An Unending War

Thursday was an interesting day, if a long one. I spent it speaking with various doctors, and discussing my prognosis with Dr. Paul Mansfield at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Before speaking with Dr. Mansfield, however, I reviewed my test results with Dr. Fournier. It’s a nasty bit of a reminder, to see the proof that the little mutants are still there, not doing anything that needs an immediate response but there all the same. I have mentioned before that I am lucky, yet it’s never over. I can do most normal things that anyone does, but then again the word ‘normal’ changed forever for me.

No, it’s not a medical blog thing, but I take the present crisis very seriously, pretty much the same way. We’re never going to be ‘normal’ again, not the way it used to men. Not the financial crisis, which in the end comes down to the usual foolishness of people not doing their homework in how they invest their money and the usual con men cheating them because of it, the usual government people seizing the chance to spend tax money on things we don’t need and can’t really afford, in order to pay off the people they owe for their political careers, and the usual media inability to give us facts, instead trying their best to exaggerate every bump in order to get ratings, and the eventual exasperation in general when all these facts finally become too obvious to ignore anymore. We will survive this mess because we always do.

But there are groups, and governments as well, who think the world would be better if a lot of Americans died, and if the US was castrated militarily and economically. They are supported by enemies within the US as well as without. They hurt us badly on 09/11/01, and our traitors showed their colors by pretending America deserved it, and that our response should be apology and surrender. That war has not ended, nor will it in our lifetimes.

We have no choice but to win.

Jobs, Education and Policy

Charge more but offer less. That’s essentially the game plan thrown out by John E Potter to Congress this week, as the Postmaster General of the USPS once again admitted that his organization is incompetent, corrupt, and bloated.

What’s significant is not that a government bureaucracy would – as usual – refuse to address the causes of its problems (once again it appears that accountability, like paying taxes, is only for the ‘little people’), but that Congress is an accomplice in that denial. This is evidenced by the new “stimulus” bill, which provides pretty close to nothing for the average American but saddles the nation with nearly another trillion dollars in debt. That’s not to say the first one was a great idea, but at least that one involved getting money to people and it is – theoretically – paid for by reductions in this year’s tax refunds (if you have not read through your tax instructions for this year, get ready for a shock – the government is all about taking your money, and they are determined to do just that, no matter what they say in front of the cameras). The new “stimulus” includes a mess of government spending which does all but nothing to help mainstream American businesses and communities, and which effects won’t be seen for two to three years, and a tax-cut component which basically rewards people who don’t pay taxes, and does nothing for employers who need help finding a way to keep the employees they have now, let alone hire any new ones. Unemployment, alas, is also not a problem for the bureaucrat to worry about, but one of those things that only hit those unfortunates who work to support their families.

I have been thinking about this mess, and the heart of things is unemployment. If folks lose jobs, they worry and spend less, which in turn hurts the economy and causes more job loss. The only way to stop that cycle is for enough people to get new jobs that the people getting jobs outnumber the people still losing jobs. Well, it should surprise no one that our good elected officials in Congress lied to us; they’re not going to help in the jobs market, not least because they never really could help. Ask anyone who has been in a hiring position, and they will tell you that government never significantly impacts the job market. Government jobs fall into three broad categories – the military, bloated over-staffed positions that could be better done by private companies, and pure pork positions which do nothing but eat tax money. Jobs are always available, even during the Depression some companies were hiring, but to get those jobs you had to be in the right place at the right time, but you also had to be well-qualified. And sorry, “well-qualified” means being able to do the job and to prove your credentials, not being the right race or gender or culture.

There’s a lot of whining about jobs going overseas or jobs that do not pay well. And there are groups which exist solely to force companies to provide jobs to people who frankly are not interested in working hard, and to pay a “living wage”, which always means about twice as much as the job is worth. Look, imagine you were going to buy a car, and you chose the Hyundai over the Mercedes because you couldn’t afford the Benz. “Living wage” is the same thing as someone coming up and telling you that even though you bought the Hyundai, you have to pay the Mercedes price, just because they want you to do that. Same logic, folks. If you want a job that pays a certain amount of money, then you best get off your butt and make your services worth that kind of coin. A high school diploma and a resume that shows nothing more complicated that customer service and jobs that primarily involve data entry, are not jobs that lead to high pay or security.

There are really only three ways to get a good-paying job, and by the way, a job that is less likely to get cut in a recession. One way is to develop a necessary expertise that is in short supply. The problem there is that over time those niches get filled, look at what happened to IT. The second way is to be related or a really good friend to the owner of a successful business. The other 99.99% of us will move on. The last way is to continue your education.

Now, ‘education’ is a trite word, and I am not saying what we hear so often from job counselors, that getting a degree (or an advanced degree) will by itself mean a better career. I personally knew a couple guys with doctorates who could not hold long-term jobs at decent pay. I mean that we all have brains, which are meant to be used effectively at important tasks. In third grade that means book reports, at the Masters’ level that means a defensible thesis, but in the real world of employment that means doing a bit of research and analysis on the community and environment you have, and making informed choices on your strategy and actions. I did not choose to earn my MBA because some Godmother in a glittering tutu promised I would be rich if I did, I chose that path on the basis of Houston’s economy, the relative proportion of MBA-holders to significant positions in management in my industry, and after discussion on the issue with some people whose opinion I value. After my MBA, will take a few more courses and then sit for my CPA license exams, which decision was made in a similar manner. And as the years go by, I will further add coursework and continuing education to my resume in order to stay current not only in my field, but to be aware of business conditions where I live and work.

It is significant to consider now the effect of policy. For long-term meaningful employment, a person must have appropriate and continuing education, and they must be proactive in using their knowledge. This strategy not only makes the individual more valuable, it improves the company which hires that person, and as a whole the nation becomes more competitive in global commerce. It should be noted, however, that the government does not support this strategy, except at the level of lip service. If the government would like to really address unemployment and the nation’s long-term interests, then there needs to be a ‘stimulus’ program which benefits education quality for working Americans who want better employment and those who will soon enter the workforce, rather than payoffs to Abortion clinics.

On War Against Terrorists, Part 3

There are more than one billion professed Muslims in the world. US Intelligence says that at its height, Al Qaeda numbered perhaps fifty thousand members and another hundred thousand supporting persons. That works out to about 0.015% of all Muslims. If all terrorist groups and – let’s be generous – all radical Islamist groups which desire to attack the West and Israel are counted, that number reaches a total of perhaps ten million people, or just 1.0% of all Muslims. While Islam has many factions which are hostile to American values and policies, it must be understood at the outset that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have effectively nothing in common with terrorists. The common complaint from the West that Muslims must protest the behavior of terrorist groups misses the point that most Muslims already consider terrorists to be well beyond the pale, so that protesting against them would make no more sense than believing that young white Christian men should disavow any connection to Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, or Charles Manson – it should not be necessary to state the obvious.

This is not to claim that the Muslims are just like Christians, except for a few different customs and spiritual practices. Islam is a strongly evangelistic faith, based on the belief that only Islam is true in God’s eyes, all other beliefs being in error or outright rebellion against God. Tradition is revered in Islam, because Islamic law (Sharia) is rooted in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed and his hand-picked disciples and successors (the Caliphs). This is roughly comparable to the old Roman Catholic practice of considering the Church of Rome to hold the full authority of Peter as granted by the word of Jesus Christ Himself, back in the day when the Pope could call up armies to kill in the name of God. It should be noted, however, that the Caliphs of Islam are long removed to the past, so that no current Imam has the authority to speak for all of Islam. From time to time, someone gets bold enough to declare himself the Mahdi, basically the Muslim equivalent of the Messiah, which effort up to now has invariably resulted in a bloody war of conquest, ending in the death of the false Mahdi and his supporters. This point is significant, in the light of reports that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been pushing to have himself proclaimed the Mahdi of Islam or Twelfth Imam (the ‘hidden Imam’). This is not merely narcissism, but also a power play intended to promote the ascendancy of the Iranian race, the Aryans (yes, those Ayrans) as the natural leaders of Islam. Ahmadinejad appears to be playing Sunni against Shia in order to advance a racial caste to the top, conveniently his own. While to Western eyes and ears this kind of claim may appear laughable, there are various accounts which purport to describe the physical appearance of the Mahdi, and Ahmadinejad has been spinning the ones which happen to work in his favor (not all of them do, of course).

Ahmadinejad’s attempts to spin himself as a spiritual leader are part of the Middle East political movement renewing state ties to religion. This is actually a periodic cycle for the region, dating back to the Islamic Caliphates prior to the Fatimad Empire, which shifted the center of power to Egypt and created a meritocracy in the government. This secularization was further continued by the Khan invasions of the thirteenth century, which saw the Mamluks come to power through their defense of the nation (note, defense of the nation, not the faith). Later, Islam became influential in politics again under the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughul empires, but as the names imply, this regional division of power devolved the unity of Islam still further.

Following the first World War, the Ottoman Empire essentially collapsed, and the vacuum was partly addressed by the rise of Wahhabism, a movement begun in the eighteenth century which argued that Muslims were being punished by Allah for an impure faith. It is important to understand that the leader of that movement allied himself with one Abdul Ibn Saud, who successfully claimed the territory of present-day Saudi Arabia for himself, and not coincidentally this territory included the two holiest places in Islam, the cities of Mecca and Medina. Saud’s success seemed to indicate that radical Islam could prevail over the colonial powers, restoring Muslims to their rightful control of their own land.

To Muslim eyes after World War 2, modern history shows the consistent rise of Muslim power, from the removal of colonial powers, to the end of secular masters, to the increased wealth and power worldwide of Islamist states. The existence of Israel and the annoying habit of Americans in demanding that their views become global polity aside, the leaders of the Islamist movement came to believe that their power and influence would only increase, and all that was left to do was to simply follow through.

‘Following through’ did not work out so well. Attempts to invade and destroy Israel failed over and over again, and frequently cost the Muslim forces much more than it did the Israelis. The various oil crises posed threats to the United States, but they too seemed to end to the Americans’ advantage. The Islamists have a bad knack of choosing the wrong friends, from Germany in both World Wars, business negotiators who could not see beyond the end of the decade, and religious leaders whose extreme ideology made their doctrines inpracticible in any real sense. Unfortunately, rather than admit errors and rethink the strategy, the Islamists in positions of power reacted with hostility and malice. It is no random fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, which engaged in small-scale murders and thuggery in the 1920s, evolved into more elaborate and extensive conspiracies to topple undesirable regimes (e.g. the Shah), blackmail wealthy families into bankrolling terrorist operations (Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Egypt, especially), and seek to eradicate western presence through violence and intimidation.

The western response also evolved. Early capitulation in paying ransoms and acceptance of hard-line Muslim dogma (such as refusing to do business with Jews, women, or blacks in positions of importance as corporate representatives) became less attractive as groups became less mercenary and more bloodthirsty. American businesses began demanding better protection from their own government, and mercenary armies came into being to protect western compounds and facilities. Eventually, this need to protect American interests influenced official policy under the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Even the Clinton Administration supported sub rosa operations, which were accepted by Middle East governments because they did not embarrass the officials personally. But by the end of the twentieth century, it was becoming apparent that terrorist groups had taken on a new dimension; the façade of legitimacy.

The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza territory is a solid example of what happens when terrorists are allowed to gain political power and to present themselves as the duly elected representatives of the people. But Hamas is not the first group to play this role. Elements of the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and of course Al Qaeda have all played the game of diplomat, in some cases becoming able to claim the image of respectability, as seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Sudan, and Yemen. This was a tipping point for the George W. Bush Administration, the concern that the sense of control in their own territory would lead to attacks on American soil. This concern, of course, was built in large part on the character and scale of the 9/11 attacks. The profile of the conflict, as well as the stakes, changed completely almost overnight.

On War Against Terrorists, Part 2

Shortly after the end of the War of 1812, a strange event took place which changed the world. Naval officers, then diplomatic officials of the American and British governments agreed to cooperate to seek out and destroy pirate operations in the Caribbean Sea. The new policy took decades to fully effect, but eventually ended piracy in the Western Hemisphere as a major threat. The episode is significant not only because of the drastic shifts in policy, but also as a rejection of the contemporary belief that piracy was impossible to eradicate, a problem the civilized would have to accept and deal with as an unpleasant reality. It is further significant that the effort to wipe out piracy was not limited to one nation, nor was it the property of only one political party. The effective resolution of international terrorism by Jihadist factions requires a similar purview.

The shock of the 9/11 attacks united the nation – for a moment – and focused attention on the true cause and foundation of the culprits. But soon after, groups reverted to their nominal postures, which behavior may be generally categorized as reactive, passive, and proactive.

The majority of Americans hold a position regarding terrorism that may be described as reactive. That is, their desire for a certain action is in response to something that happens to provoke that reaction. Therefore, when thousands of Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks, most Americans wanted to find and attack the men responsible. Most Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, because of clear connections between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The war in Iraq was also initially popular, because of Saddam Hussein’s behavior which appeared to demonstrate support for terrorism (which was true) as well as a threat of WMD use (which turned out not to be true). Reactive opinions tend to shift focus over time, preferring predictable routine to unusual conditions.

Some Americans opposed any military action whatsoever with regard to the terrorist attacks. This position is the passive position. These people want terrorism to treated as a crime, with the nominal legal framework used to pursue and punish the attackers. The problem with the passive approach is that it has already been shown to be ineffective against large groups, as the planners and leaders stay out of legal reach. The 1993 bomb attack against the World Trade Center built a case against only the lowest-level participants, for example.

The third group contends that the best strategy in attacking terrorism is to strike at its source. This group is the proactive or peremptory group. The position is often controversial, as is evidence by shifting public and congressional opinion on the Iraq war, but has a solid core of support, especially among military. The proactive strategy has not been used successfully very often, although there are historical precedents in the Napoleanic Wars, the campaigns of Genghis Khan, and the Six Day War of 1967, among others.

The significant lesson in addressing these three groups, is to understand that all three exist to varying degrees, and any effective plan must take all of them into consideration.

On War Against Terrorists, part 1

During the Revolutionary War, British General William Howe's men captured the American Nathan Hale spying on British fortifications. Hale is immortalized among Americans for his final words, "I only regret that I have but one life to give my country". Few people remember that Howe was originally inclined to let Hale live, being impressed with his manners and courage. However, some British officers contended that Hale had been involved, possibly a leader, in the burning of Manhattan in 1776 (while a member of Knowlton's Rangers) to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. While mulling this charge against Hale, Howe was also advised that Hale allegedly participated in sniper attacks as a member of Ethan Allen's "Green Mountain Boys". Howe chose to believe that Hale had been a sniper, which in his view was an illegal and cowardly act, and he forthwith ordered Hale's execution. This incident was representative of the time; Americans revered Hale, Allen, and Washington as heroes while the British regarded their style of warfare as cowardly and unacceptable behavior for civilized military officers.

Even the British, of course, nowadays consider Washington a legitimate hero, but context is essential in grasping the meaning of public debates. It was said that Alexander ordered the immediate execution of enemy archers captured in battle, as he considered it unmanly to kill only from a distance. Of course, this was also the general whose siege tactics included catapulting the corpses of animals killed by plague into cities they attacked. In ancient China, an archer was allowed to shoot at his opponent, but could not fire his second shot until his opponent, if able, returned fire himself. Custom varied in different places and times, but was firm where it was known.

The Aztecs had a strict rule against deliberately killing an enemy on the battlefield, which sounds magnanimous until you consider that they thought it wasteful, the deaths serving a much more useful purpose as human sacrifices in ceremony. And of course in more modern times, there are the distinctive combat styles of the Nazis and the Soviets – the Nazis would commonly accept surrender from a town’s leaders only if they personally executed a number of ‘undesirables’ (partisans or Jews, for example), to show their loyalty to the Reich and by the way seal their own complicity in murder, while the Soviets often broke families apart in contentious zones, raising the children as parentless wards of the State in order to keep them “clean” of their heritage and any tendency to avenge dead parents.

All of this seems to apologize for the character of the terrorist. In fact, however, when examined more closely it reveals just how false the “culture” of the global jihad truly is. The Aztecs were brutal, yet controlled in their selection of victims and manner of killing. On the other hand, as mighty an empire as Britain was in its heyday, the British were extremely scrupulous about protecting innocents – not because the innocents had “rights”, but because as they considered themselves a superior people the British restrained themselves. Yet culture after culture has learned that it cannot compel its enemies to abide by its protocols. The Aztecs could not force the Spaniards to fight as they did, nor could Rome make Hannibal fight by its rules. Ask the British about their war in Ireland, or the Soviets about the mujahadin. Or for that matter, why China is having so much trouble crushing Tibet? No plan to fight terrorism is going to be effective unless you understand your enemy’s plan, boundaries, and limits.

Boundaries and limits are two very different things. The short explanation is that boundaries are what you will not do, while limits set off what you cannot do. Nations and cultures which enjoy a sense of superiority are likely to establish ethical boundaries which subversive groups do not use. It is an unresolved debate whether such boundaries are helpful or a liability in the war, the decision must be considered case by case but for here it is important to recognize that this difference exists in most asymmetrical conflicts.

For the civilized world (for here, we may simply say those nations which generally cooperate with the United States in security matters and which generally work to prevent terrorist operations in their territory or using their resources), winning against terrorists includes the identification of their limits – determining then implementing what would cripple their operational ability. Essentially this means attacking the three legs of recruiting, logistics, and communication of terrorist groups. The chief focus of the Bush Administration war in the Middle East employed these objectives to good result. Regardless of policy, the Obama Administration has both the resources and personnel to continue this focus effectively in a number of different ways.

The greatest threat from any terrorist group is the wide range of targets, methods, and tools it may use. The first attempt against the World trade Center in 1993 used a truck bomb, but in 2001 very different tactics were used. We are soberly reminded of the IRA taunt after an attempt on the Royal Family that evil men ‘only need to be lucky once’. No matter how Obama is seen by the world, it is certain that terrorists will attack the United States again as soon as they are able, and likely personally attack Obama as well.

Every President is a high-profile target, and the celebrity image of Barack Obama is certainly not masking his profile. This is not to say that things would be different for anyone else in the office, but that there is a clear and significant personal risk for Obama regardless of his policy or strategy choice. If by some chance that was not enough to lock his focus on the problem, President Obama should consider that his wife and daughters are also high-profile targets, especially to terrorists who consider Americans weak for valuing women as equal to men. The naïve idea that if we retreat that our enemies will leave us alone, is quickly dispelled by even a brief look at the history of terrorism, from the Black Hand in the 19th Century, to the various incarnations of Socialist radical groups in the 20th Century, to the Jihadist movements of the 21st Century.

The Beginner

I try to be fair when discussing a new President. The fact is, I have not had one in my lifetime that really got me enthused at first. It may seem strange, since I am such a supporter now, but the main reason I was supporting W in 2001, was because he was not Al Gore. I despised Bill Clinton when he first took office, only raising my opinion of him after a few worthy accomplishments. Reagan won me over quickly, but even there at first I did not know what to expect from him, whether he would deliver on his promises. I saw Carter for the charlatan he was as soon as he decided to run. I liked Ford as a person (who didn’t?), but was never excited about him as President. And so on.

But in every case, there were at least clear indicators of how the man would lead. W Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter had been governors. The elder Bush had been in government service for many years, as had Ford and Nixon and Johnson. The only guy who was clueless in office at the start was Kennedy.

Oh yes, the “Camelot” President. In some ways, this is hopeful for President Obama. Kennedy pushed hard for Civil Rights, he pushed significant income tax cuts, and JFK was the muse for the moon missions. On the other hand, Kennedy badly bungled the Bay of Pigs crisis, his response to a steel strike was to all but nationalize the industry, and in general Kennedy’s term was a mix of going along with Congress’ policies-in-place, and getting the US deeply involved in Vietnam, although it took LBJ to really lock us there. Barack Obama is like John Kennedy in that he is a man of image far more than substance, that he lacks the political pull to compel Congress to give up its lust for spending, especially earmarks. Even if Obama means well, it is difficult to imagine him overcoming an entrenched DC machine and the Machiavellian workings of his own party.

The Rest of Racism

The elites have their day. The media, Hollywood, and a certain demographic subset of the nation are rejoicing in the inauguration of Barack Obama. Certainly the historic nature of swearing in the first black President of the United States is evident, although its been more than slightly overdone in its impact. That was made evident to me earlier this year by my wife.

My wife happens to be Chinese, from HK actually but close enough to the mainland to resent the hell out of the idea that only blacks suffered from racism. Long after blacks gained their freedom, Chinese were routinely treated like slaves, and some of the most obscene hate crimes in history were committed against Asians. In his book “The Seven States of California”, Philip Fradkin quotes a historian who said that the Los Angeles massacre of Chinese on October 24, 1871 was “probably the biggest mass lynching in the history of California, if not the whole country.” (pg 369). In 1880, the Chinese living in the mining town of Hop Alley outside Denver were driven from town, and dozens of Chinese were murdered. The exact number is unknown because the bodies were dismembered and denied proper burial. Riots against Chinese, mass lynchings, and the burnings of their communities for no offense beyond being there were common in the United States for more than eighty years.

There has never been a formal apology from the United States government, or from any of the state or local governments concerned, for the murder of hundreds if not thousands of Chinese on American soil. Before 1917, Chinese were not even commonly recorded in census records and were generally denied the opportunity to become citizens under any conditions, even when they were born in the United States. I should not have to even mention the treatment of law-abiding American citizens of Japanese genealogy during World War 2.

This does not mean that Asians alone suffered. Historian Ken Gonzales-Day noted that American Indians and Latinos, along with Chinese, were regularly subjected to brutal treatment, and were victims of lynchings far more often than were blacks (Lynching in the West, 1850-1935, pg 27).

This is not to diminish the suffering of blacks in America, but to note the hypocrisy in the spotlight given only to that race when discussing race issues. When prominent activist groups want a discussion on race, the designated leaders are always black, and the issues always focus on their race first and foremost. Blacks are assured quota minimums in government money, jobs, school placement, and even government representation (recall the demand by Democrats that Obama’s replacement must be a black man or woman), at a time when no such privileges are extended to other races, and in the case of Asians a ceiling seems to be imposed to keep ‘too many’ of them from attending top schools. Simply put, for more than a generation there has been a strong push to advance black Americans, while ignoring other minorities who have suffered just as much, and in some cases personally worse, than blacks.

Barack Obama was not elected because he was the best-qualified candidate. He won because Americans wanted change, because he was able to win the job, and because as a black he had political capital that better-qualified opponents in his party could not access. In itself, this is no sin; many people have won office in the past under similar circumstances. But given the many claims that Obama somehow represents a victory over Racism, that America by his office has moved beyond the days where it should address its past, the disparity in how different races are treated, especially the preference granted blacks in almost all things, proves a different, a more insidious, form of racism still thrives in America.

Racism is not defeated by putting someone of the “right” color into power. It is not over when one group supplants another. It is not even finished by punishing a selected demographic, or by assuring advancement by skin color. It can only be ended when the character of the individual and the skill of his or her mind and work determine the treatment. Until then, for all his eloquence and grandeur, President Obama’s attention to Racism is no more than a new chapter in an old con game. But he’s not fooling everyone he believes are fooled.

Monday

I just heard I have to go back in for more medical 'consultation'.

The networks continue to compare Barack Obama to heroes both historic (Lincoln) and current (Sullenberger) on no basis other than being successful and black.

My dogs ate another sweater.

My Bears fell out of the AP Top 25.

My intention to produce a brilliant essay was pre-empted by meetings and lawyer discussions.

Yep, its Monday.

Stupidity

On Wednesday of this week, three men robbed the bank where my wife works. They were caught within minutes of leaving the bank. One customer was injured but not seriously, so overall little harm was done. I am glad about that, though a bit scared about my wife being involved in a situation like that. It's the third time in five years that she's been robbed at that bank.

The crooks were not particularly brilliant. They did not seem to realize that the bank was less than a quarter-mile from the headquarters of the Bellaire Police Department, they set a lookout but had no plan on what to do if/when police arrived, and they did not even plan ahead on how they were going to carry the cash they stole. Real brainiacs, these guys. It appears that once they got the idea to rob a bank (I guess on the theory that banks have a lot of money and therefore it would be a big score), they went ahead without messing around with a lot of thinking.

Stupidity is not limited to crime, however. A lot of the Obama policies, as described so far, are real big on emotion and not very planned in detail. Pretty much in every case, when asked about an issue or his plan to address a crisis, Obama's answer is a variation of 'trust me I'm the right guy'. OK, so we've heard that before with politicians, but at least in the past we knew their track record, their resume, and so there were indicators to tell us what we should expect. Barack Obama is a young man who dresses and speaks well and he uses a lot of what I call 'Oprah words' - words which sound good but are so vague they could mean just about anything.

A Better Man Than His Detractors

On May 15, 2006, the site owner of polipundit.com issued an order to the other five writers on the blog, as follows: “From now on, every blogger at PoliPundit.com will either agree with me completely on the immigration issue, or not blog at PoliPundit.com."

Within hours of that totalitarian action, he barred all of the writers from posting at the site, an action he then called “temporary”, but thirty-two months later the ban remains in effect.

Readers at the site were vocal, and some of them prescient. From the first, one reader observed “You’ve just lost the center-right, congratulations” (comment 63), while another simply noted “this news is very disappointing. Now there is no reason for me to come back and I will go visit other sites that agree with you in principle, but are much more respectful in there [sic] tone” (comment 7), while others were less polite, like the fellow (comment 526) who noted “that’s the whole point. We CAN’T engage. Poli took that away. Intellectual cowardice at its finest.”

Examining the meltdown, blogger The Anchoress warned that there would be a price for such inability to allow free and open discussion of the major issues, political as well as social. The short verdict, she warned, was that the public would reject conservatives as reactionary and small-minded.

In the polipundit debacle, a single issue caused the site owner to basically go nuts and kick out a team of writers who had built up his site from a modest readership to one of the leaders in the blogosphere for conservative debate and discussion. But it reflects a deeper and far more serious problem in Conservatism, the inability to tolerate a wide range of opinions, the bitter denunciation of even allies and champions for the smallest variance. This is most apparent in the shameful disrespect of President George W. Bush by conservatives.

Three issues reflect the collapse of conservative sanity with regard to the President; the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, the Immigration crisis, and the Dubai Port decision. The behavior by leading conservatives in these three cases illustrates the sad decision to abandon traditional conservative stands, and to burn their bridges to the public’s appreciation of their ideals.

With regard to the Miers nomination, conservatives soon after the announcement began to express a sense of “betrayal” about Miers, and in a blatant reversal of their stated moral position that every nominee had a right to an up or down vote, demanded that Miers be removed from consideration before even her first day before a committee to consider her nomination. The hypocrisy was blatant and deliberate, and seriously damaged the moral foundation for the far Right, demoting them from principled activists to self-serving mandarins.

This does not mean that Miers was a good choice. But the opposition to Miers was expressed in exactly the wrong way, a way which played completely into the hands of the Left, as the Right could then be cast with some justification as dishonest and unconcerned with the public interest. Certainly the move showed a disloyalty to President Bush, not so much in disapproving of Miers as the manner and tone in which it was cast. When I wrote about this issue in 2005, I found a range of reactions, from those who thought I was writing “screeds” and was “unworthy of respect”, to those who said I was “exactly right”, those who 'especially liked’my response, including the Anchoress, who wrote that “DJ Drummond makes some excellent points and probably is quite right”.

Miers may or may not have turned out to be a good justice, we frankly will never know now because she was never given a hearing much less a chance to show her mind. It was a poor series of events for conservatives, because even though we ended up with Alito (followed by Roberts), conservatives remember not the good judgment of President Bush, but the bitter opposition they had against Miers, and they have never yet apologized for using unethical tactics to get what her removed from consideration. ‘The ends justify the means’ has always been a chilling maxim from the evil side of humanity, and conservatives should be ashamed for having their values sullied by such behavior. Michelle Malkin should be ashamed that she could only refer to the White House Counsel as a “crony”, and Jonah Goldberg that he could only see Miers in terms of “battiness”. George Will had no business claiming that President Bush “has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution.” Such venomous dishonesty does not belong under the byline of a conservative writer, and until recent years we would never have seen it.

The next key issue was Immigration. Absolutely no one in the GOP argues that illegals coming into the United States do not represent a grave threat, but the hysteria from the hardline Right has damaged the credibility of the Republican leaders. One thing that annoys me the most with regard to this issue, is the constant lying on the hardline Right against President Bush, ignoring all of his work on border security like increasing funding for border security by 159% since taking office, working with foreign nations to improve their own border security along US borders, more than doubling the number of agents along the border as well as UAVs and improving interior enforcement. Bush led the initiative to increase the number and scope of ICE teams from 15 in 2005 to 75 teams in 2007.

The plain fact is, Bush’s detractors simply ignored the facts because they wanted to attack the President. Tom Tancredo was one such rebel, refusing to cooperate with the President or grant even courteous consideration to White House proposals to deal with the problem. Tancredo was sadly representative of a bitter contingent willing to blow apart any chance of a real solution, simply because they did not get their way. President Bush, to his credit, was willing to re-examine and modify his plans in response to real-world conditions, something the foam-mouthed Right never once considered.

It should be obvious on its face that dealing with twenty-some-odd million people who should not be in the country is a difficult task, not least when you have to fight political opposition, including a bunch of narcissists in your own party, to get anything done. This is a problem that has vexed Presidents and Governors and all manner of political solution for more than a generation. No, that does not mean that it’s acceptable to ignore the problem, or that every solution should be accepted without debate or criticism, but the puerile and vicious attacks on President Bush, from conservatives especially, is unconscionable. In the first place it sabotaged any kind of progress towards a solution, allowing liberals and egotists to pretend they did not have to do anything, while honest efforts to address the problem were mocked and shot down by people who could not offer a realistic alternative.

I especially disliked the people who thought it was a good idea to eviscerate the ones trying to find a workable solution, and who presented themselves as equals to the leaders they attacked, even though such men never actually run for the office they claim they could do so easily, and are unwilling to concede that the people duly elected might have a moral right to claim authority to actually do their job. Back in 2006, I went off on Jed Babbin for that kind of attitude. I still like what I wrote then, so for all you folks who believe you have the right to trash President Bush for not being your personal meat puppet, it’s real simple:

Elections matter, you dope. And nobody elected you diddly, much less President of the United States. He’s the captain of our Ship of State, and if you want to cut him off at the knees, you don’t get to claim he has to earn your allegiance. That’s what the elections did, you hypocrite. Dubs said the same things then as he is saying now, and since he got the win in 2000 and again in 2004, that makes him the boss.
Him, not you. 62 million plus voted for George W. Bush in 2004, and you don’t get to ignore that election now when it’s inconvenient for you, anymore than John Kerry and Al Gore get to pretend they are really the President.

Right about now any of the Rabid Wing will start off saying how I am trying to silence dissent. Not at all. If you don’t like a policy, say so, and by all means tell your Congressman and Senators what you want them to do on any given vote. But disagreeing with a position on a given issue, or several issues, does not give you license to lie about what Bush has really said or done or stands for, and it doesn’t give you leave to attack the twice-elected leader of our party and our country. The man has more than earned your respect and support, and only the most venal and petty sort of person does not see that. And the sort of person who would ride the rise of the Republicans into majority, largely on the work of George W. Bush, but then threaten to sink the ship if they don’t get to set the course and seize command from the rightful captain, well folks that’s nothing but a dirty, low-down mutineer.

On now to the Dubai Ports deal. In early 2006, DP World, a company based out of the United Arab Emirates, agreed in principle to take over management of six U.S. ports then managed by a British firm which was leaving the business. It should be noted at the start, that there were only two companies interested in the deal – Dubai World out of the UAE, and the People’s Republic of China. For some reason, the hardline Right decided that there was a third option, a way to either force the British company to keep the ports or that some fictional all-American firm would come into existence just to prevent – what? It seems that the hardright was never clear about what exactly was at risk. Dick Meyer at CBS noted that the UAE would never own the ports or have anything at all to do with their security (security at ports is addressed by US Homeland Security), and in any case the UAE’s standing as a US ally is excellent. As Meyer wrote in his article, the people attacking Bush for the deal were nothing but purveyors of “demagoguery and cheap shots”. Reuters put it bluntly: “Maritime security experts sided with the president”
I tried to put the matter in perspective myself, even before I realized that the hype against the deal was paranoid delusion and Bush-hate.

In the end, the deluded jackals of HardRight won, and the deal was destroyed, at the small cost of breaking legal and diplomatic precedent, insulting a valuable ally, and demonstrating once again the refusal of the hardline elements of conservatism to act like adults.

My point is simple – President Bush has made mistakes, but he has been unfairly attacked by people who should, by all rights, have supported him, if only to gain the most of their own goals and ideals.

The greatest President of the 20th century was Ronald W. Reagan, the man who represents the heart of Conservative Idealism for most self-identified Conservatives. Many conservatives have been disparaging of President George W. Bush, despite a comparable record on major points:

Ronald Reagan was governor of California, where he earned a record for getting the job done by working with all parties, including Democrats. George W. Bush was governor of Texas, where he earned a record for getting the job done by working with all parties, including Democrats.

Ronald Reagan as governor experienced economic crises and had first-hand experience with the causes and effects of illegal immigration. George W. Bush as governor experienced economic crises and had first-hand experience with the causes and effects of illegal immigration.

Ronald Reagan’s judicial appointments in general were excellent, with the exception of Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor. Conservatives forgave him for that one bad choice. George W. Bush’s judicial appointments in general were excellent, with the possible exception of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Conservatives never forgave him for that choice.

Ronald Reagan tried to address the problem of illegal immigration, proposing a program that critics said amounted to Amnesty. Conservatives in general forgave him for that program. George W. Bush tried to address the problem of illegal immigration, proposing a program that critics said amounted to Amnesty. Conservatives in general never forgave him for that program.

Ronald Reagan faced down an enemy that liberals said could not be beaten, in Communism. Years later critics began to grudgingly admit that Reagan played a role in winning the Cold War. George W. Bush faced down an enemy that liberals said could not be beaten, in Global Terrorism. Years later critics still refuse to acknowledge Bush’s success in protecting America.

Of course there are also differences between Ronald W. Reagan and George W. Bush. When terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, Reagan withdrew from Lebanon, condemning that nation to another generation of civil war and terrorist violence. When Al Qaeda mounted counter-offensives using car bombs and incursions from Iran and Syria, George W. Bush refused to abandon Iraq, saving that nation from another generation of tyranny and terrorist violence. And President George W. Bush tried to propose solutions to the Social Security and Medicare crises while there was still room to act proactively. One cannot help but wonder what he might have accomplished if the conservatives in power at that time had acted in America’s interest instead of their own myopic political greed. During the 1980s, Republicans were in the minority of power but accomplished a lot because they rallied behind President Reagan. It can fairly be said that this is the source of our present consternation – conservatives expected the President to get behind their pet projects and bills, instead of showing the loyalty due to Bush.

So what did President Bush do, that he deserves any credit? Here’s a short list:

• Banned partial-birth abortion
• Reinstated parental-consent clause in the Medical Privacy Act
• Upheld ban on abortions at military hospitals
• Proposed, worked for, and signed into law two income-tax cuts
• Worked to eliminate the Death Tax
• Worked to privatize Social Security
• Eliminated OSHA’s ‘ergonomic’ rules for home businesses
• Reduced H1B visas from 195,000 a year to 66,000
• Killed attempts to revive Kyoto Global Warming Treaty
• Revised Forestry Management Act to allow cleanup to prevent fires, removed need for Environmental Impact Statement before removing dangerous brush and fallen tress from fire-risk areas
• Removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq
• Eliminated Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan
• Eliminated Al Qaeda operational existence outside North African continent
• Disarmed Libya of its WMDs
• Improved US military review ability, emphasis on asymmetrical warfare
• Best friend to Israel since 1948
• Prohibited putting US forces under UN command
• Brought back EP-3 plane and crew from China without conflict
• Ended participation in International Criminal Court
• Faced down the UN, saying “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
• Worked to reform Medicare
• Worked to address border security, created largest budget and roster for enforcement, internal fugitive capture, and employer penalty system in history
• Constructed ABM silos in Alaska, Montana, and Maine
• Operation Tarmac
• Denied ABA role in vetting federal judge/justice nominations

It’s quite fashionable these days to deride and attack President Bush. In a few days, he will be former President Bush, so few if any people consider the man except as a target. But it is my contention that Bush has done a fine job, deserving not only of credit and praise, but also that the present condition of Republicans and Conservatives is directly attributable to the shabby treatment heaped on the President. For the ideals of Conservatism to become attractive to American voters again, we simply owe better loyalty and support to our leaders, especially when they are conservatives or at least Republicans.

The Joy of Barium

Visiting a hospital for tests is always something of a transformational experience for me. As you can probably tell from Saturday’s entry, I was feeling just a mite sorry for myself. Foolish, that. Fortunately, visiting a place where people face – and overcome – genuine challenges and threats, helps me to put my own life into better perspective.

The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, to use the full name once in a while, is a fantastic place, where thousands of the most dedicated and motivated medical professionals in the world fight a never-ending battle against cancer in all of its forms. Front to back, this place is incredible, operating at a level of care and compassion I have seen at no other place. It’s not just the doctors, you see, but the nurses, physician’s assistants, even the volunteers and phlebotomists are very, very good at what they do. While there are some patients that MDA must turn away, every patient accepted at MDA can count on a conviction that their doctors and staff will refuse to surrender, that every effort will be made not only to beat the cancer, but to provide a comfortable life for the patient. Hey, I know I sound like a commercial, but you have to see this place to believe it. And to understand why so many cancer patients desperately hope to be admitted there for treatment.

And why I am always a bit depressed when I go there. You see, I have been very, very lucky. My cancer is formally known as Pseudomyxoma Peritonei, an abdominal cancer where the cysts form as free-floating cells in the abdominal fluid, going unnnoticed for years in almost every case until they reach a certain size, around 2 millimeters in diameter. At that point, two things start to happen. They start to seriously block the flow of fluid into and out from the abdominal cavity, increasing pressure on internal organs and eventually choking them off, and at some point they metastasize, and attack all the internal organs they can reach. Up to that point there are usually no warning signs, so that the overwhelming majority of PMP patients are discovered only at Stage IV. There is no known cure for PMP, and Stage IV PMP has a survival rate ranging from 10 to 25 percent, depending on a variety of factors. Me, I got really lucky, because I passed a kidney stone.

In October of 2006, I passed a kidney stone, and it hurt like nothing I had ever experienced. My doctor told me to get a CT scan to be sure there was not another one waiting to have a go, and that was when my doctor discovered I had ruptured my appendix, and ordered emergency surgery. That surgery produced its own surgery, as the surgeon taking my appendix out found a mass of mucus-like material in my abdominal cavity, removed every bit he could find, and sent off the stuff for tests. From there, the tests came back malignant and more tests were done, and after a few referrals and more tests PMP was confirmed. So, odd as it sounds, passing a kidney stone and rupturing my appendix saved my life in a way, because it caught the cancer at a very early stage. You just never know how things are going to work out.

Short version from there, they cannot cure it but they can control it. So long as the little cells stay really small, I’m good. So no more surgeries, at least not for now, not even chemo. The downside of that, though, is that I didn’t do a single thing to deserve that good fortune. So every time I go to MDA to get more tests done, I see people who have not been so lucky. I was chatting with a guy yesterday who was fighting lymphoma, and he joked that the cool thing about the chemo he was having, was that he only had to shave every 3 or 4 days. That way of putting things to the good is not uncommon there. Because of the radiation and drugs and so on, the floors I go to do not have any children under 12, who are treated in a different place (just as well – I do not think I could stand seeing a child go through some of the things the adults have to endure, and I know that some of the kids do have to take that), so I see folks from their late teens and up, in various stages and types of cancer. Having an abdominal cancer, I tend to see the colon and rectal cancer patients, we’re a special kind of grotesque club. Sometimes we discuss what we do when the ‘plumbing’ shuts down, or which doctor we’re going to. Seems like the men here outnumber the women about 60-40 in abdominal cancers, for whatever that means.

Things are getting to be a steady routine now with the tests. After the tests, my wife wanted to know what I wanted to eat, and was surprised that I was not hungry; she’s forgotten what the tests are like. All that barium, you see. The barium shake is one thing, but the IV makes you feel glowy in a weird way, and all I will say about the rectal contrast is that you won’t want to be active below the chest for a while, OK? I was reading a bedtime story to my daughter last night, and I joked that I could read it with the lights off. Meh, if that’s the worst I get I should be fine. I thought about not blogging about the tests, but it stays on my mind while everything tastes funny, which usually lasts a couple days.

As you’ve probably figured out by now, my thoughts are less than well-organized today. I feel fine about the tests, guilty about not having as tough a time as so many other people fighting cancer, I appreciate the spirit and outlook of the fighters, and I am still immature enough to get bothered by all the needles, chemicals, Ivs, and other accoutrements of going to the hospital, even just to check up on how things are going. I’d like to say there was a point to this, but I cannot really think of one except it’s what’s on my mind, and maybe your Monday was not so bad when you think about it.

Purgatory

One thing I have to admit I feel is a weakness with being an American Fundamentalist Protestant Christian, is that so many other religions have fascinating concepts we are not, dogmatically speaking, supposed to consider, much less embrace. One of those which both repels and speaks to me is Purgatory.

Here’s the thing; as a fundy in more or less good standing, I believe the Scripture when addressing all of the important things, not the least of which is the final resolution of our immortal souls. And the dogma of most protestant churches runs along the lines that immediately upon our deaths, we find ourselves in that place where we belong, according either to God’s mercy or our works. And as the Apostle Paul advised that all men have sinned and fallen short, that basically says that if you don’t ‘join the team’ so to speak, you’re headed for the wrong side of eternity. But a closer reading of Scripture makes that conclusion a bit shaky. I’m not going to turn this into a deep theological discussion, not least because I am far from qualified to present any absolute claims, but I do believe that we may depend on God’s mercy more than we should fear technicalities. Jesus said himself, that many will be in heaven (and locked out of it) who were not at all expected to be there.

One problem that a lot of people have with the ‘instant decision’ theory of moral judgment, is that almost no one seems to fit the extreme definitions of good or evil. We’ve all done things we know were wrong, and we have all done things we believe are good. Therefore, a heaven for the perfectly good and a hell for the truly evil leaves a lot of us without feeling like we are where we belong. That’s where the idea of purgatory comes in, if I understand it correctly. The way it works in theory, is that everyone but the truly good and truly evil goes through a process where we are purged of evil and wickedness and where we are made pure and acceptable to God. That makes a kind of sense, especially the idea that life itself is a process where we become who we are meant to be, that purgatory would merely finish the process. The problem with that, of course, is that the concept of purgatory is clearly extra-biblical, and also that if we are able to become acceptable to God after we die, then it invalidates the decision made in life to accept or reject God. Sure, we’d all like a ‘reset’ button to undo the blunders and mistakes, but intuitively I sense that part of our judgment, for good or ill, is that we have to live with our actions and their consequences.

The Fear of the Unknown

Monday morning I go back into MD Anderson for another set of tests. I’m one of the lucky ones; my cancer is under control with medication, the itty-bitty little monsters staying well below the 2-millimeter threshold that my oncologist tells me is when they start getting nasty. The tests are just to make sure.

I don’t feel much like a cancer patient. The medicine these days does not cause me to lose much hair, and I have gained weight over the last two years. Of course, that’s one of the odd things about pseudomyxoma peritonei; the little cysts build up in the abdominal fluid and block passage; if the cysts get too big, even if they don’t become aggressive they begin to choke off internal organs and the blood pressure goes through the roof real fast. That’s one of my warning signs; I check my BP every day and if it starts rising more than a little, I need to get into MDA ASAP. So patients with my condition tend to have what looks like a beer gut, from the excess abdominal fluid. Just something to think about the next time you want to comment on someone’s appearance.

So I was watching Patrick Swayze talk with Barbara Walter a couple days ago, and this guy is tough. Stage 4 pancreatic cancer, dealing with chemo every day, but he’s working 12 hours a day to do his TV show, because he’s not giving in one inch to the thing that’s trying to kill him. No self-pity, no illusions either, he knows how it will end but he’s going out on his terms. I was impressed more than a little bit by Swayze, not least when he remarked that for all the people who mean well, if you try to claim you know how to cure any form of cancer you would be both very rich and very famous by now – so please stop selling ‘cures’ that just don’t exist. There’s a special place in hell, I think, for folks who abuse the hope of cancer patients. The media in large part belongs there as well, for focusing on the pain and suffering, and I agree with Swayze that the way the media played on his cancer as if he could die at any moment was cruelly insensitive to his family at a time when they needed reasons for hope and to keep their spirits up. I’m not saying you have to be cheerleaders, but if someone you know has cancer, then their family needs support and reassurance just as much as they do.

I was thinking of all this, because Dr. Lambert is leaving MD Anderson and going back to Massachusetts, to pass on what she learned as an associate professor of Oncology at MDA. My wife was worried that I would be assigned a doctor who was inexperienced or reckless, like my first oncologist. That fellow told my wife in 2006 that I had no hope for even effective treatment unless I agreed to a radical surgery which would have removed several organs, put me on a permanent colostomy, and which under the best of circumstances would have meant 3 months of hospitalization and at least a year before I could leave home on my own. He was, to put it mildly, mistaken. Fortunately, I was able to reassure Mikki that while Dr. Lambert was leaving, I was still going to MD Anderson and my doctor would be an MDA doctor. Turns out it’s Paul Mansfield, the Deputy Chair for Surgical Oncology at MDA. In other words, the doctor who taught Dr. Lambert how to treat PMP. So, very good hands.

Yet for all of that, I am just a little afraid. Afraid that this time they will find something again. That the surgery two years ago will turn out to have been just a temporary fix. That while things have been very good for the last two years, that it have been a reprieve, not a permanent thing. Some of that is because I am about to finish my MBA. The school work has gone very well for me, so much so that sometimes I worry what I have missed, or what could come along to make it all worthless. Silly, I suppose, but I suspect we all have those little fears, things we cannot see coming let alone control. And no matter how hard you work, it seems you’re never ready to let things be for whatever is to come. I need to have more faith, I know, but then again, once you’ve had the word ‘cancer’ told to you, cause unknown, prognosis unsure, even when you’re “better” you know you can never again go back to where you were before. The unknown has teeth, and it hides enemies within it. Yet you must face it, on its terms and time.

Abortion, Homosexuality, and Marriage

Some years back, a classroom instructor advised us that an audience would always be interested in sex. ‘Find a way to bring sex into it’, he promised, ‘and your audience will stay focused and enthusiastic’. Looking back, I would say that the poor gentleman probably had some wish fulfillment issues in that area, but even so I have to admit that many of today’s top issues have a clearly sexual component, particularly the volatile issues of Abortion, Homosexuality, and Marriage.

It seems very clear to me that the issues of Abortion, Homosexuality, and Marriage are heated because each side not only believes its position to be right, but that any other position is heinously immoral. This leads to the inevitable accusation that “they” must not even be human if they believe what they claim. Being compared to infernal monsters or sadists tends to make civil discussion difficult. For these issues, people seem to fall broadly into one of three camps – the liberal position, the conservative position, and the people who refuse to take a position and just want to be left alone. As a result, a few people end up speaking for everyone, and their positions are almost always extreme to one end or the other of the spectrum.

Abortion is a horrible thing to contemplate, the deliberate killing of a – what? For liberals, the woman concerned is the focus, pregnancy being a difficult process even when you are healthy and financially secure, and bringing up a child a long and arduous ordeal if you are not prepared for it and desire to be a mother. This is further complicated by a society which, let’s be honest, does not do much to compel biological fathers to meet their responsibilities. Aborting the fetus, to a liberal, is a difficult decision but a necessary option for women facing the burden of having and raising children they do not want and cannot care for. But for conservatives, the matter is not of removing a fetus, but killing a pre-natal infant, murder by any reasonable definition. For conservatives, people have rights according to their merits, and no one can hold a higher moral claim than a baby. So liberals focus on the woman, conservatives on the baby-to-be. Both sides believe the other is ignoring the proper balance of interests.

The biggest problem I find in trying to consider this issue, is the extremely personal nature of the situation. No one is likely to think through the decision to have an abortion or go through a pregnancy, until they are faced with the reality of a pregnancy. Therefore the matter is compounded by the emotions and stress of crisis, multiplied by the family and relationship conditions in place. Is the father ready to be a dad? Is the mother prepared to become a mother? Are the families supportive or critical? And then there are additional complications to consider. I leave off the ‘rape victim’ or ‘having the baby might kill the mother’ scenarios because they are really very uncommon, but it needs to be said that pregnancy is full of unforeseen conditions and risks. This is also one of my strongest complaints against abortion. Abortions are surgical procedures, which always carry a degree of medical risk to the woman having the abortion, in addition to a certain psychological trauma. Women have died having abortions, and others have committed suicide after having abortions. This is not to equate having an abortion to becoming clinically depressed, but the risk in such an operation must be recognized as well.

Homosexuality has long been treated socially and legally as unacceptable behavior. It has been grounds for dismissal, divorce, even incarceration, yet after thousands of years it still occurs in every sort of society and culture, even where efforts to eradicate homosexuality by force, like in Iran, are promoted. The plain fact is, on the one hand homosexuals will always be a small minority of the population, but on the other hand homosexuals will always exist in any substantial population. Conservatives would argue that personal conduct is a choice, and so homosexuals are not entitled to any special benefits simply for being homosexual. Liberals argue on the other hand that homosexuals are a demographic minority, who have rights like anyone else which are infringed by a majority society which marginalizes homosexuals. Both sides believe the other is trying to impose an intolerable social order.

It seems strange to me, sometimes, that conservatives should be unduly offended by homosexuality. That is, when it is practiced in the same way that most people practice heterosexual sex. So long as I am not the object of homosexual advances, what should I care what someone does in private with another consenting adult? Yes, there is the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, but that exists when someone is sexually promiscuous in any way, so it seems not to really be a problem on the personal level, stay out of risky behavior and you’re fine. Sure, some gays get into protests and such, but this is the same nation that allows Nazis to march and someone keeps paying money and giving TV shows to Rosie O’Donnell.

At the same time, I do think it’s inappropriate for gay special interest groups to try to influence kids in grade school. Look, I want my daughter to be tolerant and make her own decisions, but an 8-year-old does not to be indoctrinated in sexual conduct. Those discussions belong to the family, not the government anyway.

Marriage is in some ways a new battlefield, but in others an old one. Not so long ago, pretty much everyone accepted a definition of marriage that, more or less, was the same everywhere for everyone. Since no one was required to get married, it was a low-priority issue. That’s changed, with the push to grant first civil unions, then religiously-sanctioned marriage ceremonies, for same-sex couples. The problem comes from the question of who has the greater right, couples to be married if they decide to do so, or religious institutions to stay true to sworn ideals. The reason that the battlefield is in some ways an old one, is that the moral boundaries began to decay with the liberal advocacy of casual sex a generation ago. Sexual conduct has been a factor for half a century in changing attitudes about marriage. Remember the “open” marriage, wherein the vows were apparently optional when one partner so desired? Remember when they introduced the “no-fault” divorce, a ‘limited’ measure designed to remedy the bitter court fights and post-marriage feuds? The sanctity of marriage has been under attack for quite a while now, and it’s no accident. So now it should be no surprise that liberals want to redefine what a marriage is in the first place. That said, however, it is impossible for conservatives to compel the country to abide by the standards used in 1950. The question therefore, stands at hand – what makes a marriage, and who has the right to define its terms? For here and now, the best first step would be civil discussion with consideration of all reasonable perspectives. I have little confidence, however, that we are ready for that discussion as a nation.

Mindset I – Obama Versus the System

Most fair-minded people, whatever they think of his politics, hope that Barack Obama will be able to make his Hope/Change/NewLogo Administration all that he promised. After all, the fate of the free world and hundreds of millions of taxpayers depend to some degree on him. But President Obama is about to discover what Presidents Bush, Clinton, and even Reagan learned before him – that even the best ideas will be opposed by opponents unwilling to open their minds to the concept. The first real test for President Obama will not be with foreign leaders, but in getting his policies a fair hearing and getting public support for specific plans.

Republicans, understandably, are reluctant to show any interest in Obama’s proposals. They politely say they will look at them, but there is no active desire to support a man commonly seen as a political enemy, not only to Republican ideals but a threat to the personal ambition of leading Republicans. The President hands out appointments and nominations, and there is no chance at all that a man like Obama would give a conservative Republican any of the plum rewards he has at hand. But that opposition may cost Obama more than he expects, Not so long ago, the Republicans enjoyed the very same situation that the Democrats now hold; their man in the White House, having won with a clear majority of the popular vote, and control of both the House and Senate. Yet President Bush found it very hard to get his programs through the process, and some of his most important initiatives, like reforming Social Security and Medicare, never even made it out of committee.

The alert reader will, no doubt, be thinking at this point that some of the obstruction for W came from fellow Republicans. Indeed that is true, and President Obama must expect some of the same friendly-fire. Already, there have been indications that Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid have their own plans and agendas, and Obama will find that he lacks the mojo to push his plans through the House and Senate without making deals with the mandarins who already positioned themselves in place for just that reason. As every president has learned before him, legislation comes out of Congress and you have to make allies to get anything done. The question to be answered is who will hold the reins in this coming term.

The Obvious, Overdue

Utah should be the national champion in NCAA Division 1 football this year. No, I am not a fan of the Utes particularly, in fact I have not even seen them play a single game, but they hold a qualification unique in major college football; they are the only undefeated team among the major colleges. The 31-17 Sugar Bowl win over Alabama was Utah’s second BCS bowl win as an undefeated team in the last four years.

Yet the BCS committee has already decided that the winner of Thursday’s game between Oklahoma and Florida will be the National Champion. Never mind that both teams have lost a game and Utah has not, never mind that Utah beat 4th-ranked Alabama handily on both sides of the ball. Utah is not from the “right” conference, so even perfect is not good enough.

Some of the readers may suspect that I am not completely serious in selling Utah as the National Champion, and to a degree I agree that Utah does not strike me as a champion in the way that other teams might, but the NCAA has failed to allow the obvious resolution – let the contenders play for the title. Every other NCAA sport has playoffs to determine the champion, in fact every other level of football, from pee wee to the professional leagues has playoffs to decide the matter. Even the NCAA has playoffs for football – except for Division 1. There is simply no honest argument against having a playoff, and everyone knows it. And for all the noise from the schools which have tried to make the championship a Good-ol-Boys club reserved for the largest state schools, the facts are plain to anyone who has played the game.

1. Scoreboard trumps all other arguments
2. If you think your 1-loss team is the champ when someone else is undefeated, see rule 1.

So there you are. No one but Utah made it through the schedule without losing along the way. Utah beat Michigan at Ann Arbor to start the season, finished by beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, and in between scored 40 or more points six times (30 or more ten times), and held four opponents to 10 points or less. But most of all, Utah won all of their games.

Scoreboard.

Should someone else be national champion? When there’s a playoff, we can have that discussion. For now, the NCAA has denied that obvious solution for more than a century, so no matter who gets the trophy from the con men from the NCAA, your national champion is Utah.

How’s that feel, Sooners? How’s that taste, Gators? You like that, Longhorns? It’s not a championship if you didn’t earn it. Listen to your fans and wake up your AD and scream for them to set up a playoff. It’s half past overdue.

The Club at Play

This morning, the secretary of the United States Senate refused to allow Roland Burris entry to the Senate chambers.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White did not sign the certificate of appointment for Burris, which was the reason given by the Senate secretary. The real cause of the refusal to seat Burris is the obvious embarrassment by Democrats by Burris’ selection by Governor Blagojevich. Senate Majority Harry Reid is already on record opposing Burris, saying that there is “a cloud over anyone that comes from the state of Illinois being appointed by Blagojevich."

I understand that Democrats do not much like seating anyone nominated by Governor Blagojevich, but the idea that the law can be so easily subverted should trouble everyone. Like it or not, Governor Blagojevich is just that, the legally-elected Governor for the state of Illinois, and by law he has the right to select anyone he deems qualified to finish the remainder of Senator Obama’s term. It is important to understand that at this moment in time, not only has Governor Blagojevich not been convicted of anything, he has not been impeached nor has he even formally responded yet to the accusations against him. Imagine the precedent set, if a governor’s nominee is rejected while the governor is in the full legal authority of his office, simply because the appointment is unpopular with other Senators.

The hypocrisy of refusing to seat Burris is all the more blatant by the shameful manipulations being played to seat Al Franken as the new Senator from Minnesota. I can accept that Franken may have won the election, Coleman’s protests notwithstanding, but the obvious corruption of the method used in the recount is appalling. The notion of seating anyone while the process is still underway is so deceitful as to be unthinkable, except of course that we are talking about politicians. The process being used to shove him into the seat is so unnatural that it may be apropos to address his larcenous person as Senator Frankenstein.

This should not be taken to mean that Democrats alone are crooks at play. No, let’s not forget Senators Craig and Stevens, whose personal conduct went unexamined, let alone condemned, so long as they looked politically adept. The Grand Old Party became the object of well-deserved scorn by voters, for talking up character and values while keeping such reprobates in its ranks. Let’s not forget that support for our esteemed members of the United States Senate has held steady at subterranean numbers so low that Richard Nixon’s nadir was a dozen points higher. It may be that America’s greatest enemy in the near future may not be a Middle-East terrorist organization, an oil cartel, or a foreign conglomerate out to buy our infrastructure – it may well be that, as so often in the past, the greatest threat to America’s future is its Senate.

Disappearing Act

According to AOL, there are ten companies which will disappear or fight through bankruptcy in 2009 to stay alive (link at the end). Without looking at the list, can you tell which of these companies are the ten AOL thinks are kaput?

[] AIG
[] Bancfirst Corp.
[] Bank of America
[] Calpine Corporation
[] Charter Communications
[] Chrysler
[] Constellation Energy
[] CVS
[] Dish Network
[] Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
[] Ford
[] GM
[] Hovnanian
[] KB Homes
[] Los Angeles Times
[] Merrill Lynch
[] Moody’s Corp.
[] Newsweek
[] New York Times
[] Nortel
[] Owens Corning
[] Pier 1
[] Rite-Aid
[] Sirius XM
[] Skype
[] Walgreen’s
[] Washington Mutual


Here’s the AOL article on those companies. How’d you do? Are there companies that you think are more deserving of the axe?

Out Cold

I’m fighting a cold. The cold is winning easily right now.

Comes Around

As Barack Obama finishes his first term as President-Elect and gets ready to suit up for the real thing, debate has come up between conservatives and liberals regarding the respect due him. Conservatives cite the constant derision and undeserved insults heaped upon President Bush and say that the Democrat is only getting a dose of what the liberals considered reasonable treatment of the Chief Executive for the last eight years. Liberals respond by saying that they gave Bush a fair chance, and did not being attacking him until he had earned it, that they were not spitting insults before he even began his term.

I do not agree with the deliberate disrespect against Obama, but the liberals are lying to pretend they ever gave President Bush a chance.

Thousands of liberals protested Bush's inauguration, pelting his motorcade with bottles and at least one egg.




Before he even took office, mockery of him was common among liberals.

The fact is simple - liberals refused to show respect at all to President Bush, so while it would be better for conservatives to try to work with Obama and give him a chance to do his job, it is absolutely false for liberals to pretend they have any right to expect it. If Obama never catches a break as President, he can thank his liberal base for poisoning the well.

Virtuality

My daughter accidentally gave away her kitten today. Normally this would mean finding out where it got to, and arranging for the return the errant feline. In this case, however, my daughter managed to “donate” her kitten on her Nintendo DS game, and so far we have not been able to effectuate its return. We can “buy” a new kitten, but we cannot get the old one back. The game does not have an ‘undo’ feature.

Computer games are impressive these days, but every so often you find a point where Real Life cannot be properly synthesized. I wonder how many of the “new” generation in charge of things, understand that simulations always have such flaws, or will they only find out when their projections fail badly.

The Fruitcakewalk

The final week of the 2008 NFL regular season has concluded, and right on cue, teams have begun to fire coaches. Some of the firings were obvious; Rod Marinelli was at the help of the first NFL team to ever go 0-16, so it’s no shock that the Lions cut him loose. Over in Denver, the Broncos decided that it was better to buy out the three years left on Mike Shanahan’s contract, than to let him continue running the team as head coach. Or in any position there. The Jets canned Mangini, while the Dolphins*, Browns, Raiders and Rams all showed their head coach the door. Oddly, the Dallas Cowboys reacted to their worst finish in memory by promising to keep Wade Phillips, but in a token move fired Special Teams coach Bruce Read. In Houston, Gary Kubiak celebrated keeping his job by firing three coaches who worked for him, including his defensive coordinator. In San Francisco, interim head-coach Mike Singletary lost the ‘interim’ tag and began clearing house for new coaches, firing his offensive coordinator and two other assistant coaches, while many other teams are looking closely at their staffs to decide whether to ax someone, for poor performance, to open a slot for someone else, or just because everyone else seems to be doing it. Tis the season of the pink slip, and it happens every year.

What’s really goofy, though, is that these same teams will be looking for replacements for those coaches, and what they want in most cases is NFL experience at that position. So, the NFL being a closed market, a cartel if you will, most of these fired coaches will end up with another team, doing pretty much the same thing for the same money. Change of wardrobe, not much else. There are a few changes that happen; the 49ers got a real steal by signing Singletary, a real talent on the field and on the sidelines who was snubbed for many years for no reason other than he lacked head-coaching experience. And there are always a handful of NCAA head coaches who could be considered for open slots. But mainly, the NFL fraternity continues to take care of its own, promising far more change than ever really happens.



* Cameron was fired for the 2007 season, I mis-recalled.

Just Another Stupid Liar

I used to think rather highly of Mayor Bill White. He showed leadership in a number of high-stress situations during his time in office, but he finally exhibited a crass dishonesty in an area where honesty is in very short supply among politicians; money-making scams by City Hall. A couple years ago, Houston began putting in red light cameras at dozens of intersections around town; 50 cameras at first followed by another 20 soon afterwards. Despite complaints and warnings that other cities had found problems with the cameras, Mayor White assured citizens that the lights would make driving safer and lower accidents.

Well folks, he was wrong. The City of Houston paid for a study on the results of the cameras, which they promptly buried for several months, until a pair of lawyers sued for its release.

As you might have guessed, it turns out that red light cameras in Houston don’t reduce accidents. The study discovered that after installation of red light cameras, accidents at those intersections more than doubled in the next year.

Now, most of us would expect the good mayor to admit that the cameras were a bad idea, maybe try to back off this bad idea. But not Bill White. This guy actually insisted that the cameras were working, claiming that the rest of the city was actually having even more accidents and that putting these cameras in reduced the accidents at those intersections! Remember, the study showed that accidents at those intersections more than doubled, so Mayor White is trying to claim that the entire city has seen accidents skyrocket by even more than that rate. Problem is, there’s not a lick of evidence to support that claim – in fact, the guy who was hired to produce that study for the mayor, Bob Stein, ”acknowledged that data from the Houston Police Department shows accidents have declined in the city since 2004”.

Oops, huh?

White should just admit that he was lying the first time he pushed to have red light cameras installed to bring in more money without paying for more police. Instead he followed it with an even more stupid and obvious lie.

The Right Stuff in Business (Monday)

We’re in a recession. OK, you knew that. My point is, if you are looking for a job – or for a better job – you need to know what the people hiring are looking for. Sadly, in many cases the jobs that are available will be parceled out by people who either are not hiring for their own groups (HR in many cases), or by people who do not understand their needs well enough to hire the best-qualified candidate. The good news is, you would not really want those jobs anyway if you had any choice, because those are the dead-end no promotion high-stress jobs we all hate anyway. The bad news is, of course, that in many cases we take those lousy jobs because we have to find work. So, my advice is for the many people who have a job but know they’re not in the right one, so they’re looking.

One thing I really hate about all the job-search books, articles, and guides is this assumption that you have unlimited time to pour into the search. OK, if you’ve been laid off you have some free time, but not the months that these guides say you need to have available, so you’re likely to have to take a temp job or an undesirable position, in which case you will be working and looking. If you are a student just out of school, you also have a short window before you have to start paying back that student loan, and in any case unless your name is Kennedy you will need to pay bills right away. Fact is, almost everyone looking for a job will eventually be looking and working at the same time. This is bad enough, but no one in the employment assistance field seems to grasp this. After all, it’s not easy to ask your current boss off from work so you can go to an interview, and if you don’t tell your current boss you feel dishonest. And it’s not as if you can go on vacation and conveniently schedule a lot of interviews in that space of time, especially if you do well and they call you back a second and third time … over a couple more weeks? Unfortunately, I cannot tell you how to handle this particular problem, except to say how I am dealing with it. My superior is very supportive, and knows that after I finish my MBA I will be seeing what’s out there, and so if I need a short-notice day off he will work with me. Why would he do that? Because he knows that this is a way for my company to show me that they value me, making it less likely that I would leave, especially if they could make a counter-offer (my company likes to promote from within, so obviously that is my first avenue), and it’s also because he’s a good guy, who treats people the way he’d want to be treated. I know that a lot of folks don’t have that option, but if you do have a pretty good boss in a job that’s just not all you need, it may be a good idea to sound out their opinion. Because while it’s a pain to have to replace a good employee, if they’re leaving it’s best if it happens on good terms with no one caught by surprise. That’s also a good test for the new employer, by the way – anyone who expects you to leave your current job without a decent transition, is not likely to respect you once you become their employee.

But that’s sort of missing the topic. The key to getting a good job, the kind that provides career and growth opportunities in a healthy environment, is to be someone they fell they have to have, someone they are not likely to find very easily. To be that person, you need to know enough about the job to know what they need. Do the research, find out everything you can on the company and on the position. If you’re reading this you know the basics of computers, so put some detective skills to work to see how well the company is doing (a growing company pays more for talent, while a company in trouble will be cheap), what skills are needed (be sure you are being hired for something that the next person is not likely to be able to do; nobody pays well for the ordinary skills) or preferred, and why they are hiring now. After you figure that out to some degree, you play ‘turn around’ and imagine what the person doing the hiring is looking for, and make sure you fit that image.

It may seem hokie, but when I interview people for positions, I always consider them on three levels – can they immediately do what needs to be done, can they get along with everyone in the team, and can they grow, maybe show leadership? Strange as it sounds, a lot of folks hurt themselves by not showing how they can help the company, they seem to be hard to fit into a group, or they show no sense of maturity. Your resume must be accomplishment-specific, include a cover letter, and be focused totally on proving you can and will be the perfect fit. If you get interviewed, dress like you are expecting to meet the person two levels above the job you want. Do not chew gum, and make sure you neither smoke nor drink, even if you are invited to do so. There’s a lot of good books out on how to handle interviews, and so a trip to the library is definitely in order, but remember that the more specific information you have on the company, the better you will look compared to the other candidates.

Lawyers and Business

I neither like nor trust Barack Obama. I am not saying this at the start in order to attack the man, but to admit that I find him singularly unqualified for the office he has won, his popularity notwithstanding. Given the present set of crises, the nation needs a man who understand how the economy works, and a man who has personal experience with business, especially large-scale business. I agree that President Bush has not accomplished everything that I wanted from him, but at least his MBA from Harvard was evident in many of his actions and decisions. Lawyers, where business is concerned, are best known for a mixed bag – at best they can put much-needed protections in place, but far more often they suck the life out of innovation with red-tape, special-interest bias, and meddling to gain their own advantage. It’s too soon to say which camp President Obama will belong to, but the need for watchdogs on the next White House will be greater than the ones in place now.

On reflection, though, it is inevitable that lawyers will have a lot to say about the mortgage, bank, and automaker crises. Near as I can see, the basic decisions will be as follows:

MORTGAGE: There are three basic types of mortgages in trouble; mortgages where the homeowner simply got into financial trouble which may be blamed at least to some degree on the economy, mortgages which were ill-advised but not fraudulent, where restructuring the terms are likely to improve the repayment of the debt, and deals which frankly should be allowed to fail.

BANKING: Like the mortgages, the key interest should be to protect the innocent. Auditors must determine whether the funds handled were fully disclosed in terms of risk, and what sorts of intervention may be utilized which will effectively improve liquidity and investor confidence while addressing bad debt.

AUTOS: The most simple, yet difficult, mess to sort out. Save the jobs, but do not reward the corruption or the incompetence.

To me, no lawyer can produce the answers needed solely through legal expertise. It will take a successful businessman, or rather the combined wisdom of many successful businessmen to make that happen. It remains to be seen whether President Obama will understand this fact, or whether the image and self-serving rhetoric will continue to be the norm.

The N Word Returns

“Nazi”. For over a generation, that’s been a word used to defame someone else, one of the worst things you could call someone. Regardless of where and how the name is used, by consensus a ‘Nazi’ represents a soulless monster, a person with no humanity in his heart, and a certain deliberate viciousness about his actions and intentions. The use of ‘Nazi’ as a pejorative has gone through several incarnations, from the literal accusation that someone was part of the infamous political party and its agenda, to claims that a person’s politics or behavior is compatible with Nazi dogma, to a generic denunciation of an action or policy as inhumane, to the present use where no valid criticism can be found to use against a target, so ‘nazi’ is used as a particularly offensive yet generic name to smear someone with, a word so loosely applied that defense against it is all but impossible, since no specific charge is even made. It should be noted that for the last eight years, it has been pretty much standard for self-anointed “progressives” to address the Bush Administration as “nazi” for just this reason.

Now enters Barack “Change” Obama. Obama claimed to respect the heroism of John McCain, his opponent in the general election, but in fact he did nothing to defend McCain against a flood of unworthy malice from Obama supporters. The O mumbled a few excuses about not being able to control his people, which should be troubling from a man claiming he can bridge the divide between the parties, including their extremist elements, and “get past the politics of division”. I saw the excuse as revealing. In any case, at some point the façade of credibility will fade for the Obama White House, if not crumble away, at which time we may expect a variety of criticisms to be launched Obama-wards. Seeing as his Narcissusness has never had to answer hard questions, especially from his supporters, this will be an intriguing stage of his young relationship with Reality. Since there will be scant evidence on which to indict his work so far, when Obama, as is inevitable, disappoints his minions, the criticism against him will necessarily be generic and non-specific. Will ‘nazi’ be used to describe ‘The One’, if he chooses not to cut and run from Iraq? If Obama decides that raising taxes is not a good idea, after all? If President Obama decides, say, that America’s interests are in fact more important than those of, say, Venezuela?

The word’s been used with less justification many times. It will be interesting to see if it shows up again in the new paradigm, and if not, what weasel word will replace it.