintance

A week ago today I had an automobile accident, which happened in a split second of distraction and peculiar circumstances. Since that event, I have found myself considering the events of Life and the attendant minister of Fate, Death. In the case of my accident, it was not really so bad, just a couple of banged-up cars and my air bag went off, but it shakes you up to go from normal to crisis in an instant. It reminds you that you never really know when it is your time, and it makes you sensitive to the loss of others.

This brings me to the topic. In my PMP cancer support group, two more of our members passed away this week, after long and difficult fights. We know a lot more about PMP and other rare cancers than we did just a year ago, but even so it is sometimes not enough, not in time, and all we can do is pray for solace for the families. In my office, one of my employees had a death in the family from a car accident, and another employee’s mother had a heart attack last night. Out of nowhere comes the grief.

The news is full of similar stories. A child drowns in a swimming pool because a mother gets distracted for a couple minutes. A deputy constable writing a ticket gets hit by a man driving an SUV while talking on his cell phone and he never sees him. Sometimes we know the ones who leave; Lois Maxwell, “Miss Moneypenny” in so many of the James Bond movies, dies Sunday in London. Marcel Marceau, perhaps the most famous mime of all time, died Saturday in Paris. Dr. James Keegan, who founded the “End Hunger Network” in Houston, also died recently. But the roll call, even for a single day, is long with people who died too soon or too suddenly, or whose loved ones wish they still had them home with them.

I guess there’s no profound point to this article, except maybe this one thing. Lately, I have seen a lot of anger and resentment, some very nasty sentiments and words used to convey disrespect and antipathy. I am by no means innocent of that conduct myself, and for that I apologize. I wonder, how many of us would choose such sharp words to throw at someone, if we somehow knew they would leave us soon and suddenly? Sure, in most cases we can say what we please and that person will be back tomorrow for more of the same and to give back as they get. But not always, and I wonder if we consider how little we really know, about what is to come, and those things which we really do not control at all.

Just something to think about, is all.

The God Who Votes

Let me begin this article by saying straight out that no one, no one, has sanctioned what I am about to say. So before someone comes back later and claims this represents an organized effort to tie Religion to Politics, let me be clear that this article is my own, unimportant, overly wordy half-processed idea. Your mileage may differ, as the commercial disclaimers say. But to the point, I have found it fascinating and a bit dishonest, how many people whose policies they know are amoral at best, demand that God stay out of things, that His opinion cannot be considered in electing those leaders who will direct the nation’s decisions on moral issues. Abortion, war, coercive redistribution of wealth, and the limits on personal freedoms are all expected to be addressed without considering of the simple question about whether the proposed action is the right thing to do. To that, I think it is well past time to voice dissent, indeed to oppose and suppress those who think that Freedom of Religion still disallows a person from voting their conscience by listening to the voice and will of God. It is time for us all to exercise our rights, not lay them down because someone is a boor about how we voice our opinion.

Let me be clear; God is not a Republican, any more than He is a Democrat. Any human political platform is a human construction, and it is sheerest arrogance to presume that we can in any way come close to the Divine Standard in any construction of our own making. That does not, however, deny God’s interest in the welfare and behavior of His children on Earth; indeed our leaders should properly consider themselves the stewards of the power temporarily allowed them by the Almighty Hand, and merely Regents of their office, rather than moral authorities in their own right. God has made His will and preferences clear on many occasions, and we would do well to take that into account. While much derided by the Left, the Bible is a true and priceless book for consideration into human nature, as well as the fate of nations which obey or rebel against the Holy Will. Immoral nations fall and fail, of that there is no doubt. And God takes an active and direct interest in His people. Like it or not, if a national leader wants his country to prosper, he must uphold the laws of God and protect those who serve God.

Essentially, God gives His children a lot of freedom, individually and as nations. But certain actions are always out of bounds, and in to commit those acts are to invite disaster. I would suggest the following list of national commandments:

Thy nation shall promote Justice above all else.

Thy nation shall not suppress those who believe in God and live in faith.

Thy nation shall promote Freedom for all people as individuals, except that Justice must always come first.

Thy nation shall not murder babies.

Thy nation shall deal fairly with other nations in commerce, respecting other nations while protecting thine own providers and resources.

Thy nation shall not mock marriage.

Thy nation shall honor thy history and its lessons

Thy nation shall not deny individual rights in order to increase the government.

Thy nation shall respect, supply, honor, fund, and listen to thy soldiers

Thy nation shall not create elite classes with special privileges.


Do not ever forget that God does indeed vote. And in the end, His verdict is the only one which counts.

My Apologies for the Delay

Last Thursday, one of my fellow drivers thought it would be a nice change of pace to stop his vehicle in the middle of an intersection. Unfortunately, I was distracted by a burnt-out signal light and did not receive the memo about his impromptu repose, and so I drove into the back of his car, receiving an air bag in the face and a ticket from a police officer. For some reason, that event has added to my load of responsibilities, and as a result I have not blogged for nearly a week. I apologize for the delay.

Freedom Is Evil When Used to Promote Evil

Iran’s Hitler-esque President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressed the faculty and students of Columbia University yesterday, accorded more respect and honor than many worthier alternatives, such as a certain former President of Harvard. President Ahmadinejad’s surreal portrayal of Iran as a sublime paradise of Justice and Peace, where no one is homosexual or sexist or hateful in any way, combined with his sneering derision of the ideals and practices of the country hosting his visit, is reasonably reminiscent of Adolf Hitler, who also assured his neighbors that he was a peaceful man who merely wanted ’lebensraum’, and who simply asserted his country’s natural desire for Justice. Ahmadinejad presides over a government which murders people for having sex out of wedlock, which includes any homosexual act, and ruthlessly suppresses criticism and free speech in Iran, yet he has no shortage of supporters and allies demanding he be allowed a stage and a live microphone anywhere and anytime he desires, all in the name of Free Speech. Few people seem to have considered the validity of that claim.

The odd thing, President Ahmadinejad has never faced the same sort of censorship his own regime employs. His opinion and statements have a large and ready audience, and there is no need – whatsoever – for a prestigious university to grant him prominence so that he can express his views. Therefore, the only logical reason for Columbia University to have agreed to host this monster from Teheran, was either out of a perverse thirst for publicity, or else agreement in general of his statements and motives. Given the high level of education of its alumni and regents, and the long-established procedures for inviting their selected guest speakers, it is implausible beyond possibility for this to have been an honest error, or merely exercise of a noble ideal. Make no mistake, Columbia’s masters wanted the damnable man standing at a lectern under their banner, as some proud accomplishment of Columbia and all it stands for.

But it needs addressing, this peculiar notion that monsters have a moral right to be allowed to say whatever they like. I find it strange, that the mandarins at Columbia did not consider that they had a greater moral responsibility to present the opinions of the oppressed in Iran, say those Iranian students willing to defy the mullahs, or young Iranian women told that unless they obey the strict misogynist laws from a 7th-Century madman, they will be hanged. Perhaps a few of those homosexuals Mr. Ahmadinejad says do not exist in Iran, might be allowed their opportunity to rebut that claim? But no, doing the right thing, the just thing, that is not the ‘Columbia Way’, it appears. But we must wonder why only a tyrant deserves a stage?

But there is more. Voltaire defended the right to even that speech he despised, but even Voltaire did not suggest that speech he despised should be elevated and repeated well ahead of the words of wise and righteous men. It is well enough to know what a monster is about; it is quite beyond the pale to grant advantage and prominence to the thug in that exposition. Some defenders of the monster in question have suggested that allowing Ahmadinejad to speak will reveal him in all his absurdity, and somehow this may dissuade him from advancing his mania into action. But anyone who has read ’Mein Kampf’ should be aware that evil men often grow in their arrogance from such attention; Hitler said what he meant to do, was allowed to talk at length and on countless occasions during the 1930s, and then he simply did what he had said he would do. With nuclear weapons under development, construction of submarines and military aircraft underway, sponsorship of dozens of terrorist groups and an army training incessantly for something, just how ‘astonishingly uneducated’ – to coin a phrase – would someone have to be to recognize that granting Ahmadinejad yet another big stage to feel important, is only going to increase the cost when his confidence finally crosses that point where he feels ready to launch the overt phase of Jihad against the Western world? Allowing Ahmadinejad the façade of eminence and respectability, is no more sane than trusting Charles Manson to raise your kids; he is quite simply that mad, that evil.

BDS – The Obsession and the LefTrolls

Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney are running for any office next fall; indeed no one in the Bush White House has expressed a desire to be the nation’s next President or a Senator or Congressman. Yet the leading Democrats are all running against President Bush, as if he were the GOP’s nominee. Hillary Clinton leads the pack, and acts as if it were the 2004 election again, not 2008.

And the Left’s mob of frenzied trolls shows the same confused devotion to the President. One recent example is the protest against the tasering of a Leftist student who disrupted an appearance by Senator Kerry. A student newspaper, after weighing all the evidence and considering the circumstances, chose to reference the event with a profane insult directed at President Bush.

Should we even mention the continued 24/7 obsession with President Bush at the Daily Kos (literally millions of references and counting) and MoveOn.org (will they get mad if I say ‘ditto’ to the previous mention about millions of references? Probably, they get mad a lot these days)? Somewhere, even Alex Forrest is thinking these people are a bit over the top.

Back in 2003, Dr, Charles Krauthammer, a psychologist and graduate of the Harvard Medical School, came up with the term, 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'. Dr. Krauthammer’s name for the disorder is much more clinical than the one I proposed a little later, the Aluminati, and addresses the demographic as a whole while I referenced the political aspects alone, but you get the idea, I think. What I referenced as a “cottage industry” for the Left, though, has now become mainstream and a full-blown compulsion.

But the clock is running, and surely even the tightest strait-coat Liberal has realized that he will have to get used to a world without Dubya to hate? Well, maybe not. I can just see these chuckleheads trying to impeach President Bush retroactively, or else demanding we dig up Saddam’s rotted corpse and apologize to it for deposing the dictator. Or maybe this is some weird plan to run against a man who is not even running, so that when the Republican wins the White House again the Donk candidate can scream ‘Not fair! I was campaigning against Bush, so you have to run him!’ Shewt, they’re so detached from Reality, I wouldn’t be surprised if Shrewery and Obambi were counting on winning all the Electoral Votes from “Second Life”. But I do wonder about what will happen, when all these trolls suddenly find themselves without a target for their venom and spittle? Will they then look in the mirror, realize that the opposite sex has a thing for hygiene and people whose education reached a double-digit grade level, and that the key to financial success is hard work and personal diligence? No, that seems to be largely a Conservative epiphany, more’s the pity. The worst of them will probably prove short-lived contestants in the Darwin Awards competition, but while we can hope that some of the rest may finally follow through on old promises and clear out, I am afraid that the majority will simply find new mischief. Anyone named “Bush” is likely to be stalked and verbally molested, and Rudy or Romney may well find media types referring to them as “Mister Bush” for a while. A certain amount of demented gibbering must also be expected, but as all communications from the LefTrolls have been like that, only normal precautions need to be taken; hand sanitizers in case of physical contact and the exclusion of CNN or CBS news from available television channels; let the V-Chip protect the kids. In the event that – as they often do – the LefTrolls take their cue from Hollywood and the video games, uninfected people should be safe as long as they stay away from the West Coast and areas known to be frequented by Al Sharpton and/or John Kerry.

No one knows for sure what the exit of President Bush will do to the LefTrolls, but it is clear that as he is their reason for being, their focus of identity, the chaos which ensues after his departure back to private life will be devastating.

Just Say No to the National Intelligence Academy

Hugh Hewitt has suggested that the United States Government establish a ‘National Intelligence Academy’. I do not doubt that the idea will have a number of supporters, including some in Congress, because at first glance it seems to make sense. Unfortunately, I strongly doubt the practical efficacy of such an institution, for reasons I shall submit here.

Let’s start with why we have Intelligence services in the first place. The United States government admits to fifteen official agencies and offices whose primary role is Intelligence; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which used to be the overseer of Intelligence for the President of the United States (that role has been assumed by the office of National Director of Intelligence (NDI); the National Security Agency (NSA), who handle electronic intercepts and codes; the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which handles satellite imagery for the most part; the National Geo-Spatial-Intelligence Agency, which handles high-altitude activity and analysis; the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR); Intelligence organizations controlled by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have been around for more than a century, and even the Coast Guard has an Intelligence arm. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a Counter-Intelligence unit, as do the Departments of Energy and the Treasury. And finally, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has an Intelligence office.

But we’re just warming up, because there are some other agencies and offices which do not officially exist, but are quite real, for all of that. For example, remember the Intelligence Support Activity (ISA) from the 1980s, which existence was denied by the government, then admitted but later retracted as a mistake, then officially was said to have been shut down? There is also the Diplomatic Security Group (DSG), the State Department commando force which was – supposedly – absorbed into the INR, although a bunch of the DSG’s best simply vanished from sight; and Delta Force of course, which is alleged to have its own Intelligence resources, having a strong distrust of any Intel weenies who have been in contact with Congress. Or what about the National Infrastructure Defense Office set up during the Clinton years to guard against things like Cyberwarfare? Come to that, ever wonder what old ex-spooks do in their ‘golden years’? Spooks are not like most veterans, because while their bodies age, in many cases their minds remain very sharp and they know things, valuable things, which their nation may call upon at need.

What I am saying with all that, is that it’s a tall order to imagine creating a single place to teach men and women what they need to become effective Intelligence agents. For a long time, we had to send people behind the Iron Curtain, so whites who could pass as Slavic folks were in high demand. Nowadays, we need folks who can pass as militant Muslims, not only by race and language, but who know the ins and outs of the “Death to America” crowd. And it’s pretty obvious that we need a cadre of Asians, able to blend in at Pyongyang, or at Beijing, or in Manila. And by the way, if you think the agent who fits in Com-China can also be equally accepted in NorKorea, you need some remedial World Culture, buddy. We also need experts in South American culture and practices, and just because we always seem to get into wars there, we can’t forget about Europe. So, right from the get-go, our campus is going to need six departments just to handle continental distribution. From there, we need to figure out what sort of Intelligence work our agent will handle. In the bad old days it was all about the military plans, baby, specifically weapons and intentions. Not so simple, now. There are still tactical and strategic weapons to chase, as well as operational and contingency plans, but just as vital now are financial strategies and political operations; for some reason, people don’t realize that our enemies would – very much – like to influence the outcome of our elections, and indeed have been working hard to that end. Ahhh, ahh, ahhh Hsu!! Sorry about that, darn allergies, where was I? Oh yes, categories of Intelligence operations. The reason we have so many different Intelligence agencies, after all, is because there are so many areas where we need diligence and attention. We have to watch skies and e-mails, we have to consider money and material and weapons and speeches, we have to track cultural and political and religious climate changes, and we have to do it all in a way that keeps us from being set up for a sucker punch. It is all but impossible for one school to do all it is needed, and that does not consider the fact that as the world changes, our Intelligence agencies need to keep up with technology and capabilities.

And then there is that little matter of Congress. A National Intelligence Academy would have to be set up and have funds allocated for it by Congress. Anybody want to guess how long it would take for the NIA to become a political football, subject to the Macchiavellian maneuvers of the personalities in vogue at a given moment? Or how long the headmaster at that academy would enjoy anything like autonomy, with a sub-committee holding the final vote on funds each year? It’s hard enough as it is for Intelligence professionals to make the hard call without playing up to a political patron, and that’s with the budgets for each agency set up on a much more pragmatic approach. I mean really, in the end a National Intelligence Academy would be little more than a marketing tool for whichever party controls the Hill, because with Congress voting into existence, there is no chance they would ever hand over control to the President, the Military, or the people who actually know what to do to train agents.

By the way, where do you suppose they’d build the thing? The East Coast already has West Point, Annapolis, and the Coast Guard Academy and the Air Force Academy is in Colorado. Since the logical place to train agents in secret operations and handling classified information would be a remote and well-guarded place, we can expect such an academy would most likely be built in California or somewhere on the West Coast, instead. With the present Blue majority and spineless character of the Right in Congress just now, that goes almost without saying. And with the high-profile image the place has, how long do you figure before someone sues the Academy for discrimination? After all, Sandy Berger will eventually be allowed to apply for a security clearance again, so who’s to say that someone can’t be a secret agent, even if they hate the United States?

As bad as things are now in trying to recruit, train, and equip agents and Intelligence operations, the only sure results from a National Intelligence Academy, is that it would make things worse for National Security, that it would be expensive and wasteful, and that it would be spun like a top on an almost daily basis.

Customer Disservice

An article in BusinessWeek this week discusses what people do in response to poor Customer Service. It moved me to consider a recent experience I had in that venue, and to remark on a truly inspired approach to the problem.

My daughter Jagan is beginning Ballet lessons, and of course for that she needed a certain leotard outfit, black with a ruffled skirt. Turns out it is pretty hard to find stores which carry that kind of thing, or at least the ones who advertise it. I finally learned that Target carries such leotards, and so last week I took Jagan over to Target to get the leotard and some tights, and to search for ballet slippers. I went to the Target store at 10801 Westheimer. I was fascinated by what I found.

The store was clean and well-stocked, to its credit. However, the signs were not clear and it was difficult to figure out where leotards could be found. I looked for a store employee to help me, but I them realized that all of the employees were either working at the registers, or else were sitting behind the Returns/Special Order counter. I noticed a sign pointing to a red phone, advising customers to call if they needed help, so I picked up the phone, and after a couple seconds it began to ring.

After eight rings, the phone was answered by a woman with a sullen voice, who told me leotards would be in “Girls”. I looked over and saw that the store was 45% “Women”, and 45% “Girls” in sections, so I asked her to be more specific, and she just sighed in exasperation at having to actually provide information to a customer, and said “just look for the sign”. I asked her what sign, and she said “Dance”, and when I asked where that section was, I was treated to another long sigh, then a silence, then she finally grumbled that it was in the back of the store, against the wall. Then she hung up before I could ask or say anything else.

Well, it turns out the ‘Dance’ section was in the front and middle of the store. But at least we finally found the tights and the leotards. I found one which looked like it would fit Jagan, so I told her to try it on in a dressing room and see how it fit. That was when we discovered, after some searching, that Target has done away with dressing rooms. Completely.

As part of her company’s ongoing training and motivation process, my wife had to read the book “Raving Fans” by Sheldon Bowles and Ken Blanchard. One part of that book addressed the insult to honest customers by the policy limiting them to three items in a dressing room. The insult was that the majority of honest people were being told they could not be trusted more than the small minority of dishonest people. Well, Target took care of that problem by just denying anyone the use of a dressing room at all. And that was when the light came on for me.

Most companies try to serve their customers. Some of them excel at it, and stand as models for the rest to imitate. Most try to be responsive and considerate of their customers, but fail to some degree and show obvious limits to how far they can go. But Target takes a fresh, if hostile, approach – they simply do as they please and if the customer doesn’t like it, nuts to them. No dressing rooms, no floor help, no trained and courteous operator on the help phone to assist with questions or concerns. No, they just put out the product and it’s take it or leave it. Fascinating, in its own way. I noticed that the commercials for Target are the same way. They show models who ignore everyone and everything but themselves; none of the commercials ever shows a customer at all, much less pretend to help them. Near as I can tell, Target does not like customers, and wants to do without them as much as possible.

So we went to check-out, and just to test a theory in my head, I asked the cashier who her manager was. She answered that she did not know where the shift manager was just then. I explained that no, I did not want to see a manager right now, I wanted to know who was the store manager. She did not know. So, I had her ask the cashier at the next register, who also did not know. And the game began. After four people were asked, they got together in a huddle, looked up something in a book, and came back with a name – a Mister “Canada”. Yeah, like the country. Well, Mister Canada, I once ran a business with 60 employees, and everyone in the place knew my name and would give to the customer who wanted to know. I have to admit though, that not knowing who is running the store is truly consistent with the performance of the staff and your customer-resistant policies, so kudos for that, I guess. I can’t imagine why a store would want to drive away customers and lower service even more than we see now, but you do seem to have it down to a science. And in deference to your preference, I will be happy to give Target a miss and take my business to those stores which make some effort to serve the customer. Well, I will be going to Target one more time – that leotard did not fit, so I will be returning it. Turns out that dressing room would have been useful. And no, I will not be buying the same leotard in another size – your store does not have the size I need, and in any case I don’t think that I want to give my money to a store which hates its own customers.

Two Packs of Yammering Canardists, Heavy on the Ego

I still remember my first elected office. I was out sick from Junior High, and when I returned to school the next day I discovered that I had been elected to Student Council, without my knowledge and against my will. In those days and at Lake Highlands Junior High, Student Council meant having to come early to school and do extra work for no visible benefit or reward. Consequently, Council members were usually elected against their will. It had, if nothing else, a certain honesty to it – none of the members really wanted to be there, and so elections were pretty straightforward affairs. Not so the White House, a difficult and draining post for anyone who wins the office, and yet there is no shortage of incompetents who believe they are a perfect fit for the job. Worse, there are many people running in any given year, whose performance would be damaging to the country and so they should be quickly dissuaded from chasing the nomination. The primaries, ideally, should be a place to separate the wheat from the chaff, but recent history suggests we should not count on that happening within the machines of the Demopublican nomenklatura, whose habit of sniffing at the common people with disdain has been all too evident of late. Both parties have their share of dishonest contenders, and those whose ideals are clearly at odds with the party as a whole. It does not serve the nation well, to dilute the quality of the primaries with such malingerers and malcontents.

Let’s start with an easy pack of targets, the Democrats. Really now, among the eight contenders, is there even one you’d trust as President? Joe Biden, Bill “LA Raza” Richardson, and Chris Dodd, who think the terrorists are the good guys and the Marines are the bad guys, and who prefer the advice of Al Qaeda to the advice of General David Petraeus?

Hillary, whose criminal contacts look like John Gotti’s rolodex, and whose plan for “fixing” healthcare reminds so many of a new edition of Orwell’s ‘1984’?

John “Pony” Edwards, who thinks $400 of campaign money for a haircut is reasonable and by the way considers himself qualified to handle the U.S. economy?

Mike Gravel, who is so much an unknown that his own site lacks any specific policies or positions?

Dennis “Spaceman” Kucinich, whose views are so far from reality that even Kos has been known to back slowly away from him?

Or Barack “Bambi” Obama, whose foreign policy wisdom includes spilling our strategic secrets to our enemies, promising in public we would not use strategic weapons “under any circumstances”, while at the same time publicly threatening to invade allies?

Is there even one in that bunch you could trust in facing down Ahmadinejad? Is there even one you would feel comfortable teaching your kids? Is there even one in that group you think would be good for the economy?

The problem is, the GOP pack has its own stinkers.

John McCain is an undisputed hero from the Vietnam War, and a strong voice of reason and courage regarding the Middle East. But McCain has a track record of intolerance for free speech, especially where campaigning is concerned. He’s about as open as a brick wall where negotiating is concerned, even with his own party. And he’s a real Senator, having often put his friendship with people like John Kerry ahead of the nation’s needs.

Fred Thompson talks the talk, but only in video clips. He has yet to show he is ready for serious debates and extended analysis of his political positions. He also voted to acquit Bill Clinton at the Impeachment trial when he was a Senator for Tennessee, and has said that he was not sure Clinton actually lied under oath, even though Bubba himself admitted that fact. That’s a big mark against Fred.

Mitt Romney ran on the image of the cleanest of the candidates, but one of his close supporters and campaign supporters was Larry Craig. If Larry was as bad as the media plays it, why was Romney cool with having him as a close supporter? Was Romney someone who didn’t check out his team? And if Craig was not guilty, as he claims, what does it say about Romney that he threw Craig overboard so quickly? Either way, it does not speak well of Romney’s integrity. Not at all.

There's Rudy Giuliani, whose candor about his positions is very refreshing, but whose refusal to consider the opinions of the majority of Republicans smells decidedly rank.

Sam Brownback is a back-stabbing Senator who betrayed President Bush and the GOP on many critical votes over the past two years, and so is not worth spit in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are vulgar narcissists whose idea of team play is getting what they want and claiming all the credit no matter who does the real work, or destroying their own party from within in their spite. They are vicious little caricatures of leaders, in the same way that Chihuahuas imagine they are the equals of working dogs.

Ron Paul is a psychotic communist amusing himself by running as a Republican.

Mike Huckabee is an intelligent and well-spoken candidate, But he also strongly embraces the Fair Tax, which may be a good solution for replacing the IRS, except that politically it is nearly impossible to get voters to support it, and so he has tied a millstone around his neck.

And that’s your field, folks. Anyone excited yet?

Pweh.