Over on Polipundit.com, one of the readers, an active-duty soldier, took great offense when I told him he was “deserting” the President at a time when President Bush was under fire. Looking back at it later, I agreed that the word was badly chosen, and apologized. But I apologized for using ‘desertion’ in connection to an active-duty soldier, not because his actions and capricious lack of loyalty were tolerable. In fact, while ‘desertion’ is a word too loaded with emotion to be properly used in a debate about Politics, it is difficult to find a more appropriate word to describe the so-called Conservatives and Republicans who find it so easy to forget everything which President George W. Bush has done for them in his time as President, all because they are not getting everything they want on a secondary issue. It really seems to me to be dishonorable, this loyalty which only lasts as long as they feel like standing with the President.
As an official, I have seen this happen in sports. Players stop listening to their coach, and the whole team falls into a slump, while the team which sticks by their coach often exceeds expectations. As terrible a leader as Howard Dean is, and as bad for the nation as their platform is, the Democrats certainly can take over control of Congress, if the Republicans give up and let it happen. And the stakes in the Capitol are much, much higher than any sports competition. It’s no better than dishonest to pretend that if the Democrats control either chamber, that they won’t be worse than ever at obstructing reform or the appointment of any competent judges. And they will protect their advantage the way they did in the 1970s and 1980s, by changing rules to make it harder for the Republicans to throw them out. It’s no better than stupid to assume that a loss in 2006 will be made up in 2008, or 2010, or any time in particular. Especially since the MSM can be counted on to spin things all the more in the Democrat’s favor.
This also brings up the behavior of Republicans. Hard-head Conservatives wrongly believe that if they “sacrifice” a few Republicans, the rest will understand they need to be more Conservative and move to the Right. But in the actual historical record, whenever the number of Republicans in a chamber goes down, the remaining members tend to move AWAY from the “extreme”, which is to say they tend to play along with the Liberals. The ONLY conditions under which Republicans become more Conservative as a whole, are when they are increasing their representation and control. Therefore, RINO or not, the only Conservative position in a General Election is to make sure every Republican candidate wins.
I have not mentioned what will happen in the event the Democrats take both the House and Senate. If that happens, President Bush will certainly be impeached, never mind that there is no valid basis for it, and he may well be convicted; remember what I said about weaker Republicans making nice with the Liberals. The best case scenario in such a circumstance may be described as a disaster,and there is no silver lining.
So why does it matter if Bush has support nor not? After all, he’s not running for anything, right? The thing is, people tend to see a political party by its leader, which is why John Kerry has been hidden by the Democrats ever since November 2004, and Al Gore only shows up at Democrat gatherings like a grotesque caricature of a gothic clown. If Republicans do not support the President, the twice-elected leader of the United States of America, then by extension the entire GOP appears broken and in chaos. And that only helps the Democrats. After all, think about it and you will realize that people form memories of political ages by the President of the day. The ‘90s were the Clinton Era, the ‘80s were the Reagan Age, and so on. Republicans who will not stand by President Bush are screaming “DO NOT ELECT ME”, no matter what they intend to say. And Republicans who blame the President without giving him his due, are simply playing ‘Hail to the Chief’ in the key of Donkey.
No, they are not "deserting" the President. They're simply forgetting their debts of honor, and refusing to support him when their nation and party will be damaged by such a course. Call it what you will, it's not honorable.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Stating The Obvious
...
George W. Bush is honest and consistent. Every Conservative knows it. I said before that the same man who thought Harriet Miers would be good as a SCOTUS Justice, was the same guy who picked Alito and Roberts. In each case he picked who he thought was best. If that sounds gonzo to you, Reagan was honest and consistent too, and he thought Sandra Day O’Connor would be good for the Supreme Court. And it’s the same in every other decision Bush has made. No, he hasn’t always been perfect, but frankly no one is. It sounds easy to be wise and make the right choice every time, when there’s no pressure on you and you only see the information that the public sees. I’m not apologizing for Dubya, but I’m also pointing out that the same things about him which drive people crazy sometimes, are the same things he does and says which make all the difference. When 9/11 happened, Bush was the best possible man to have in the White House at that time, and when people cool down they will remember that. When he stared down China in April 2001 without any Americans getting killed, it was the same determination that he showed in facing down the Taliban and Saddam. And again, it’s not as if we would have gotten rid of Saddam and changed two Middle East regimes to democratic republics under anyone else.
McCain?
Kerry?
Frist?
Gore?
Perot?
Hatch?
Clinton?
Please.
Again, people will remember this later on, but for now they get worked up and forget all the good. they forget the tax cuts, they forget Dubya tried to fix Social Security, they forget his work against child slavery in Africa and Asia, they ignore his work to reform the bureaucracy at the CIA and to take effective steps to protect both the nation and our rights. Later people might remember, but for Dubya, he’s just doing the job. Just as he always has.
Do yourself a favor. Re-look at the issues with the understanding that whether or not he has it all figured right, the President is serious, competent, and honest on his position, and that should help you see a clearer picture.
George W. Bush is honest and consistent. Every Conservative knows it. I said before that the same man who thought Harriet Miers would be good as a SCOTUS Justice, was the same guy who picked Alito and Roberts. In each case he picked who he thought was best. If that sounds gonzo to you, Reagan was honest and consistent too, and he thought Sandra Day O’Connor would be good for the Supreme Court. And it’s the same in every other decision Bush has made. No, he hasn’t always been perfect, but frankly no one is. It sounds easy to be wise and make the right choice every time, when there’s no pressure on you and you only see the information that the public sees. I’m not apologizing for Dubya, but I’m also pointing out that the same things about him which drive people crazy sometimes, are the same things he does and says which make all the difference. When 9/11 happened, Bush was the best possible man to have in the White House at that time, and when people cool down they will remember that. When he stared down China in April 2001 without any Americans getting killed, it was the same determination that he showed in facing down the Taliban and Saddam. And again, it’s not as if we would have gotten rid of Saddam and changed two Middle East regimes to democratic republics under anyone else.
McCain?
Kerry?
Frist?
Gore?
Perot?
Hatch?
Clinton?
Please.
Again, people will remember this later on, but for now they get worked up and forget all the good. they forget the tax cuts, they forget Dubya tried to fix Social Security, they forget his work against child slavery in Africa and Asia, they ignore his work to reform the bureaucracy at the CIA and to take effective steps to protect both the nation and our rights. Later people might remember, but for Dubya, he’s just doing the job. Just as he always has.
Do yourself a favor. Re-look at the issues with the understanding that whether or not he has it all figured right, the President is serious, competent, and honest on his position, and that should help you see a clearer picture.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Blog Edits
[]
Back in the 1990s, I was a Football official and Baseball umpire for Texas high school sports. I also officiated in Wrestling and some Volleyball, but mostly it was Football and Baseball. And the events of this week remind me a bit of my time wearing the Blue.
It can be intimidating, working as an umpire, especially behind the plate. You make a lot of calls, and often the fans, to say nothing of the coaches and players, get the idea that you aren’t getting the calls right, even though you are usually the only person on the field who fully understands the strike zone and who watches the pitch all the way into the glove without bias. And then there are the judgment calls, especially when your partner did not get a good look from his position, and points for you to make the safe/out call.
Coaches can often spot a new official, and they tend to give new umps a hard time to see if they can get inside their skin to influence calls. This is actually a pretty stupid thing to do, because once the umpire understands what the coach is trying to do, this sort of stunt is more likely to prejudice the umpire against that coach instead of for him, but it happens anyway. This leads to some confrontations, which the umpire needs to learn about and prepare for, anyway, since it’s the nature of the job to have arguments.
Anyway, during my rookie season, one of the veteran umps I was working a JV game with took the time to mention a very important observation to me. He reminded me that no matter what a coach or player or fan said, ultimately it was my call, and what I decided would stand, popular or not.
That applies to blogging, as well . I appreciate comments, and the emails are often well-written and thoughtful. Those which are not, get all the attention due them. But when I write my columns, I do so with a sense of responsibility and for a purpose. There are literally millions of blogs out there, and if somehow that doesn’t find one to suit you, you are always welcome to start your own up. But I laugh at the people who waste time thinking I am going to change one word of my posts to suit them. If I was doing it for money or for some notion of fame, some people might persuade me. But I am my own voice, and speak my own mind. Whatever you think of me, what I post is the real deal, and that will never change.
Back in the 1990s, I was a Football official and Baseball umpire for Texas high school sports. I also officiated in Wrestling and some Volleyball, but mostly it was Football and Baseball. And the events of this week remind me a bit of my time wearing the Blue.
It can be intimidating, working as an umpire, especially behind the plate. You make a lot of calls, and often the fans, to say nothing of the coaches and players, get the idea that you aren’t getting the calls right, even though you are usually the only person on the field who fully understands the strike zone and who watches the pitch all the way into the glove without bias. And then there are the judgment calls, especially when your partner did not get a good look from his position, and points for you to make the safe/out call.
Coaches can often spot a new official, and they tend to give new umps a hard time to see if they can get inside their skin to influence calls. This is actually a pretty stupid thing to do, because once the umpire understands what the coach is trying to do, this sort of stunt is more likely to prejudice the umpire against that coach instead of for him, but it happens anyway. This leads to some confrontations, which the umpire needs to learn about and prepare for, anyway, since it’s the nature of the job to have arguments.
Anyway, during my rookie season, one of the veteran umps I was working a JV game with took the time to mention a very important observation to me. He reminded me that no matter what a coach or player or fan said, ultimately it was my call, and what I decided would stand, popular or not.
That applies to blogging, as well . I appreciate comments, and the emails are often well-written and thoughtful. Those which are not, get all the attention due them. But when I write my columns, I do so with a sense of responsibility and for a purpose. There are literally millions of blogs out there, and if somehow that doesn’t find one to suit you, you are always welcome to start your own up. But I laugh at the people who waste time thinking I am going to change one word of my posts to suit them. If I was doing it for money or for some notion of fame, some people might persuade me. But I am my own voice, and speak my own mind. Whatever you think of me, what I post is the real deal, and that will never change.
What The President REALLY Said About Immigration Reform
---
You know what really bugs me the most about all the attacks on President Bush? It’s the way every vicious rumor trotted out by a Democrat, RINO, or fluffy-haired overpaid yakking piehole gets treated as if it’s what the President supports or said, when in fact nothing of the kind is true. For over a decade now, George W. Bush has been saying what he means and following through on his promises to the best of his ability. Strange how so very little of that gets remembered, even by the vipers attacking him from behind, while assuring their audience that they, though unelected, have a better right to lead this country than the man twice elected to do so. ‘Contempt’ is hardly a strong enough word for my opinion of such cowards and thugs.
To properly discuss the President’s actual plan for Immigration Reform, you first have to get away from all the gossip and rumors and sort out what he actually proposed, and how he means to make it work. It’s hardly kept secret. The President’s words and plans on the matter of Immigration have been posted on the White House site all along, for anyone honest enough to bother checking out the facts for themselves.
Let’s understand right away, that this is a multi-dimensional problem. Congress has to pass laws for the reform, but we know from history that some very solid laws just are not being enforced. That means that we need to make the existing laws viable, with enough enforcement power to do more than make speeches. Critics do not mention that Bush has budgeted more money for border security than any other President in history, and has increased the staffing for Border Patrol significantly.
The Bush Plan has three major parts: Border Security, Enforcement Inside Our Borders, and Addressing the Existing Illegal Population. This is not new, it’s just been ignored for months by people more interested in bitching than making the plan work. This was discussed in detail back in March for instance, long before the illegals started marching and the hissy level of the panty-waist Right was at an almost human standard.
President Bush was also talking about Immigration Reform last November when he spoke with ranchers in Arizona. And in actual fact, the work during Bush’s time in office has shown better results than anyone seems willing to acknowledge; more than six million people intercepted trying to enter the country illegally, increased use of detention facilities and significant increase in border enforcement resources, cooperative focus on finding and apprehending violent illegals like the MS-13 gang (prior to Bush, there was no program whatsoever which addressed gangs of illegal aliens committing crime in the United States), and greatly improved enforcement of document forgery laws. It’s one thing that the MSM has paid no attention to this work, but shameful that so many false CINOs (Conservatives In Name Only) refuse to acknowledge it either.
The heart of the controversy is Bush’s proposed plan to create a Temporary Worker Program. Note before anything else is mentioned, that this has always been proposed as a temporary program, not a “path to citizenship” or even permanent residency, not a way to cut in line ahead of legal immigrants. What it is, when people calm down enough to pay attention, is a practical plan for dealing with millions of people who are here now illegally, and who would be difficult to locate and remove under the existing conditions. It should also be recognized, that Bush’s proposal was always meant to be the starting point for Congressional discussions and debate, as is obvious by the broad and general nature of the proposal.
Which brings me to the difference between pie in the sky fantasies and the hard reality. The cruel fact is that up to now enforcement of the existing laws has not worked. We can bicker all we want about why that is, but anyone who is not a moron understands that creating new laws will be very unlikely to work until we understand the cause of why the existing laws are not enforced. That means that while we all understand that a major cause of the problem is the employment of illegals by businesses breaking the law, many people do not accept that the DHS cannot be the principal law enforcement agency on that front; the people aware that this is happening are the local and county law enforcement agencies, and while they regularly round up illegal workers, they do not pursue the owners and contractors who hire them. This is not something President Bush can fix, much as we or he would like. I have ideas about how Congress could address this problem (like a severe tax penalty for hiring illegals, say $20,000 per offense), but in spite of the notion that President Bush could wave a magic wand and just sign an Executive Order, the actual fact is that Congress is where the reform has stalled, over and over again. Blaming Bush for Congress’ failure not only wrongly attacks the President for an action he does not control, but lets the con artists on Capitol Hill shirk their duty.
Which brings me to the Fence. One of the more stupid lies tossed around against President Bush, is that he does not want a fence on the border. This is wrong for several reasons, not the least because there is already a physical fence in many places along the border. And while it makes good sense to improve the length, size, and difficulty of the fence, again it needs to be said that this is a responsibility which Congress has failed miserably to address – has anyone even heard of a proposed committee hearing in the House or Senate to address building a reinforced, contiguous wall? Also, any physical barrier can be penetrated or surmounted, which means you need something else to make it functional. This is why President Bush also noted last November that while there was already “a fence here in the border. You're going to have a virtual fence in the border when we bring technology to bear - infrared, cameras, drones”. Additional resources to detect and apprehend border violations. Not instead of a physical barrier, as some have so dishonestly claimed, but in addition to it. This is very, very different than the image some folks have painted.
So, if President Bush does not actually want an amnesty and citizenship for illegals, and if he actually does support a physical fence, further enhanced with multiple modes of surveillance, then why are so many people claiming the opposite? Confusion for some, but rank dishonesty for others. People find this issue very uncomfortable, as they should when the security of our borders is concerned, but not everyone is prepared to address the crisis rationally, and the President of the United States has often been the favored target of the press and political demagogues, especially when he is a Conservative and from Texas. The plain fact is, that like Reagan before him Bush was the Governor of a border state before he became President, and he knows the issue far better than many of the Johnny-come-lately’s who think the matter through only to a point, then presume that their knowledge and experience somehow trumps the President’s. Like Reagan, George W. Bush takes on the whole issue, not just what’s on the surface, and he is pursuing a permanent solution, not some temporary paint job to win poll points. And just as Republicans began deserting Reagan in 1986, when their self-serving egos found Reagan’s attention on difficult issues unpalatable to their personal desires, so again politicians and stuffed-shirts are leaving President Bush, specifically because he is talking about the heavy lifting. And because they do not want to be seen for the deserters they are, they go so far as to blame the President for their own cowardice. With the MSM and Democrats already hungry for anything which makes the most prominent Conservative in the world look bad, Dubya is simply an easy target, especially since he is not the sort to return fire with similar lies and slander.
President George W. Bush is a man of his word. That fact was established long ago, and it used to be a common point of pride among Conservatives, that we had a man who did not lie or mislead, a refreshing change after eight years of the Clintons. And the fact of Bush’s honesty was known to his enemies, which is why “Bush Lied” became the ridiculous mantra of the Left; they knew that only if they could tear down his reputation as an upright man, could they hope to destroy him. But Bush has repeatedly shown that he does what he says he will do, even if Saddam Hussein and the vermin of Al Qaeda had hoped otherwise, and on every measure he has been consistent to his word and statement. So it matters to pay attention, not to what somebody else wants to claim he said or some deceitful interpretation which twists his words to claim something he never actually said at all, but to the President himself. He is specific, consistent, and trustworthy. And more than a few people owe him a humble apology. Again.
You know what really bugs me the most about all the attacks on President Bush? It’s the way every vicious rumor trotted out by a Democrat, RINO, or fluffy-haired overpaid yakking piehole gets treated as if it’s what the President supports or said, when in fact nothing of the kind is true. For over a decade now, George W. Bush has been saying what he means and following through on his promises to the best of his ability. Strange how so very little of that gets remembered, even by the vipers attacking him from behind, while assuring their audience that they, though unelected, have a better right to lead this country than the man twice elected to do so. ‘Contempt’ is hardly a strong enough word for my opinion of such cowards and thugs.
To properly discuss the President’s actual plan for Immigration Reform, you first have to get away from all the gossip and rumors and sort out what he actually proposed, and how he means to make it work. It’s hardly kept secret. The President’s words and plans on the matter of Immigration have been posted on the White House site all along, for anyone honest enough to bother checking out the facts for themselves.
Let’s understand right away, that this is a multi-dimensional problem. Congress has to pass laws for the reform, but we know from history that some very solid laws just are not being enforced. That means that we need to make the existing laws viable, with enough enforcement power to do more than make speeches. Critics do not mention that Bush has budgeted more money for border security than any other President in history, and has increased the staffing for Border Patrol significantly.
The Bush Plan has three major parts: Border Security, Enforcement Inside Our Borders, and Addressing the Existing Illegal Population. This is not new, it’s just been ignored for months by people more interested in bitching than making the plan work. This was discussed in detail back in March for instance, long before the illegals started marching and the hissy level of the panty-waist Right was at an almost human standard.
President Bush was also talking about Immigration Reform last November when he spoke with ranchers in Arizona. And in actual fact, the work during Bush’s time in office has shown better results than anyone seems willing to acknowledge; more than six million people intercepted trying to enter the country illegally, increased use of detention facilities and significant increase in border enforcement resources, cooperative focus on finding and apprehending violent illegals like the MS-13 gang (prior to Bush, there was no program whatsoever which addressed gangs of illegal aliens committing crime in the United States), and greatly improved enforcement of document forgery laws. It’s one thing that the MSM has paid no attention to this work, but shameful that so many false CINOs (Conservatives In Name Only) refuse to acknowledge it either.
The heart of the controversy is Bush’s proposed plan to create a Temporary Worker Program. Note before anything else is mentioned, that this has always been proposed as a temporary program, not a “path to citizenship” or even permanent residency, not a way to cut in line ahead of legal immigrants. What it is, when people calm down enough to pay attention, is a practical plan for dealing with millions of people who are here now illegally, and who would be difficult to locate and remove under the existing conditions. It should also be recognized, that Bush’s proposal was always meant to be the starting point for Congressional discussions and debate, as is obvious by the broad and general nature of the proposal.
Which brings me to the difference between pie in the sky fantasies and the hard reality. The cruel fact is that up to now enforcement of the existing laws has not worked. We can bicker all we want about why that is, but anyone who is not a moron understands that creating new laws will be very unlikely to work until we understand the cause of why the existing laws are not enforced. That means that while we all understand that a major cause of the problem is the employment of illegals by businesses breaking the law, many people do not accept that the DHS cannot be the principal law enforcement agency on that front; the people aware that this is happening are the local and county law enforcement agencies, and while they regularly round up illegal workers, they do not pursue the owners and contractors who hire them. This is not something President Bush can fix, much as we or he would like. I have ideas about how Congress could address this problem (like a severe tax penalty for hiring illegals, say $20,000 per offense), but in spite of the notion that President Bush could wave a magic wand and just sign an Executive Order, the actual fact is that Congress is where the reform has stalled, over and over again. Blaming Bush for Congress’ failure not only wrongly attacks the President for an action he does not control, but lets the con artists on Capitol Hill shirk their duty.
Which brings me to the Fence. One of the more stupid lies tossed around against President Bush, is that he does not want a fence on the border. This is wrong for several reasons, not the least because there is already a physical fence in many places along the border. And while it makes good sense to improve the length, size, and difficulty of the fence, again it needs to be said that this is a responsibility which Congress has failed miserably to address – has anyone even heard of a proposed committee hearing in the House or Senate to address building a reinforced, contiguous wall? Also, any physical barrier can be penetrated or surmounted, which means you need something else to make it functional. This is why President Bush also noted last November that while there was already “a fence here in the border. You're going to have a virtual fence in the border when we bring technology to bear - infrared, cameras, drones”. Additional resources to detect and apprehend border violations. Not instead of a physical barrier, as some have so dishonestly claimed, but in addition to it. This is very, very different than the image some folks have painted.
So, if President Bush does not actually want an amnesty and citizenship for illegals, and if he actually does support a physical fence, further enhanced with multiple modes of surveillance, then why are so many people claiming the opposite? Confusion for some, but rank dishonesty for others. People find this issue very uncomfortable, as they should when the security of our borders is concerned, but not everyone is prepared to address the crisis rationally, and the President of the United States has often been the favored target of the press and political demagogues, especially when he is a Conservative and from Texas. The plain fact is, that like Reagan before him Bush was the Governor of a border state before he became President, and he knows the issue far better than many of the Johnny-come-lately’s who think the matter through only to a point, then presume that their knowledge and experience somehow trumps the President’s. Like Reagan, George W. Bush takes on the whole issue, not just what’s on the surface, and he is pursuing a permanent solution, not some temporary paint job to win poll points. And just as Republicans began deserting Reagan in 1986, when their self-serving egos found Reagan’s attention on difficult issues unpalatable to their personal desires, so again politicians and stuffed-shirts are leaving President Bush, specifically because he is talking about the heavy lifting. And because they do not want to be seen for the deserters they are, they go so far as to blame the President for their own cowardice. With the MSM and Democrats already hungry for anything which makes the most prominent Conservative in the world look bad, Dubya is simply an easy target, especially since he is not the sort to return fire with similar lies and slander.
President George W. Bush is a man of his word. That fact was established long ago, and it used to be a common point of pride among Conservatives, that we had a man who did not lie or mislead, a refreshing change after eight years of the Clintons. And the fact of Bush’s honesty was known to his enemies, which is why “Bush Lied” became the ridiculous mantra of the Left; they knew that only if they could tear down his reputation as an upright man, could they hope to destroy him. But Bush has repeatedly shown that he does what he says he will do, even if Saddam Hussein and the vermin of Al Qaeda had hoped otherwise, and on every measure he has been consistent to his word and statement. So it matters to pay attention, not to what somebody else wants to claim he said or some deceitful interpretation which twists his words to claim something he never actually said at all, but to the President himself. He is specific, consistent, and trustworthy. And more than a few people owe him a humble apology. Again.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
The Mahdi Wanna-Be Ploy Of The Month
--
Say you’re the psychotic leader of a nation chock full of psychotic fanatics. I mean, your mentor was the Ayatollah Khomeini, a man who looked like he’d want to have people stoned for not praying fervently enough, and the standard lackey in your government is a fedayeen washout. Just shouting “Death to America!” is not going to be enough; you got three year olds doing that already on their way to daycare. And if you want to turn that ‘Mahdi’ jones you have into anything more than a Muslim wet dream, you need to deal with the US. Sure you’re nuts, but you are not stupid enough to think that President George W. Bush is going to let you start beating down other Middle East nations, to say nothing of attacking Israel, so you have to figure out what you’re going to do about the POTUS. Unlike Democrats and more than a few pansy-style Republicans, you understand he’s serious about securing the Middle East from loons like you. So you write a letter. Say, about 18 pages, which ignores the issues between you and the United States but goes on and on about how you see the world situation.
From Ahmadinejad’s point of view, it’s a no-lose situation. Most people see things from a culture-centric perspective, and so they fail to see the attendant objectives to the actions of the Jihadist leader. Dar-al-Islam is the game for these guys, and that focuses on the Middle East. While Ahmadinejad would love to see the world dominated by Islam, he knows he has to first build a regional hegemony, and that means getting ahead of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan on the street. For all its trite hyperbole, the Arab “street” is real and a valid barometer for their political course. Iran, formally called ‘Persia’, has a real Superiority Complex working as a nation historically, and most Middle East nations have a bone or four to pick with Iran, which works against following the lead of Ahmadinejad in a Jihad. For all the hype from Al-Jazeera, most of the Middle East couldn’t give a squirt about whether Israel exists, let along work up the anger to want to destroy the nation that provides a significant chunk of the world’s food, entertainment, and military protection. So Job One is making yourself ‘team captain’ of the Jihad Squad.
So then, what is Mad Mad Mahmoud up to? It’s like this: He sends a letter to President Bush, which could be quite literally anything – for all I know he sent 18 pages of doodles from the last time he had a vision from God – and Mahdi boy says he’s asked for discussions with President Bush. If Bush laughs in his face, Mahdi Wanna can claim that he was trying to make peace, and claim a moral advantage. If Bush sends envoys to take up Mahdi Manic on his proposal, even just to present a make-nice image, then Ahmadinejad will present himself as a man that the Americans treat as an equal, something uncommon for your average unstable maniac. It also feeds that capacious ego Ahmadinejad has. We’re talking here about a man who not only believes he’s on a mission from God, he’s clearly been studying Mein Kampf and applying it liberally to his own plans. Blame everything on Israel when he speaks to his own people, and promise its obliteration, check. Tell America all he wants is to be reasonable, check. Prepare ghastly weapons while loudly protesting his innocence, check. He’s even starting to look like the little Corporal when he gives speeches, although even Herr Schicklegruber never went so far as to claim that when he spoke, he had a glowing aura and no one could blink, much less fail to pay attention to his every word.
The question here is what response to the United States should make to this guy? If I were the President , I would immediately release the text of that letter to the public; let them know exactly what is being said. I would respond publicly to Ahmadinejad by way of a televised address to the American people, asking Congress for a policy of regime change on the basis of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, the brutal nature of the Iranian police state and its suppression of protest, and the subsidy by Iran of terrorists entering and operating in Iraq. Like the Regime Change in Iraq declaration passed in 1998, I would leave out specifics at this time, but it would lay the groundwork for whatever future action is necessary, and send a clear shot across the bow to Iran. As for the original letter itself, I would make use of it the next time I needed a toilet, and then send that letter back to Ahmadinejad.
Say you’re the psychotic leader of a nation chock full of psychotic fanatics. I mean, your mentor was the Ayatollah Khomeini, a man who looked like he’d want to have people stoned for not praying fervently enough, and the standard lackey in your government is a fedayeen washout. Just shouting “Death to America!” is not going to be enough; you got three year olds doing that already on their way to daycare. And if you want to turn that ‘Mahdi’ jones you have into anything more than a Muslim wet dream, you need to deal with the US. Sure you’re nuts, but you are not stupid enough to think that President George W. Bush is going to let you start beating down other Middle East nations, to say nothing of attacking Israel, so you have to figure out what you’re going to do about the POTUS. Unlike Democrats and more than a few pansy-style Republicans, you understand he’s serious about securing the Middle East from loons like you. So you write a letter. Say, about 18 pages, which ignores the issues between you and the United States but goes on and on about how you see the world situation.
From Ahmadinejad’s point of view, it’s a no-lose situation. Most people see things from a culture-centric perspective, and so they fail to see the attendant objectives to the actions of the Jihadist leader. Dar-al-Islam is the game for these guys, and that focuses on the Middle East. While Ahmadinejad would love to see the world dominated by Islam, he knows he has to first build a regional hegemony, and that means getting ahead of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan on the street. For all its trite hyperbole, the Arab “street” is real and a valid barometer for their political course. Iran, formally called ‘Persia’, has a real Superiority Complex working as a nation historically, and most Middle East nations have a bone or four to pick with Iran, which works against following the lead of Ahmadinejad in a Jihad. For all the hype from Al-Jazeera, most of the Middle East couldn’t give a squirt about whether Israel exists, let along work up the anger to want to destroy the nation that provides a significant chunk of the world’s food, entertainment, and military protection. So Job One is making yourself ‘team captain’ of the Jihad Squad.
So then, what is Mad Mad Mahmoud up to? It’s like this: He sends a letter to President Bush, which could be quite literally anything – for all I know he sent 18 pages of doodles from the last time he had a vision from God – and Mahdi boy says he’s asked for discussions with President Bush. If Bush laughs in his face, Mahdi Wanna can claim that he was trying to make peace, and claim a moral advantage. If Bush sends envoys to take up Mahdi Manic on his proposal, even just to present a make-nice image, then Ahmadinejad will present himself as a man that the Americans treat as an equal, something uncommon for your average unstable maniac. It also feeds that capacious ego Ahmadinejad has. We’re talking here about a man who not only believes he’s on a mission from God, he’s clearly been studying Mein Kampf and applying it liberally to his own plans. Blame everything on Israel when he speaks to his own people, and promise its obliteration, check. Tell America all he wants is to be reasonable, check. Prepare ghastly weapons while loudly protesting his innocence, check. He’s even starting to look like the little Corporal when he gives speeches, although even Herr Schicklegruber never went so far as to claim that when he spoke, he had a glowing aura and no one could blink, much less fail to pay attention to his every word.
The question here is what response to the United States should make to this guy? If I were the President , I would immediately release the text of that letter to the public; let them know exactly what is being said. I would respond publicly to Ahmadinejad by way of a televised address to the American people, asking Congress for a policy of regime change on the basis of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, the brutal nature of the Iranian police state and its suppression of protest, and the subsidy by Iran of terrorists entering and operating in Iraq. Like the Regime Change in Iraq declaration passed in 1998, I would leave out specifics at this time, but it would lay the groundwork for whatever future action is necessary, and send a clear shot across the bow to Iran. As for the original letter itself, I would make use of it the next time I needed a toilet, and then send that letter back to Ahmadinejad.
Monday, May 08, 2006
More About Business Schools
===*===
Last Saturday, I published my list of the Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the US. I noted at the time, that I was using some pretty general definitions and only one salient criteria. It might make sense for me to explain that criteria in more detail and context.
The nominal lists of top business schools, such as one sees published in Business Week, US News & World Report, or The Wall Street Journal, are based on the expectations of the standard graduate from full-time programs and on the assumption that the student fits into a narrow demographic; essentially the 24-to-28 year old with a Bachelor’s in Business plus an appropriate employment background, a documented success in Undergraduate results by GPA, major, and school of recognized name, as well as a clear track indicating future success, as defined by an exceptional GMAT score, resume, recommendation from employers, or some combination of the three. The assumption further presumes that the student intends to pursue executive positions at high-profile financial firms, or else to pursue a high-capital opening in such venues as Entreprenuership. Frankly, the assumption seems to me to suggest that the top schools are suited to students who wish to work in major cities on the East or West Coast, in Investment Banking, High-Margin Marketing, or similar high-profile positions. The problems include determining what is best for those who wish to live and work in less urban conditions, who prefer operational responsibilities, and those whose personal demographic is less suited to the extrovert and the volatile. Also, it occurs to me that as often happens in high-demand degrees, many of these would-be CEOs are going to find that there are far less openings in their desired niche than graduates with such degrees. So, I find it better to weigh a school on the basis of its overall education, specifically making the student capable to address a range of responsibilities and positions. This not only provides the student with many more choices for his applications following school, but makes him more attractive to companies seeking a broader skill set. This redirection makes the magazine rankings a bit suspect, therefore, since they tend to key on only one aspect of the school as a primary quality. Of course, it is true that the preference of recruiters is valuable when picking a school; knowing your school attracts a lot of companies and job offers is certainly an incentive for selecting that school.
But this all makes clear to me how different the distance MBA is from the nominal full-time school. Ironically, the self-selected ‘experts’ on ranking Business schools tend to think down on distance MBAs these days, but I am convinced that will change over time, if for no other reason than the fact that individuals, not groups, achieve greatness, and the only reason that no top CEO/CFO has come from a distance MBA, is that the distance MBA is too new to have shown its results in great measure; as more and more students earn their MBA through distance programs, more and more of them will succeed at higher levels, the present bias notwithstanding. It will take time, but it will happen.
But with regard to distance MBAs, I do not accept, at all, the notion that distance students are in any way inferior to full-time students. In fact, a case can be made to claim superior credentials for the distance student, since they must address the same material in most schools that the full-time student does, but in addition to a full time job and additional responsibilities which prevent these students from being able to pursue full-time study. In addition, the distance study student tends to be older than the full-time student, so the amount of real-world experience is greater. While full-time purists may prefer the high-gloss resume of a student who has never known floor level employment, such experience adds significant depth to the student of business practices, as he knows directly what works, what has failed, and why. A Ken Lay or Bernard Ebbers comes from a class which has only known silk ties and personal privilege, and while I do not mean to indict all elitist executives with that brush, I do maintain that direct work experience, face to face with customers and the floor staff of a company, is the best foundation for a successful executive. To be blunt, I expect greater results from MBA holders who held a real job for a decade or more before tackling the Masters program; they have a better sense for the bona fides of a company, or they should.
This brings me back to determining the best Online MBA schools. I have to admit that not all online schools are really as good as the traditional ‘brick and mortar’ schools, so as a standard placement I am only considering Business schools which offer an Online MBA, and which are accredited members of the AACSB. When I say they offer an Online MBA, I mean that a regular person with no more than 2 weeks of vacation could plan to meet the requirements of the course; there are a number of schools with unreasonable residency requirements, such as in-state distance courses, work-hours classes only, or excessive residence visits to a campus. So my list began with AACSB-member schools which offer a truly online MBA, either through proctored exams, capstone courses, or some combination which insures effective standards and genuine convenience of schedule and degree planning. After that, the only significant differences would be name recognition and tuition. I admit to an arbitrary screening in terms of name recognition, though I would claim that my entrants are valid. As to price, the information from GetEducated.com was very useful, though I would remind the reader, again, that in-state tuition may make some schools a better choice than other schools; I ranked the schools on the basis of out-of-state tuition. Also, the reader should be aware that the state where you wish to work is very important; one reason I am inclined to Texas schools, is not only price but my intention to continue working in Texas, where the Texas schools will enjoy an advantage.
Last Saturday, I published my list of the Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the US. I noted at the time, that I was using some pretty general definitions and only one salient criteria. It might make sense for me to explain that criteria in more detail and context.
The nominal lists of top business schools, such as one sees published in Business Week, US News & World Report, or The Wall Street Journal, are based on the expectations of the standard graduate from full-time programs and on the assumption that the student fits into a narrow demographic; essentially the 24-to-28 year old with a Bachelor’s in Business plus an appropriate employment background, a documented success in Undergraduate results by GPA, major, and school of recognized name, as well as a clear track indicating future success, as defined by an exceptional GMAT score, resume, recommendation from employers, or some combination of the three. The assumption further presumes that the student intends to pursue executive positions at high-profile financial firms, or else to pursue a high-capital opening in such venues as Entreprenuership. Frankly, the assumption seems to me to suggest that the top schools are suited to students who wish to work in major cities on the East or West Coast, in Investment Banking, High-Margin Marketing, or similar high-profile positions. The problems include determining what is best for those who wish to live and work in less urban conditions, who prefer operational responsibilities, and those whose personal demographic is less suited to the extrovert and the volatile. Also, it occurs to me that as often happens in high-demand degrees, many of these would-be CEOs are going to find that there are far less openings in their desired niche than graduates with such degrees. So, I find it better to weigh a school on the basis of its overall education, specifically making the student capable to address a range of responsibilities and positions. This not only provides the student with many more choices for his applications following school, but makes him more attractive to companies seeking a broader skill set. This redirection makes the magazine rankings a bit suspect, therefore, since they tend to key on only one aspect of the school as a primary quality. Of course, it is true that the preference of recruiters is valuable when picking a school; knowing your school attracts a lot of companies and job offers is certainly an incentive for selecting that school.
But this all makes clear to me how different the distance MBA is from the nominal full-time school. Ironically, the self-selected ‘experts’ on ranking Business schools tend to think down on distance MBAs these days, but I am convinced that will change over time, if for no other reason than the fact that individuals, not groups, achieve greatness, and the only reason that no top CEO/CFO has come from a distance MBA, is that the distance MBA is too new to have shown its results in great measure; as more and more students earn their MBA through distance programs, more and more of them will succeed at higher levels, the present bias notwithstanding. It will take time, but it will happen.
But with regard to distance MBAs, I do not accept, at all, the notion that distance students are in any way inferior to full-time students. In fact, a case can be made to claim superior credentials for the distance student, since they must address the same material in most schools that the full-time student does, but in addition to a full time job and additional responsibilities which prevent these students from being able to pursue full-time study. In addition, the distance study student tends to be older than the full-time student, so the amount of real-world experience is greater. While full-time purists may prefer the high-gloss resume of a student who has never known floor level employment, such experience adds significant depth to the student of business practices, as he knows directly what works, what has failed, and why. A Ken Lay or Bernard Ebbers comes from a class which has only known silk ties and personal privilege, and while I do not mean to indict all elitist executives with that brush, I do maintain that direct work experience, face to face with customers and the floor staff of a company, is the best foundation for a successful executive. To be blunt, I expect greater results from MBA holders who held a real job for a decade or more before tackling the Masters program; they have a better sense for the bona fides of a company, or they should.
This brings me back to determining the best Online MBA schools. I have to admit that not all online schools are really as good as the traditional ‘brick and mortar’ schools, so as a standard placement I am only considering Business schools which offer an Online MBA, and which are accredited members of the AACSB. When I say they offer an Online MBA, I mean that a regular person with no more than 2 weeks of vacation could plan to meet the requirements of the course; there are a number of schools with unreasonable residency requirements, such as in-state distance courses, work-hours classes only, or excessive residence visits to a campus. So my list began with AACSB-member schools which offer a truly online MBA, either through proctored exams, capstone courses, or some combination which insures effective standards and genuine convenience of schedule and degree planning. After that, the only significant differences would be name recognition and tuition. I admit to an arbitrary screening in terms of name recognition, though I would claim that my entrants are valid. As to price, the information from GetEducated.com was very useful, though I would remind the reader, again, that in-state tuition may make some schools a better choice than other schools; I ranked the schools on the basis of out-of-state tuition. Also, the reader should be aware that the state where you wish to work is very important; one reason I am inclined to Texas schools, is not only price but my intention to continue working in Texas, where the Texas schools will enjoy an advantage.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Pride Before The Fall
[-]
I remember how I felt in 1979, as the Democrat-controlled Congress, following the course of their Democrat President, allowed the United States to fall further and further into crisis. Oil prices, national defense, respect for Americans, and the future of the Western World through American leadership were all put into grave peril, and I was shocked to see how casually the Left accepted these conditions. One reason so many people came to love Ronald Reagan, was that he not only set a different course, he did so when all seemed on a course to failure. Reagan never accepted doomsayers of course, though he had a few and more to stare down in his time. Certainly he had a rough road to the White House, as so many Republicans feared to support a strong conservative, labeling his policies and programs all sorts of things. But he prevailed, and only failed to succeed more because of the capricious Congress.
The same thing is happening now with George W. Bush. Yes, he allegedly enjoys the backing of a Republican Congress, though you'd have a hard time knowing it from some of their actions. And yes, like Reagan he has a few ideas which have been ridiculed as much by Republicans as by Democrats, though now as then these panty-waists insist that they support the President; their spittle only shows their devotion, somehow, to America. Then as now unelected sorts with bloated egos demand that the twice-elected President kowtow to their wishes, and submit that the Chief Executive has no right to exercise his own discretion or judgment. Then as now these false Conservatives lay land mines against their own party, and when their snares destroy Conservative opportunities and values, these villains will be quick to assure us they are only doing what is best; a bullet in the patient is the best medicine, say these sorts, even though History abundantly proves them wrong again and again.
I remember wondering why Republicans in 1991 would not back President G.H. Bush, forcing him into a situation where he would lose no matter his decision. I wondered why the GOP would abandon a President in favor of a clearly inferior offering like Perot. I remember worrying that allowing a Democrat back in the White House would be like bringing back Carter. The emerging details of the Clinton Administration are proving that such fears were well-founded, yet Republicans are whistling at the risk that they may be, through their petulance, handing the keys to our nation's welfare to the very people least worthy of that trust.
God help us.
I remember how I felt in 1979, as the Democrat-controlled Congress, following the course of their Democrat President, allowed the United States to fall further and further into crisis. Oil prices, national defense, respect for Americans, and the future of the Western World through American leadership were all put into grave peril, and I was shocked to see how casually the Left accepted these conditions. One reason so many people came to love Ronald Reagan, was that he not only set a different course, he did so when all seemed on a course to failure. Reagan never accepted doomsayers of course, though he had a few and more to stare down in his time. Certainly he had a rough road to the White House, as so many Republicans feared to support a strong conservative, labeling his policies and programs all sorts of things. But he prevailed, and only failed to succeed more because of the capricious Congress.
The same thing is happening now with George W. Bush. Yes, he allegedly enjoys the backing of a Republican Congress, though you'd have a hard time knowing it from some of their actions. And yes, like Reagan he has a few ideas which have been ridiculed as much by Republicans as by Democrats, though now as then these panty-waists insist that they support the President; their spittle only shows their devotion, somehow, to America. Then as now unelected sorts with bloated egos demand that the twice-elected President kowtow to their wishes, and submit that the Chief Executive has no right to exercise his own discretion or judgment. Then as now these false Conservatives lay land mines against their own party, and when their snares destroy Conservative opportunities and values, these villains will be quick to assure us they are only doing what is best; a bullet in the patient is the best medicine, say these sorts, even though History abundantly proves them wrong again and again.
I remember wondering why Republicans in 1991 would not back President G.H. Bush, forcing him into a situation where he would lose no matter his decision. I wondered why the GOP would abandon a President in favor of a clearly inferior offering like Perot. I remember worrying that allowing a Democrat back in the White House would be like bringing back Carter. The emerging details of the Clinton Administration are proving that such fears were well-founded, yet Republicans are whistling at the risk that they may be, through their petulance, handing the keys to our nation's welfare to the very people least worthy of that trust.
God help us.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
The Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the United States, 2006
-/\-
The Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree is one of the most discussed degrees awarded, and every year a number of magazines rank the schools according to their qualities. These rankings make interesting reading, and give folks a good sense of what makes a good MBA program, but the rankings are usually only concerned with full-time MBA programs, which does not strike me as a proper review of the options.
Certainly, it should be understood that there is a bias among academics and certain businesses, that the ‘part-time’ MBA earned by a person who must work for a living while they pursue their degree, is somehow not a “real” MBA. And worse, there is a genuine stigma attached to “distance” MBAs among the “elite” businesses, even though some of the very best business schools have a distance MBA program, and offer the same courses to online students that they do to those attending in person, taught by the same professors using the same materials, and grading by the same high standard. I certainly believe that in time, a proper comprehension of the high standards of certain schools will remove the approbation so falsely applied to the online degree, but for now it means that the major publications simply do not bother to rank the online schools.
Just as there are thousands of ‘brick & mortar’ schools which offer MBAs, there are literally thousands of online schools promising an MBA degree. For the purposes of these rankings, I began by pulling the available data from GetEducated.com, then counting only schools which offered an MBA online, which are regionally accredited by the nominal boards, and which are AACSB accredited and members. I then weeded out those schools which, forgive me, are unlikely to be known by name outside of a close geographic region. This establishes a level of degree which will be truly available online, yet meet the demanding standards of the best-respected business school accrediting association. I then noted the total advertised cost of an MBA for a student from out-of-state and in-state, and ranked them according to those standards. I am only ranking the top 25 schools on that general measure, and in my opinion, so I recommend you examine your options closely. Note that in-state residents often enjoy better tuition rates, for example.
The Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the United States, 2006:
1. Cal State Dominguez Hills - $10,500 (may require prerequisite business courses)
2. Mississippi State University - $13,776
3. University of Nebraska - $14,212
4. Dallas Baptist University - $16,524 (3.2 undergrad GPA)
5. Colorado State University - $18,828
6. University of Colorado – Colorado Springs - $19,032
7. University of Wisconsin Whitewater - $19,800
8. University of Houston – Victoria - $20,544 [$10,696 Tx residents]
9. Duquesne University - $21,132
10. Auburn University - $22,932 (MBA) $42,840 (EMBA), 3-day intensive, EMBA requires 5 “short residencies”, plus 1 week international travel.
11. Oklahoma State University - $23,280 [$13,368 Ok residents]
12. University of Tulsa - $24,264
13. University of Massachusetts - $25,000
14. West Virginia University - $27,036 [$9,288 WV residents]
15. University of Texas Telecampus - $27,200 [$12,400 Tx residents]
16. Marist College - $28,662
17. University of Wyoming - $29,160
18. Texas A&M – Commerce - $29,976 [$16,728 Tx residents]
19. University of Tennessee - $30,500
20. University of North Texas - $30,782.33
21. University of Florida - $32,600 (up to 8 campus weekend visits required)
22. Arizona State University - $38,022 (5 days orientation required first year)
23. Indiana University - $40,800
24. East Carolina University - $42,300 [$11,940 N Car residents]
25. University of Texas – Dallas – $42,500 ($45,408 Global MBA)
The Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree is one of the most discussed degrees awarded, and every year a number of magazines rank the schools according to their qualities. These rankings make interesting reading, and give folks a good sense of what makes a good MBA program, but the rankings are usually only concerned with full-time MBA programs, which does not strike me as a proper review of the options.
Certainly, it should be understood that there is a bias among academics and certain businesses, that the ‘part-time’ MBA earned by a person who must work for a living while they pursue their degree, is somehow not a “real” MBA. And worse, there is a genuine stigma attached to “distance” MBAs among the “elite” businesses, even though some of the very best business schools have a distance MBA program, and offer the same courses to online students that they do to those attending in person, taught by the same professors using the same materials, and grading by the same high standard. I certainly believe that in time, a proper comprehension of the high standards of certain schools will remove the approbation so falsely applied to the online degree, but for now it means that the major publications simply do not bother to rank the online schools.
Just as there are thousands of ‘brick & mortar’ schools which offer MBAs, there are literally thousands of online schools promising an MBA degree. For the purposes of these rankings, I began by pulling the available data from GetEducated.com, then counting only schools which offered an MBA online, which are regionally accredited by the nominal boards, and which are AACSB accredited and members. I then weeded out those schools which, forgive me, are unlikely to be known by name outside of a close geographic region. This establishes a level of degree which will be truly available online, yet meet the demanding standards of the best-respected business school accrediting association. I then noted the total advertised cost of an MBA for a student from out-of-state and in-state, and ranked them according to those standards. I am only ranking the top 25 schools on that general measure, and in my opinion, so I recommend you examine your options closely. Note that in-state residents often enjoy better tuition rates, for example.
The Top 25 Online MBA Schools in the United States, 2006:
1. Cal State Dominguez Hills - $10,500 (may require prerequisite business courses)
2. Mississippi State University - $13,776
3. University of Nebraska - $14,212
4. Dallas Baptist University - $16,524 (3.2 undergrad GPA)
5. Colorado State University - $18,828
6. University of Colorado – Colorado Springs - $19,032
7. University of Wisconsin Whitewater - $19,800
8. University of Houston – Victoria - $20,544 [$10,696 Tx residents]
9. Duquesne University - $21,132
10. Auburn University - $22,932 (MBA) $42,840 (EMBA), 3-day intensive, EMBA requires 5 “short residencies”, plus 1 week international travel.
11. Oklahoma State University - $23,280 [$13,368 Ok residents]
12. University of Tulsa - $24,264
13. University of Massachusetts - $25,000
14. West Virginia University - $27,036 [$9,288 WV residents]
15. University of Texas Telecampus - $27,200 [$12,400 Tx residents]
16. Marist College - $28,662
17. University of Wyoming - $29,160
18. Texas A&M – Commerce - $29,976 [$16,728 Tx residents]
19. University of Tennessee - $30,500
20. University of North Texas - $30,782.33
21. University of Florida - $32,600 (up to 8 campus weekend visits required)
22. Arizona State University - $38,022 (5 days orientation required first year)
23. Indiana University - $40,800
24. East Carolina University - $42,300 [$11,940 N Car residents]
25. University of Texas – Dallas – $42,500 ($45,408 Global MBA)
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Free Speech And National Security
[][][]
As usual, the New York Times remains the epitome of duplicity. Readers will remember how the NYT thought it only fitting, indeed an absolute requirement, that the government should appoint a Special Prosecutor to find out who “outed” Valerie Plame and to punish them forthwith. Unfortunately for the NYT, that prosecutor could not find an actual violation of Plame’s rights, and chose to expand his search to nail anybody he could, just to show some kind of results. That led to “Scooter” Libby, and the less-than-solid claim that Libby broke the law in what he said to the press. The hitch there begins with the obvious possibility that a person may honestly recall details differently when a long time has passed, and continues with the obvious possibility that a prosecutor who cannot find a target within the scope of his stated authority, might feel pressured to “make” a case for the sake of face. But this also brings the guns back around, this time to track the New York Times itself. Turns out the NYT may well have violated the Espionage Act by disclosing details of the NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda communications, especially phone calls to and from the United States.
For here, I will simply say that from where I stand, Libby is innocent of the charges leveled against him, while if charged the NYT would be guilty as hell. The question of whether the government will proceed with charging the NYT remains to be seen. For this article however, the question raised by this situation bears on the terms of the First Amendment, specifically the station of the Press. For many years the Mainstream Media has claimed an inviolate right to do as it pleases, up to and including violating laws protecting the nation’s secrets. This was the case during World War Two, when the Chicago Tribune published that the United States has broken the Japanese codes, a fact which could have disastrously changed the course of the war had the Japanese read and believed the reports. This was the case when Daniel Ellsworth published the Pentagon Papers in 1971. This was the case when CNN presented the false allegations of ‘Tailwind’. And of course, it has been revealed since the fall of Saddam that while he was in power, CNN toadied up to the dictator and covered up information confirming the evils of his regime, in order to maintain coveted access to key sources. The history of the MSM in terms of its responsibility is shoddy indeed. And now it appears that the New York Times, along with other Old Media enterprises, has put the lives of many intelligence and military personnel in danger. Further, in an age where it is commonly understood that the enemy not only can monitor media transmissions and publications, but is known to do so as a part of its operational reconnaissance, such hostile actions against our military are even more egregious.
Yet for all of that, I must agree that the Press, even the enemies of reason such as the New York Times and LA Times, must be afforded the liberties promised in the First Amendment. I note however, that with the advent of the Blogosphere that individuals have demonstrated equal, indeed superior, responsibility and veracity in handling the issues of common concern for the nation. It is the New Media, not the Old, which has best addressed the needs of the nation as an effective Press. This is not to deny the Old Media its place, but to demonstrate that like all of the Rights specified in the Bill of Rights, the rights of Man belong to individuals and when held in corporation, held by the collective rights of the individuals in that body. So, it is untrue to claim that the Firs Amendment grants a special right to the estate of the Press, separate and superior to any right of the individual, as it would be untrue to claim that only certain people should enjoy the right to practice their religion, or to freely assemble. The advent of blogging only demonstrates that individuals also enjoy the right of the press, as was indeed the common condition when the Constitution was first enacted.
But we should be careful in such matters, to accept responsibility along with rights. Some have said that the press should be able to print anything, that daylight is always the best disinfectant and warning that a government which can hide something in secrecy will certainly choose to hide its crimes. But we know that information is not only the moment, but changes the world, and there is some information which should not, indeed must not, be made known to our enemies. If it is prudent to lock our doors to keep out potential burglars, how much more vital is it to protect information which, if know to our foes, would lead to the deaths of countless innocents. So there is a need for secrecy, and a terrible price for neglecting its security.
I am of a mind therefore, to commit again to the standards of good journalism, which to my mind begin not with allegiance to a party or an employer, nor even to the truth, but to the people whose lives and welfare may be affected, for good or ill, by my actions and words. Like the policeman who must take care to be judicious with his weapon, like the judge who must rule with care for precedent and impact, like the governor who understands his words will be taken as the official intention of a state, I am committed to the enterprise of understanding, with the caveat that I will do nothing which damages the commonwealth of our nation, nor which compromises the safety of its defenders. I challenge all writers, whether Old Media or New, to say the same.
As usual, the New York Times remains the epitome of duplicity. Readers will remember how the NYT thought it only fitting, indeed an absolute requirement, that the government should appoint a Special Prosecutor to find out who “outed” Valerie Plame and to punish them forthwith. Unfortunately for the NYT, that prosecutor could not find an actual violation of Plame’s rights, and chose to expand his search to nail anybody he could, just to show some kind of results. That led to “Scooter” Libby, and the less-than-solid claim that Libby broke the law in what he said to the press. The hitch there begins with the obvious possibility that a person may honestly recall details differently when a long time has passed, and continues with the obvious possibility that a prosecutor who cannot find a target within the scope of his stated authority, might feel pressured to “make” a case for the sake of face. But this also brings the guns back around, this time to track the New York Times itself. Turns out the NYT may well have violated the Espionage Act by disclosing details of the NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda communications, especially phone calls to and from the United States.
For here, I will simply say that from where I stand, Libby is innocent of the charges leveled against him, while if charged the NYT would be guilty as hell. The question of whether the government will proceed with charging the NYT remains to be seen. For this article however, the question raised by this situation bears on the terms of the First Amendment, specifically the station of the Press. For many years the Mainstream Media has claimed an inviolate right to do as it pleases, up to and including violating laws protecting the nation’s secrets. This was the case during World War Two, when the Chicago Tribune published that the United States has broken the Japanese codes, a fact which could have disastrously changed the course of the war had the Japanese read and believed the reports. This was the case when Daniel Ellsworth published the Pentagon Papers in 1971. This was the case when CNN presented the false allegations of ‘Tailwind’. And of course, it has been revealed since the fall of Saddam that while he was in power, CNN toadied up to the dictator and covered up information confirming the evils of his regime, in order to maintain coveted access to key sources. The history of the MSM in terms of its responsibility is shoddy indeed. And now it appears that the New York Times, along with other Old Media enterprises, has put the lives of many intelligence and military personnel in danger. Further, in an age where it is commonly understood that the enemy not only can monitor media transmissions and publications, but is known to do so as a part of its operational reconnaissance, such hostile actions against our military are even more egregious.
Yet for all of that, I must agree that the Press, even the enemies of reason such as the New York Times and LA Times, must be afforded the liberties promised in the First Amendment. I note however, that with the advent of the Blogosphere that individuals have demonstrated equal, indeed superior, responsibility and veracity in handling the issues of common concern for the nation. It is the New Media, not the Old, which has best addressed the needs of the nation as an effective Press. This is not to deny the Old Media its place, but to demonstrate that like all of the Rights specified in the Bill of Rights, the rights of Man belong to individuals and when held in corporation, held by the collective rights of the individuals in that body. So, it is untrue to claim that the Firs Amendment grants a special right to the estate of the Press, separate and superior to any right of the individual, as it would be untrue to claim that only certain people should enjoy the right to practice their religion, or to freely assemble. The advent of blogging only demonstrates that individuals also enjoy the right of the press, as was indeed the common condition when the Constitution was first enacted.
But we should be careful in such matters, to accept responsibility along with rights. Some have said that the press should be able to print anything, that daylight is always the best disinfectant and warning that a government which can hide something in secrecy will certainly choose to hide its crimes. But we know that information is not only the moment, but changes the world, and there is some information which should not, indeed must not, be made known to our enemies. If it is prudent to lock our doors to keep out potential burglars, how much more vital is it to protect information which, if know to our foes, would lead to the deaths of countless innocents. So there is a need for secrecy, and a terrible price for neglecting its security.
I am of a mind therefore, to commit again to the standards of good journalism, which to my mind begin not with allegiance to a party or an employer, nor even to the truth, but to the people whose lives and welfare may be affected, for good or ill, by my actions and words. Like the policeman who must take care to be judicious with his weapon, like the judge who must rule with care for precedent and impact, like the governor who understands his words will be taken as the official intention of a state, I am committed to the enterprise of understanding, with the caveat that I will do nothing which damages the commonwealth of our nation, nor which compromises the safety of its defenders. I challenge all writers, whether Old Media or New, to say the same.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
The Dog That Didn’t Bark
---
We hear it wailing every day like the Liberal version of the muezzin calling the Muslims to prayer: “Bush poll numbers lowest ever! Bush still sinking! Bush is done for!”
Well, you all know what I think about that crap. I have mentioned that Bush is unlikely to work on his poll numbers, because he doesn’t need to get elected to anything again, and the Congress is not doing diddly to respect his work and office, so he sees no reason to pretty up his façade just to get these deserters another term through his efforts, as he did in 2002. I have observed that the polls are not only skewed in their demographics, but also do not even bother to find out if their respondents are regular voters or even if they voted in the last election. The poll numbers, therefore, are completely bunk, especially since so many of the polling groups have a lot more interest in creating a story by hinting Bush is in trouble, than in honestly reporting how America really thinks of him.
But I also noticed something else. The RCP average for Bush pegs his JA at 35.2%, taking data from almost two dozen polls. But if you take the latest results from each of the 21 polling groups cited, his average climbs to 37.3%, meaning that not all polls are weighed the same way in that balance. And it’s interesting, to me at least, to examine the latest poll results by the date ended. CBS, NBC/WSJ, Rasmussen, Cook, and USA Today/Gallup all ran polls which ended the last week of April. CNN, FOX, and Pew ran polls which ended the week before that. The other 13 polls cited in that average are using responses which are more than half a month old. Also, it’s worth noting that Rasmussen, Cook, Pew, and NBC/WSJ are showing numbers which are significantly better than the claims from CNN, CBS, and even FOX (remember that FOX polls were inconsistent during the 2004 campaign).
In total, well, it’s just more of what I warned you about. There are a number of qualities that you find in a worthwhile poll; demographics consistent with the population, internally consistent methodology, transparent internal data, and timely indicators all come to mind. To be blunt, none of the polls being presented right now have all of those qualities, and several have none at all. This won’t stop Liberals from cackling their lies, but it does mean you don’t have to believe them.
We hear it wailing every day like the Liberal version of the muezzin calling the Muslims to prayer: “Bush poll numbers lowest ever! Bush still sinking! Bush is done for!”
Well, you all know what I think about that crap. I have mentioned that Bush is unlikely to work on his poll numbers, because he doesn’t need to get elected to anything again, and the Congress is not doing diddly to respect his work and office, so he sees no reason to pretty up his façade just to get these deserters another term through his efforts, as he did in 2002. I have observed that the polls are not only skewed in their demographics, but also do not even bother to find out if their respondents are regular voters or even if they voted in the last election. The poll numbers, therefore, are completely bunk, especially since so many of the polling groups have a lot more interest in creating a story by hinting Bush is in trouble, than in honestly reporting how America really thinks of him.
But I also noticed something else. The RCP average for Bush pegs his JA at 35.2%, taking data from almost two dozen polls. But if you take the latest results from each of the 21 polling groups cited, his average climbs to 37.3%, meaning that not all polls are weighed the same way in that balance. And it’s interesting, to me at least, to examine the latest poll results by the date ended. CBS, NBC/WSJ, Rasmussen, Cook, and USA Today/Gallup all ran polls which ended the last week of April. CNN, FOX, and Pew ran polls which ended the week before that. The other 13 polls cited in that average are using responses which are more than half a month old. Also, it’s worth noting that Rasmussen, Cook, Pew, and NBC/WSJ are showing numbers which are significantly better than the claims from CNN, CBS, and even FOX (remember that FOX polls were inconsistent during the 2004 campaign).
In total, well, it’s just more of what I warned you about. There are a number of qualities that you find in a worthwhile poll; demographics consistent with the population, internally consistent methodology, transparent internal data, and timely indicators all come to mind. To be blunt, none of the polls being presented right now have all of those qualities, and several have none at all. This won’t stop Liberals from cackling their lies, but it does mean you don’t have to believe them.
Killing The Hydra
-**-
It is a sad truism that the enemies of America rely on our collective impatience. We like fast food, sound bytes, and are willing to support only short wars. At least, that’s the conventional wisdom, which is popular enough to have become policy for many vicious demagogues. I have written before on the fact that the United States has fought long fights before, and more than once has settled matters by obliterating the regime they fought. But it should also be understood that the death of a tyrannic order is often a slow process, and takes more than one stroke.
Fascism, for instance, continued to exist long after the end of World War 2, and still has its devotees even today. So it should surprise no one that Communism is still doing the best it can to overthrow the world. And don’t laugh, it could still happen. Just as the distinctions between the Soviets and Chinese Communists demonstrated, Communism takes a variety of forms, suited to the conditions of its terrain and culture. Accordingly, the Communist movement in Central and South America is still making strides, even where it seems to be dormant or in retreat. Nowhere is this more evident than Mexico. In the rush to consider Mexico a friend of the United States, many people forget that Mexico fought a revolution to free itself from Spain, and not a revolution of ideals nearly so much as a simple rebellion to destroy the existing order; even today the strongest political party is called the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which is a member of the “Socialist International”. Vicente Fox, the present President of Mexico, rose through the ranks of the National Action Party and represents effectively the conservative and reform wing of Mexican politics, but he is fighting against a system dominated with PRI veterans and a thoroughly corrupt culture. In addition to political pressure, Fox is fighting a bloody insurgency in the rural parts of Mexico from the Zapatistas,
further diluting his power to address the threat. It's not say he sees eye to eye with the U.S> Government, but he is actually better than his predecessors, which means he is targeted by the Left.
The ‘Reconquistas’ have let their mask slip a bit during their marches, showing pictures of Communists like Che Guevara and chanting slogans reminiscent of Ho Chi Minh. It’s important to understand what’s going on here. A lot of people have no interest in Communism; it really is a simple case that they want a better life for their family and themselves. Unfortunately, as is the historical model, the Communists latch on to large groups and use them for their own purposes, and while many of the marchers on Monday may not have understood the significance of marching on May 1, the significance of such manipulation needs to be recognized.
It is a sad truism that the enemies of America rely on our collective impatience. We like fast food, sound bytes, and are willing to support only short wars. At least, that’s the conventional wisdom, which is popular enough to have become policy for many vicious demagogues. I have written before on the fact that the United States has fought long fights before, and more than once has settled matters by obliterating the regime they fought. But it should also be understood that the death of a tyrannic order is often a slow process, and takes more than one stroke.
Fascism, for instance, continued to exist long after the end of World War 2, and still has its devotees even today. So it should surprise no one that Communism is still doing the best it can to overthrow the world. And don’t laugh, it could still happen. Just as the distinctions between the Soviets and Chinese Communists demonstrated, Communism takes a variety of forms, suited to the conditions of its terrain and culture. Accordingly, the Communist movement in Central and South America is still making strides, even where it seems to be dormant or in retreat. Nowhere is this more evident than Mexico. In the rush to consider Mexico a friend of the United States, many people forget that Mexico fought a revolution to free itself from Spain, and not a revolution of ideals nearly so much as a simple rebellion to destroy the existing order; even today the strongest political party is called the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which is a member of the “Socialist International”. Vicente Fox, the present President of Mexico, rose through the ranks of the National Action Party and represents effectively the conservative and reform wing of Mexican politics, but he is fighting against a system dominated with PRI veterans and a thoroughly corrupt culture. In addition to political pressure, Fox is fighting a bloody insurgency in the rural parts of Mexico from the Zapatistas,
further diluting his power to address the threat. It's not say he sees eye to eye with the U.S> Government, but he is actually better than his predecessors, which means he is targeted by the Left.
The ‘Reconquistas’ have let their mask slip a bit during their marches, showing pictures of Communists like Che Guevara and chanting slogans reminiscent of Ho Chi Minh. It’s important to understand what’s going on here. A lot of people have no interest in Communism; it really is a simple case that they want a better life for their family and themselves. Unfortunately, as is the historical model, the Communists latch on to large groups and use them for their own purposes, and while many of the marchers on Monday may not have understood the significance of marching on May 1, the significance of such manipulation needs to be recognized.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
The 2006 ‘Prove Your Stupidity’ Rally Results
ccc
Well, it’s over. That big international series of rallies and protests to show America just how much it needs illegals had it’s day in the sun, sponsored by more than a few major Socialist and Communist organizations, just in case the selection of “May Day”, long favored for 5-year-plans and parades with the same missiles on trailers rounding the block a few times while speeches extolling the virtues of the proletariat droned on, seemed a coincidence to you. Of course, the speeches had to be re-tooled to promote the virtues of people who flout laws, equal responsibility, and any sense of obligation to the people who built the hoems and businesses they seek, but at least the speeches have the usual enemy: America. Like the anarchists and domestic insurgents of old, the mobs of ‘La Raza’ pretend they love America, and just want to be accepted as ‘immigrants’, a claim made clearly false by the arrogance which demands they should not be made to obey the rules which built this nation, or respect the generations of immigrants who sacrificed and assimilated into the American culture for their children’s sakes. They have no respect for the Irish, the Jews, the Russians, the Chinese, the Blacks, or even the earlier Hispanics who held their culture but learned English and became part of the community as contributors. Today’s “undocumented immigrant” demands access to every sort of public service and convenience, but refuses to pay his way. I had to laugh when a LULAC representative assured the crowd in Houston that the undocumented alien somehow is cheated, even though he pays no income tax, no property tax, and does not follow common obligations like carrying liability insurance for his car. Permit me to doubt you, Johnny Mata.
But to today. A great day, actually. I had no trouble getting to work or doing my job. I found plenty of stores with staff and stock to sell me what I wanted and needed, none of it made in or produced by anywhere or anyone in South America. In a strange irony, I got my gas at the station I always do, which is run by an Indian immigrant, who saw no reason not to work today, and who is legal in every sense. I bought a colander from an asian store, whose owner is either an immigrant or the son of an immigrant, and again someone who obeyed the law and made his way here by the rules. I talked about politics over lunch with an immigrant from Kenya, and when I rode the bus home, I exchanged pleasantries with the native-born driver, whose family came here legally from Venezuela.
The lessons for the illegals? Three of them:
1. We do not need you nearly as much as you think. A lot of us want to give folks a reasonable opportunity, but if you refuse to work with us, we will get rid of you.
2. You need to pay better attention to your own best interests. Racist groups and chants in a foreign language come across as attacks and hostility. The geniuses who thought that was a good tactic had better remember that we have a lot more guns, and threatening us only makes us more determined to defend ourselves. Demanding a “right” to steal public resources, to excuse the flood of drugs, violent criminals and gangs, or to have a special set of conditions just for your race is not going to fly, and will only set you against the hundreds of millions of real Americans who will judge you by the standards your own conduct sets.
3. A lot of things can be discussed or negotiated. Equal rights come with equal responsibility. Right about now, you guys are not showing any sense of responsibility, and all that does is work against Latinos.
So thanks for Monday, amigo.
Well, it’s over. That big international series of rallies and protests to show America just how much it needs illegals had it’s day in the sun, sponsored by more than a few major Socialist and Communist organizations, just in case the selection of “May Day”, long favored for 5-year-plans and parades with the same missiles on trailers rounding the block a few times while speeches extolling the virtues of the proletariat droned on, seemed a coincidence to you. Of course, the speeches had to be re-tooled to promote the virtues of people who flout laws, equal responsibility, and any sense of obligation to the people who built the hoems and businesses they seek, but at least the speeches have the usual enemy: America. Like the anarchists and domestic insurgents of old, the mobs of ‘La Raza’ pretend they love America, and just want to be accepted as ‘immigrants’, a claim made clearly false by the arrogance which demands they should not be made to obey the rules which built this nation, or respect the generations of immigrants who sacrificed and assimilated into the American culture for their children’s sakes. They have no respect for the Irish, the Jews, the Russians, the Chinese, the Blacks, or even the earlier Hispanics who held their culture but learned English and became part of the community as contributors. Today’s “undocumented immigrant” demands access to every sort of public service and convenience, but refuses to pay his way. I had to laugh when a LULAC representative assured the crowd in Houston that the undocumented alien somehow is cheated, even though he pays no income tax, no property tax, and does not follow common obligations like carrying liability insurance for his car. Permit me to doubt you, Johnny Mata.
But to today. A great day, actually. I had no trouble getting to work or doing my job. I found plenty of stores with staff and stock to sell me what I wanted and needed, none of it made in or produced by anywhere or anyone in South America. In a strange irony, I got my gas at the station I always do, which is run by an Indian immigrant, who saw no reason not to work today, and who is legal in every sense. I bought a colander from an asian store, whose owner is either an immigrant or the son of an immigrant, and again someone who obeyed the law and made his way here by the rules. I talked about politics over lunch with an immigrant from Kenya, and when I rode the bus home, I exchanged pleasantries with the native-born driver, whose family came here legally from Venezuela.
The lessons for the illegals? Three of them:
1. We do not need you nearly as much as you think. A lot of us want to give folks a reasonable opportunity, but if you refuse to work with us, we will get rid of you.
2. You need to pay better attention to your own best interests. Racist groups and chants in a foreign language come across as attacks and hostility. The geniuses who thought that was a good tactic had better remember that we have a lot more guns, and threatening us only makes us more determined to defend ourselves. Demanding a “right” to steal public resources, to excuse the flood of drugs, violent criminals and gangs, or to have a special set of conditions just for your race is not going to fly, and will only set you against the hundreds of millions of real Americans who will judge you by the standards your own conduct sets.
3. A lot of things can be discussed or negotiated. Equal rights come with equal responsibility. Right about now, you guys are not showing any sense of responsibility, and all that does is work against Latinos.
So thanks for Monday, amigo.
Monday, May 01, 2006
The President In Context
---*
Depending on which fiction you believe, the President has Approval numbers at varying degrees of disappointment. RINOs, overpaid columnists and media hairpieces, as well as fair-weather pansies of all stripes are fleeing all contact with George W. Bush, in the moronic belief that this will advance their careers or show them as some sort of reasonable mind, when in fact it merely confirms their cowardice in the face of the fight, or at least their personal hypocrisy when it comes to remembering debts of honor and responsibility.
It is therefore no surprise to see Liberals already replaying one of their fave lies; that George W. Bush is somehow the ‘worst’ U.S. President ever. The most recent example can be found in the pages of Rolling Stone, where formerly sober-minded Sean Wilentz panders to his own psychosis. Jay Cost has already addressed the faults and blunders in Mr. Wilentz’s article effectively, but he does not address the question of Bush’s deserved ranking. So, having the sort of mind I do, and with reckless disregard for the dangers of discussing the merits of a President while he is still in office, I believe the case can be made not only to defend Dubya against the inane charge that he is some kind of failure, but more, has laid the foundation and indeed additional work of substance towards a legacy to which persons named Clinton or Carter can only envy.
When historians grade a President, they do not, despite the pretense, actually agree on the criteria. This is not only because the context of an Administration is important to understanding its worth, but it also allows such academics as Wilentz to pretend to objectivity, where an apples-to-apples comparison would flatly prove the bias or outright prevarication which commands the mind of Liberal Academia, which is to say the mainstream of professional Historians. Those who do cite a qualification often fall onto subjective opinion, such as 'Was the President Good or Bad for the Nation?'. After all, we already see Liberals trying to somehow spin Bill Clinton as a good President, even though it is impossible to find a major initiative introduced or supported by Clinton which substantively improved the nation. So to my mind, rather than toss out phrases which can and will be spun to mean whatever the writer pleases, I submit we should base grades on comparable work, and on pertinent issues. That is, to properly regard President Washington, we have to be focused on the context of his Administration coming so soon after the Revolution, and the precedents it set. Lincoln, on the other hand, must be seen in the context of the Civil War, its causes, and his effective range of choices. In that light, the proper evaluation of the Presidency of George W. Bush rests in the main on his work in one contest; National Security.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists seized four U.S. airliners and killed thousands of innocent people. As many have observed, that day changed everything for everyone. Therefore, it is unreasonable to judge President George W. Bush on any criteria which does not first and in the main address the War against Global Terrorism. Liberals won’t like this fact, because on that question the only distinction to be considered, is whether Bush has done a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ job. First, in spite of all the attempts to cast it as a failure, we have been and are winning in Iraq, and this victory is not only demoralizing terrorist groups across the board, it is spurring hope for the growth of democratic republics, as evidenced by changes in Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia. It should be noted that hostilities with states have decreased markedly since the Bush Doctrine was stated and put into effect. Iran makes noise about nukes, but has made no direct attack against the United States. North Korea is still unstable and Kim Jong Il still deranged, yet the Kor-coms have been distinctly careful not to provoke U.S. forces. The reason is simple; the United States can and will make examples of nations whcih step beyond certain lines, and knowing this, the Axis of Evil these days limits itself to rhetoric. And most of all, people need to be reminded, again and again, that it is no coincidence, no mercy from Al Qaeda, that the United States has not suffered a terrorist attack on its homeland since 9/11. As much as Liberals, Democrats, and Talk Show Hosts try to play it otherwise, that fact is directly credited to the work and vigilance of President George W. Bush.
But let’s go further. No President since FDR has done more than Bush to secure the nation and consolidate its defense. And for all the complaints about the PATRIOT Act, not one legal action has yet demonstrated that a single innocent American has had his rights infringed in any way, a claim which no other President could trump, especially given the needs of the nation. Put simply, George W. Bush has improved the security of the United States against terrorist attack, but has done so without diluting any constitutional rights. That’s a passing grade and then some, folks.
But don’t stop there. Presidents, rightly or wrongly, are also judged on the economy they affect. Take a look at GDP since he took office, the rate of inflation, or Unemployment. Overall and as a trend, GW Bush is doing a darn fine job, and we all know why - income tax cuts. Yes, Liberals will try to discount it, but the effects are there for anyone honest enough to check them out.
What else? How about getting Social Security reform on the table? Sure the Congress weaseled out, but when’s the last time you heard a President bring up the topic? How about Justices Roberts and Alito, and countless federal court appointments which have corrected the slide into Judicial overthrow of the people’s will and Constitutional limits. How about having the courage to discard obsolete or downright dangerous agreements, like Kyoto or the ABM fiction?
Take a look at the policies and doctrines of Clinton, GHW Bush, Carter, or even Reagan, and you will see that Dubya does quite nicely on the counts which matter. Especially when we stretch the record to see how Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, and Eisenhower did. Especially when we see where Truman and even FDR feared to tread. That, as if you did not already know, is why the Liberals have already begun the campaign to mock Dubya’s legacy. They know Bush was so effective and successful, that they would do anything, anything at all, to prevent someone from continuing his work.
Depending on which fiction you believe, the President has Approval numbers at varying degrees of disappointment. RINOs, overpaid columnists and media hairpieces, as well as fair-weather pansies of all stripes are fleeing all contact with George W. Bush, in the moronic belief that this will advance their careers or show them as some sort of reasonable mind, when in fact it merely confirms their cowardice in the face of the fight, or at least their personal hypocrisy when it comes to remembering debts of honor and responsibility.
It is therefore no surprise to see Liberals already replaying one of their fave lies; that George W. Bush is somehow the ‘worst’ U.S. President ever. The most recent example can be found in the pages of Rolling Stone, where formerly sober-minded Sean Wilentz panders to his own psychosis. Jay Cost has already addressed the faults and blunders in Mr. Wilentz’s article effectively, but he does not address the question of Bush’s deserved ranking. So, having the sort of mind I do, and with reckless disregard for the dangers of discussing the merits of a President while he is still in office, I believe the case can be made not only to defend Dubya against the inane charge that he is some kind of failure, but more, has laid the foundation and indeed additional work of substance towards a legacy to which persons named Clinton or Carter can only envy.
When historians grade a President, they do not, despite the pretense, actually agree on the criteria. This is not only because the context of an Administration is important to understanding its worth, but it also allows such academics as Wilentz to pretend to objectivity, where an apples-to-apples comparison would flatly prove the bias or outright prevarication which commands the mind of Liberal Academia, which is to say the mainstream of professional Historians. Those who do cite a qualification often fall onto subjective opinion, such as 'Was the President Good or Bad for the Nation?'. After all, we already see Liberals trying to somehow spin Bill Clinton as a good President, even though it is impossible to find a major initiative introduced or supported by Clinton which substantively improved the nation. So to my mind, rather than toss out phrases which can and will be spun to mean whatever the writer pleases, I submit we should base grades on comparable work, and on pertinent issues. That is, to properly regard President Washington, we have to be focused on the context of his Administration coming so soon after the Revolution, and the precedents it set. Lincoln, on the other hand, must be seen in the context of the Civil War, its causes, and his effective range of choices. In that light, the proper evaluation of the Presidency of George W. Bush rests in the main on his work in one contest; National Security.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists seized four U.S. airliners and killed thousands of innocent people. As many have observed, that day changed everything for everyone. Therefore, it is unreasonable to judge President George W. Bush on any criteria which does not first and in the main address the War against Global Terrorism. Liberals won’t like this fact, because on that question the only distinction to be considered, is whether Bush has done a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ job. First, in spite of all the attempts to cast it as a failure, we have been and are winning in Iraq, and this victory is not only demoralizing terrorist groups across the board, it is spurring hope for the growth of democratic republics, as evidenced by changes in Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia. It should be noted that hostilities with states have decreased markedly since the Bush Doctrine was stated and put into effect. Iran makes noise about nukes, but has made no direct attack against the United States. North Korea is still unstable and Kim Jong Il still deranged, yet the Kor-coms have been distinctly careful not to provoke U.S. forces. The reason is simple; the United States can and will make examples of nations whcih step beyond certain lines, and knowing this, the Axis of Evil these days limits itself to rhetoric. And most of all, people need to be reminded, again and again, that it is no coincidence, no mercy from Al Qaeda, that the United States has not suffered a terrorist attack on its homeland since 9/11. As much as Liberals, Democrats, and Talk Show Hosts try to play it otherwise, that fact is directly credited to the work and vigilance of President George W. Bush.
But let’s go further. No President since FDR has done more than Bush to secure the nation and consolidate its defense. And for all the complaints about the PATRIOT Act, not one legal action has yet demonstrated that a single innocent American has had his rights infringed in any way, a claim which no other President could trump, especially given the needs of the nation. Put simply, George W. Bush has improved the security of the United States against terrorist attack, but has done so without diluting any constitutional rights. That’s a passing grade and then some, folks.
But don’t stop there. Presidents, rightly or wrongly, are also judged on the economy they affect. Take a look at GDP since he took office, the rate of inflation, or Unemployment. Overall and as a trend, GW Bush is doing a darn fine job, and we all know why - income tax cuts. Yes, Liberals will try to discount it, but the effects are there for anyone honest enough to check them out.
What else? How about getting Social Security reform on the table? Sure the Congress weaseled out, but when’s the last time you heard a President bring up the topic? How about Justices Roberts and Alito, and countless federal court appointments which have corrected the slide into Judicial overthrow of the people’s will and Constitutional limits. How about having the courage to discard obsolete or downright dangerous agreements, like Kyoto or the ABM fiction?
Take a look at the policies and doctrines of Clinton, GHW Bush, Carter, or even Reagan, and you will see that Dubya does quite nicely on the counts which matter. Especially when we stretch the record to see how Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, and Eisenhower did. Especially when we see where Truman and even FDR feared to tread. That, as if you did not already know, is why the Liberals have already begun the campaign to mock Dubya’s legacy. They know Bush was so effective and successful, that they would do anything, anything at all, to prevent someone from continuing his work.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Amnesty - Why Not?
?--?
As the arguments about illegal entrants (for clarity, I only call someone an ‘immigrant’ who intends to join the community, not steal from it) continue, the word ‘amnesty’ is bandied about, usually by people who have no sense of the word’s real meaning, especially in an historical context. Simply put, in times past, various rulers and governments have promised an amnesty to certain individuals and groups, in return for certain conditions. This was because those groups could create a condition of great difficulty and expense, so an amnesty was the most productive means for solving such problems. The United States is no stranger to such agreements, as our amnesty to the pirate Jean Lafitte bears witness, or the recent revision of terms between the United States and Pakistan. We do not negotiate with terrorists, but we do make deals with all sorts of people. The question then, is whether a deal should be made, can be made, and if both questions can be answered affirmative, then what sort of deal should be pursued.
Despite the hot polarity of the debate, there is actually a range of possible actions the U.S. government might take, anywhere from the draconian measure of shooting anyone crossing the border in between checkpoints, to the collapse of any resistance and awarding citizenship to anyone already here, which would turn the flow into an absolute flash-flood. Neither of those extremes has any real chance, but they do represent the theoretical ends of the choice. To my mind, the issue has four fronts, which must all be addressed. There is no reasonable argument against building a barrier to border crossings, call it a wall, fence, or whatever. The only argument against such a barrier amounts to deliberately ignoring the security of the nation, and everyone knows it, which is why the Left always casts such discussions as ‘racist hatred’ against ‘immigrants’, rather than a measure taken to protect against invasion by people deliberately breaking the law to enter here.
The second front is to enforce the laws already on the books. The people arguing against the President all too often ignore that this problem has been growing for more than a generation, and would be far less severe if only the laws already passed were enforced. There are pragmatic reasons, of course, why the law is not properly enforced, but the most common problem seems to be the assumption that the responsibility always lies with someone else.
The third front is to arrange agreements with Mexico and other nations to stop encouraging or anabling illegal entry. Time for some of those “frank discussions” we used to hear about Reagan having with the Soviets.
The fourth front is to decide what to do with the twelve-to-twenty million illegal aliens already here in the United States, and this is where Amnesty comes in.
Here’s the thing. If law enforcement wants to go after the illegals in a significant way, they basically have three choices:
1. Take men away from other duties to seek out and detain illegals.
2. Spend money and resources for a “task force”.
3. Spend money and resources on a long-term Fugitive Capture program.
Any of the three is feasible only with significant cooperation between local, county, state, and federal authorities, with significant investment of resources across the board. All would involve a degree of performance degradation in nominal operations, and significant friction with minorities and special interest groups must be anticipated, including possible deliberate obstruction and interference. All would require party discipline on an order not known in modern times to have any hope of success, and any of the three would require considerable political capital. In short, as things stand now none of the three options is operable.
The question then, is how to break the strength of such numbers down to manageable size, and in so doing demonstrate the sort of success which attracts bandwagons, and with them creates the support for stronger measures. The answer to me seems to be a graduated amnesty program. First, let me be very clear that an amnesty is unacceptable if it includes automatic citizenship, or which treats the illegal in a manner superior to the persons who obey the law. To some degree, this would mean improving the opportunity for legal immigrants, but also by clearly naming the limit for an amnesty.
If citizenship is not on the table then, what good is the amnesty? Plenty, actually. It seems to me that now would be a good time for Congress to consider that a resident does not, and should not, enjoy anything like the status of the citizen. A higher income tax rate for residents, no voting privilege of course, automatically stiffer penalties for any criminal conviction on American soil, and additional fees for the use of educational or medical facilities, would create a significant and reasonable advantage for someone to pursue citizenship, which should be strictly enforced on a code advancing American national interests. The resident would still enjoy advantages over the non-resident, such as a right to work and the government should create a sort of Social Security/Medicare program, where the resident could pay a tax just as citizens do (albeit at a higher rate), and have a system for his own return down the road if he stays permanently, and again there is a strong incentive to become a full citizen. Such a program would also allow for the resident to have a number by which he might be tracked and identified; anonymity becomes less and less acceptable, as an excuse or a legal defense.
When the United States offered amnesty to Jean Lafitte, there were specific conditions. Lafitte had to leave American ships alone, he had to promise to work for American interests, and in exchange he was granted his life and freedom. The average American did not need such promises, so the offer can be called reasonable. Letting foreign people know and making sure they understand, that we will be glad to take in immigrants for citizenship and residency, and that we are open to giving everyone a fair chance, takes away the political edge from the people co-opting border security in a vulgar attempt to rebuild their political fortune. It also separates the sheep from the goats, so to speak. If people here illegally are given a reasonable means by which they can elect to leave the United States without difficulty and submit their application for residency or citizenship through the appropriate options, then the only aliens remaining here illegally will define themselves as deliberate criminals or worse, and as such will lose the pretense to any moral right to evade capture and incarceration. Something on the order of Guantanamo without kid-gloves focus on protecting a militant religion would do nicely, I think.
So in summary, this is my idea of amnesty. Sharpen the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘resident’, make clear that we welcome all sorts of legal immigrants but must protect our borders and enforce our laws, and offer the chance to start over for people who leave politely and immediately. And make very, very clear that anyone who remains here against the law after than point may expect a stronger and more determined, coordinated response at all levels. But first we have to agree to pick one plan and pursue it. Maybe that means the first ‘amnesty’ must be extended to fellow Conservatives.
As the arguments about illegal entrants (for clarity, I only call someone an ‘immigrant’ who intends to join the community, not steal from it) continue, the word ‘amnesty’ is bandied about, usually by people who have no sense of the word’s real meaning, especially in an historical context. Simply put, in times past, various rulers and governments have promised an amnesty to certain individuals and groups, in return for certain conditions. This was because those groups could create a condition of great difficulty and expense, so an amnesty was the most productive means for solving such problems. The United States is no stranger to such agreements, as our amnesty to the pirate Jean Lafitte bears witness, or the recent revision of terms between the United States and Pakistan. We do not negotiate with terrorists, but we do make deals with all sorts of people. The question then, is whether a deal should be made, can be made, and if both questions can be answered affirmative, then what sort of deal should be pursued.
Despite the hot polarity of the debate, there is actually a range of possible actions the U.S. government might take, anywhere from the draconian measure of shooting anyone crossing the border in between checkpoints, to the collapse of any resistance and awarding citizenship to anyone already here, which would turn the flow into an absolute flash-flood. Neither of those extremes has any real chance, but they do represent the theoretical ends of the choice. To my mind, the issue has four fronts, which must all be addressed. There is no reasonable argument against building a barrier to border crossings, call it a wall, fence, or whatever. The only argument against such a barrier amounts to deliberately ignoring the security of the nation, and everyone knows it, which is why the Left always casts such discussions as ‘racist hatred’ against ‘immigrants’, rather than a measure taken to protect against invasion by people deliberately breaking the law to enter here.
The second front is to enforce the laws already on the books. The people arguing against the President all too often ignore that this problem has been growing for more than a generation, and would be far less severe if only the laws already passed were enforced. There are pragmatic reasons, of course, why the law is not properly enforced, but the most common problem seems to be the assumption that the responsibility always lies with someone else.
The third front is to arrange agreements with Mexico and other nations to stop encouraging or anabling illegal entry. Time for some of those “frank discussions” we used to hear about Reagan having with the Soviets.
The fourth front is to decide what to do with the twelve-to-twenty million illegal aliens already here in the United States, and this is where Amnesty comes in.
Here’s the thing. If law enforcement wants to go after the illegals in a significant way, they basically have three choices:
1. Take men away from other duties to seek out and detain illegals.
2. Spend money and resources for a “task force”.
3. Spend money and resources on a long-term Fugitive Capture program.
Any of the three is feasible only with significant cooperation between local, county, state, and federal authorities, with significant investment of resources across the board. All would involve a degree of performance degradation in nominal operations, and significant friction with minorities and special interest groups must be anticipated, including possible deliberate obstruction and interference. All would require party discipline on an order not known in modern times to have any hope of success, and any of the three would require considerable political capital. In short, as things stand now none of the three options is operable.
The question then, is how to break the strength of such numbers down to manageable size, and in so doing demonstrate the sort of success which attracts bandwagons, and with them creates the support for stronger measures. The answer to me seems to be a graduated amnesty program. First, let me be very clear that an amnesty is unacceptable if it includes automatic citizenship, or which treats the illegal in a manner superior to the persons who obey the law. To some degree, this would mean improving the opportunity for legal immigrants, but also by clearly naming the limit for an amnesty.
If citizenship is not on the table then, what good is the amnesty? Plenty, actually. It seems to me that now would be a good time for Congress to consider that a resident does not, and should not, enjoy anything like the status of the citizen. A higher income tax rate for residents, no voting privilege of course, automatically stiffer penalties for any criminal conviction on American soil, and additional fees for the use of educational or medical facilities, would create a significant and reasonable advantage for someone to pursue citizenship, which should be strictly enforced on a code advancing American national interests. The resident would still enjoy advantages over the non-resident, such as a right to work and the government should create a sort of Social Security/Medicare program, where the resident could pay a tax just as citizens do (albeit at a higher rate), and have a system for his own return down the road if he stays permanently, and again there is a strong incentive to become a full citizen. Such a program would also allow for the resident to have a number by which he might be tracked and identified; anonymity becomes less and less acceptable, as an excuse or a legal defense.
When the United States offered amnesty to Jean Lafitte, there were specific conditions. Lafitte had to leave American ships alone, he had to promise to work for American interests, and in exchange he was granted his life and freedom. The average American did not need such promises, so the offer can be called reasonable. Letting foreign people know and making sure they understand, that we will be glad to take in immigrants for citizenship and residency, and that we are open to giving everyone a fair chance, takes away the political edge from the people co-opting border security in a vulgar attempt to rebuild their political fortune. It also separates the sheep from the goats, so to speak. If people here illegally are given a reasonable means by which they can elect to leave the United States without difficulty and submit their application for residency or citizenship through the appropriate options, then the only aliens remaining here illegally will define themselves as deliberate criminals or worse, and as such will lose the pretense to any moral right to evade capture and incarceration. Something on the order of Guantanamo without kid-gloves focus on protecting a militant religion would do nicely, I think.
So in summary, this is my idea of amnesty. Sharpen the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘resident’, make clear that we welcome all sorts of legal immigrants but must protect our borders and enforce our laws, and offer the chance to start over for people who leave politely and immediately. And make very, very clear that anyone who remains here against the law after than point may expect a stronger and more determined, coordinated response at all levels. But first we have to agree to pick one plan and pursue it. Maybe that means the first ‘amnesty’ must be extended to fellow Conservatives.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
No blogging this week
--*
My father (David Yost Drummond) passed away Friday night, just before midnight. I will be out this week, addressing family needs and planning for the funeral.
My father (David Yost Drummond) passed away Friday night, just before midnight. I will be out this week, addressing family needs and planning for the funeral.
Friday, April 21, 2006
President Bush – A Man Not Afraid To “Step Up To The Plate”
-+===
Readers know that I am a solid Dubya supporter, and about once every week-to-ten-days, I write a column basically reminding folks about what they personally owe this guy. I have to do this, you see, because there are so many more people trashing him on a regular basis, some of which pretend to be Conservatives. I’m just resetting a balance a little bit.
To some degree, this post will be a disappointment for some people, because I don’t plan on dwelling on this issue or that, because we’ve been all over most of it, and only a Democrat comes to a blog and carries an opinion without having a clue on the subject.
Back in February ’05, I wrote about the idiom “stepping up to the plate", and it seems a good thing to mention it again here. Folks may remember that Dubs was once one of the owners of the Texas Rangers, back when the team didn’t suck on a regular basis. In fact, a reasonable person might say that Dubs had a bit to do with bringing in the players who made the team fun to watch. I mention this, because I also love Baseball, and find it’s lessons salient and applicable all the time.
In that Feb 05 column, I wrote “Baseball is a good metaphor for Life, in no small part because the game will screw with you.” And we should all be able to agree that Life has been very much a mind-game of late. In discussing what makes someone a person who ‘steps up to the plate’, I also wrote “imagine you are standing in the batter’s box, waiting for a pitch which could come in at more than ninety miles an hour. You know that if you back off a little, you will be a lot less likely to get hit, especially since you get a fraction more reaction time. And the pitcher likes it, when you give him the whole batter’s box for his own territory, forfeiting areas which would be a strike, but you can’t reach by backing off. Or, you can crowd the plate a little, forcing the pitcher to be more accurate, pitch slower, or take the chance of hitting you and giving up a base. Trouble is, the pitcher won’t like that, and more than a few will throw a ‘brush-back’ pitch, which are no fun at all. On a bad day, the pitcher will send a lesson and put one into your ribs. So, it’s not easy to 'step up to the plate'; you may be sorry you did.
THAT’s what “step up to the plate” really means. It’s taking the chance you’ll get hurt for a small reward, doing the hard job because it’s necessary. There’s a lot of players who’ll choose to take the easy way, hoping someone else will do the job, and there’s plenty who’ll swing wildly and hope they get lucky. But a coach looks for the player willing to take on the tough job, to meet the responsibility when no one else will.”
Well folks, that’s Dubya. He’s taken a few shots, and some would say it’s his own fault for making the choices he has, but I say he’s just been gutsy enough to stay in the box when it matters. Sometimes it hurts him, but that’s how a team wins games.
Provided the other players can at least manage not to cheer for the other team.
Readers know that I am a solid Dubya supporter, and about once every week-to-ten-days, I write a column basically reminding folks about what they personally owe this guy. I have to do this, you see, because there are so many more people trashing him on a regular basis, some of which pretend to be Conservatives. I’m just resetting a balance a little bit.
To some degree, this post will be a disappointment for some people, because I don’t plan on dwelling on this issue or that, because we’ve been all over most of it, and only a Democrat comes to a blog and carries an opinion without having a clue on the subject.
Back in February ’05, I wrote about the idiom “stepping up to the plate", and it seems a good thing to mention it again here. Folks may remember that Dubs was once one of the owners of the Texas Rangers, back when the team didn’t suck on a regular basis. In fact, a reasonable person might say that Dubs had a bit to do with bringing in the players who made the team fun to watch. I mention this, because I also love Baseball, and find it’s lessons salient and applicable all the time.
In that Feb 05 column, I wrote “Baseball is a good metaphor for Life, in no small part because the game will screw with you.” And we should all be able to agree that Life has been very much a mind-game of late. In discussing what makes someone a person who ‘steps up to the plate’, I also wrote “imagine you are standing in the batter’s box, waiting for a pitch which could come in at more than ninety miles an hour. You know that if you back off a little, you will be a lot less likely to get hit, especially since you get a fraction more reaction time. And the pitcher likes it, when you give him the whole batter’s box for his own territory, forfeiting areas which would be a strike, but you can’t reach by backing off. Or, you can crowd the plate a little, forcing the pitcher to be more accurate, pitch slower, or take the chance of hitting you and giving up a base. Trouble is, the pitcher won’t like that, and more than a few will throw a ‘brush-back’ pitch, which are no fun at all. On a bad day, the pitcher will send a lesson and put one into your ribs. So, it’s not easy to 'step up to the plate'; you may be sorry you did.
THAT’s what “step up to the plate” really means. It’s taking the chance you’ll get hurt for a small reward, doing the hard job because it’s necessary. There’s a lot of players who’ll choose to take the easy way, hoping someone else will do the job, and there’s plenty who’ll swing wildly and hope they get lucky. But a coach looks for the player willing to take on the tough job, to meet the responsibility when no one else will.”
Well folks, that’s Dubya. He’s taken a few shots, and some would say it’s his own fault for making the choices he has, but I say he’s just been gutsy enough to stay in the box when it matters. Sometimes it hurts him, but that’s how a team wins games.
Provided the other players can at least manage not to cheer for the other team.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
A House of Sharp-Edged Cards
**
It’s been a rough week. I would sure like to go sooth my nerves by borrowing my buddy’s 70-cal and waste a few tree stumps. Come to that, I wouldn’t mind seeing the USAF demonstrate a little shock & awe on Stupidistan, specifically the parts of Iran being used to prepare nuclear weapons. A midair interception of Mr. “I wanna be the Mahdi” with a Phoenix or a nice simple AMRAAM the next time he takes a flight somewhere would be nice too, give him that green glow he’s talked about in his fantasies. Of course, a lot of people have that same desire, and as always happens these days, the United States Elected Leader Envy and Slander Society starts blaming the President for not turning Iran into a glass lake already. As nice as fantasies can be, the President (as usual) has more on the ball and is moving with better diligence and foresight. This is because President Bush has paid attention to the military leaders and regional experts, and understands the weight and consequence of possible actions far better than most people comprehend.
To start, we need to understand that Iran both is and is not like Iraq, and our actions must acknowledge the condition. Like Iraq, sanctions against Iran are not reasonable; ruthless militants are not swayed by economic arguments. As with Saddam Hussein, assassination of Ahmadinejad is not a viable option – the regime would simply install someone else they could control, equally ruthless. As with Iraq, the United States cannot expect the United Nations to take decisive action in the matter of Iran. But there are also important differences between the two cases. Iran has had more than a decade to build up its military, where Iraq lost the best of its armor and aircraft in the first Gulf War. The United States government had already made Regime Change in Iraq the official policy of the government when Bush took office, whereas today it would be difficult to get the House and Senate to agree to make it official policy to change the regime in Iran. The consensus of the Intelligence Community was that Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of WMD, just as that same community now is sure that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but this time the Intelligence agencies are not willing to stand behind their own professional assessments. And where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on clear violations of the cease-fire agreement, and the United States held a UN Security Council resolution amounting to an ultimatum to Saddam, and the actual invasion was performed by a coalition of dozens of countries providing material, political, or financial support. In the case of Iran, no such Coalition should be anticipated. The United States would have supporters, to be sure, but this time the support would be covert and unofficial, and largely from nations with direct concerns about Iran’s aggressive intentions, as well as nations which see an opportunity to curry favor with the dominant world empire, as the United States is increasingly seen, for purposes of rebuke but also admiration and alliance. Also, it has become obvious that the Democrats, unable to oppose the Iraq War through any honest policy disagreement, have instead salted the ground to prevent public support for the war by lying about the results of the fight, the context of our actions, and the morale of our troops. One could hardly expect the Democrats to rediscover Patriotism if we target the evil of militant Islam. Rather, one should expect the lie of ‘War for Oil’ to become all the more shrill.
A look at the likely Orders of Battle leaves no question that the United States has many options at hand. Most of those options would eliminate Iran’s Air Force and Navy in less than an hour, and would make Command & Control (to say nothing of Communications) a fiction in the same span. But those options are compromised by the strategic goals pursued. Air strikes are an obvious choice, but Satellite imagery cannot tell us where the underground facilities are located, or how they are protected. Further, damage assessment can be impossible when we need to know whether specific targets were destroyed or not. In addition, the development of technological components is only one part of the program, and hardly the most crucial. So long as Iran has the will to pursue development of nuclear weapons, they remain a threat to succeed, especially given the educational level of the country and the carefully-built agreements Iran has made with nations which can supply material or technology. As a result, there must be regime change, to install a government which does not want nukes.
Also, a look at a map shows where some potential post-attack threats exist. Invading Iraq was feasible, because the United States saw that direct opposition by other countries was not possible. In the case of Iran, a tactical situation exists which is again both similar to and different from the condition of Iraq. Just as Iran and Syria were able to send terrorists across the border into Iraq to harass Coalition forces, Syria and Saudi Arabia are in position to do the same if the United States invades Iran. Further, Iran has long been a plum in sight of Russia, but the Russians have long understood that the United States would not permit Iran to be seized. If, however, the United States were to invade Iran, it would become very likely that the Russians would become suppliers and allies, however unofficial, to the Iranian defenders and insurgents, in hopes of driving out the United States from Iran and so becoming the chief trade partner of Iran. This scenario is heightened in likelihood by the fact that China would like to play that same role. At present, Iran is courting attention from both Moscow and Beijing, in a very like ambition. Therefore, an American attack on Iran raises the risk of indirect retaliation from Russia, China, or both.
Now, let’s stop here and go back to the hand we have been dealt. A lot of people tend to look only at the threats and miss the opportunities. Going back to that map, the United States has forces in place in Iraq and Afghanistan, service and supply locations in the U.A.E. and a number of coastal locations, especially Oman. The United States also has a reliable ally in Israel, and good relations with the governments of Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and to a lesser degree Egypt. Color these in favorable tinctures, and Iran starts to sweat about its strategic position. Add to that the unpublicized-but-very-real private discussions between the Bush Administration and the Putin and Hu Jintao, and you begin to sense that for all the bravado, it is Iran and not the United States which is feeling encircled and defensive. And then there is the little matter of demographics. Every so often word gets out to the West about protests by Iranian students, usually demanding reform and secular freedoms. That gets less attention than it should, because Iran has been doing everything it can to shut down stations like NITV (shoot – Iran thinks Al-Jazeera is too pro-Western!), and has theoretically outlawed satellite dishes and ISPs, yet companies like IRANET offer connection speeds and wireless technology faster than what is commonly available in Europe, and they advertise publicly! That right there demonstrates that the government of Iran is in far less control of the public and the culture than it pretends, and the people of Iran have opinions which do not support the government actions very much. Remember Shirin Ebadi? She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, and is a loud, female, Muslim voice demanding human rights reform in Iran. And she represents not only a lot of Iranian women, but more than a few Iranian men.
It’s not to say that Iranians would be delighted to see their country invaded by the United States, yet there is even surprising support shown for such a notion. It is, rather, the confidence that if only a representative government can be given a chance in Iran, America will find the Iranians not only cordial and competent, but eager for trade and political alliances. This is for a number of reasons. First the obvious one; Iranians see America as the natural world leader for commerce and international agreements. The road to financial security for an Iranian businessman is paved with a U.S, trade agreement. Second, for all the hype raised by Liberals, the late Shah was a – forgive me – rather progressive leader, spending oil money on schools and civic improvements at a time when most Sheikhs and Sultans were just building more palaces. This is paying dividends now as a generation of internationally-aware young adults come of age, and see Iran as a player on the world stage, not just the Middle East, and they see Iran as a political leader more than a military conqueror. You get the idea, I think – a lot of people forget that Iran used to be called “Persia”, and there is a distinction to that identity, separate from the Arab or Muslim identity alone. The biggest mistake Mr. Ahmadinejad has made, in some ways, is trying to play Iran into part of a Muslim movement, when Iran demands, always, to be treated as its own case.
A functional strategy for Iran, then, may best be one which tries to avoid invasion per se (while keeping troops at the ready), but which attacks all of Iran’s weaknesses simultaneously. Unlike Iraq, Iran could not easily put down a popular uprising, especially in Teheran. And more, there is reason to believe (from Iran’s history of backing whatever looks to be the winning horse) that a popular uprising would soon find support from the clerics, whose love for the next “Mahdi” has always been conditional on his not putting their lives in danger. In addition, the business leaders (and they are there, believe me) will find it easy to approve a pro-U.S. regime, so that we could find a much different “Revolutionary Government” in power. What is needed is the right combination of conditions and catalyst. The best war is the one we win before any bombs are dropped.
It’s been a rough week. I would sure like to go sooth my nerves by borrowing my buddy’s 70-cal and waste a few tree stumps. Come to that, I wouldn’t mind seeing the USAF demonstrate a little shock & awe on Stupidistan, specifically the parts of Iran being used to prepare nuclear weapons. A midair interception of Mr. “I wanna be the Mahdi” with a Phoenix or a nice simple AMRAAM the next time he takes a flight somewhere would be nice too, give him that green glow he’s talked about in his fantasies. Of course, a lot of people have that same desire, and as always happens these days, the United States Elected Leader Envy and Slander Society starts blaming the President for not turning Iran into a glass lake already. As nice as fantasies can be, the President (as usual) has more on the ball and is moving with better diligence and foresight. This is because President Bush has paid attention to the military leaders and regional experts, and understands the weight and consequence of possible actions far better than most people comprehend.
To start, we need to understand that Iran both is and is not like Iraq, and our actions must acknowledge the condition. Like Iraq, sanctions against Iran are not reasonable; ruthless militants are not swayed by economic arguments. As with Saddam Hussein, assassination of Ahmadinejad is not a viable option – the regime would simply install someone else they could control, equally ruthless. As with Iraq, the United States cannot expect the United Nations to take decisive action in the matter of Iran. But there are also important differences between the two cases. Iran has had more than a decade to build up its military, where Iraq lost the best of its armor and aircraft in the first Gulf War. The United States government had already made Regime Change in Iraq the official policy of the government when Bush took office, whereas today it would be difficult to get the House and Senate to agree to make it official policy to change the regime in Iran. The consensus of the Intelligence Community was that Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of WMD, just as that same community now is sure that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but this time the Intelligence agencies are not willing to stand behind their own professional assessments. And where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on clear violations of the cease-fire agreement, and the United States held a UN Security Council resolution amounting to an ultimatum to Saddam, and the actual invasion was performed by a coalition of dozens of countries providing material, political, or financial support. In the case of Iran, no such Coalition should be anticipated. The United States would have supporters, to be sure, but this time the support would be covert and unofficial, and largely from nations with direct concerns about Iran’s aggressive intentions, as well as nations which see an opportunity to curry favor with the dominant world empire, as the United States is increasingly seen, for purposes of rebuke but also admiration and alliance. Also, it has become obvious that the Democrats, unable to oppose the Iraq War through any honest policy disagreement, have instead salted the ground to prevent public support for the war by lying about the results of the fight, the context of our actions, and the morale of our troops. One could hardly expect the Democrats to rediscover Patriotism if we target the evil of militant Islam. Rather, one should expect the lie of ‘War for Oil’ to become all the more shrill.
A look at the likely Orders of Battle leaves no question that the United States has many options at hand. Most of those options would eliminate Iran’s Air Force and Navy in less than an hour, and would make Command & Control (to say nothing of Communications) a fiction in the same span. But those options are compromised by the strategic goals pursued. Air strikes are an obvious choice, but Satellite imagery cannot tell us where the underground facilities are located, or how they are protected. Further, damage assessment can be impossible when we need to know whether specific targets were destroyed or not. In addition, the development of technological components is only one part of the program, and hardly the most crucial. So long as Iran has the will to pursue development of nuclear weapons, they remain a threat to succeed, especially given the educational level of the country and the carefully-built agreements Iran has made with nations which can supply material or technology. As a result, there must be regime change, to install a government which does not want nukes.
Also, a look at a map shows where some potential post-attack threats exist. Invading Iraq was feasible, because the United States saw that direct opposition by other countries was not possible. In the case of Iran, a tactical situation exists which is again both similar to and different from the condition of Iraq. Just as Iran and Syria were able to send terrorists across the border into Iraq to harass Coalition forces, Syria and Saudi Arabia are in position to do the same if the United States invades Iran. Further, Iran has long been a plum in sight of Russia, but the Russians have long understood that the United States would not permit Iran to be seized. If, however, the United States were to invade Iran, it would become very likely that the Russians would become suppliers and allies, however unofficial, to the Iranian defenders and insurgents, in hopes of driving out the United States from Iran and so becoming the chief trade partner of Iran. This scenario is heightened in likelihood by the fact that China would like to play that same role. At present, Iran is courting attention from both Moscow and Beijing, in a very like ambition. Therefore, an American attack on Iran raises the risk of indirect retaliation from Russia, China, or both.
Now, let’s stop here and go back to the hand we have been dealt. A lot of people tend to look only at the threats and miss the opportunities. Going back to that map, the United States has forces in place in Iraq and Afghanistan, service and supply locations in the U.A.E. and a number of coastal locations, especially Oman. The United States also has a reliable ally in Israel, and good relations with the governments of Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and to a lesser degree Egypt. Color these in favorable tinctures, and Iran starts to sweat about its strategic position. Add to that the unpublicized-but-very-real private discussions between the Bush Administration and the Putin and Hu Jintao, and you begin to sense that for all the bravado, it is Iran and not the United States which is feeling encircled and defensive. And then there is the little matter of demographics. Every so often word gets out to the West about protests by Iranian students, usually demanding reform and secular freedoms. That gets less attention than it should, because Iran has been doing everything it can to shut down stations like NITV (shoot – Iran thinks Al-Jazeera is too pro-Western!), and has theoretically outlawed satellite dishes and ISPs, yet companies like IRANET offer connection speeds and wireless technology faster than what is commonly available in Europe, and they advertise publicly! That right there demonstrates that the government of Iran is in far less control of the public and the culture than it pretends, and the people of Iran have opinions which do not support the government actions very much. Remember Shirin Ebadi? She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, and is a loud, female, Muslim voice demanding human rights reform in Iran. And she represents not only a lot of Iranian women, but more than a few Iranian men.
It’s not to say that Iranians would be delighted to see their country invaded by the United States, yet there is even surprising support shown for such a notion. It is, rather, the confidence that if only a representative government can be given a chance in Iran, America will find the Iranians not only cordial and competent, but eager for trade and political alliances. This is for a number of reasons. First the obvious one; Iranians see America as the natural world leader for commerce and international agreements. The road to financial security for an Iranian businessman is paved with a U.S, trade agreement. Second, for all the hype raised by Liberals, the late Shah was a – forgive me – rather progressive leader, spending oil money on schools and civic improvements at a time when most Sheikhs and Sultans were just building more palaces. This is paying dividends now as a generation of internationally-aware young adults come of age, and see Iran as a player on the world stage, not just the Middle East, and they see Iran as a political leader more than a military conqueror. You get the idea, I think – a lot of people forget that Iran used to be called “Persia”, and there is a distinction to that identity, separate from the Arab or Muslim identity alone. The biggest mistake Mr. Ahmadinejad has made, in some ways, is trying to play Iran into part of a Muslim movement, when Iran demands, always, to be treated as its own case.
A functional strategy for Iran, then, may best be one which tries to avoid invasion per se (while keeping troops at the ready), but which attacks all of Iran’s weaknesses simultaneously. Unlike Iraq, Iran could not easily put down a popular uprising, especially in Teheran. And more, there is reason to believe (from Iran’s history of backing whatever looks to be the winning horse) that a popular uprising would soon find support from the clerics, whose love for the next “Mahdi” has always been conditional on his not putting their lives in danger. In addition, the business leaders (and they are there, believe me) will find it easy to approve a pro-U.S. regime, so that we could find a much different “Revolutionary Government” in power. What is needed is the right combination of conditions and catalyst. The best war is the one we win before any bombs are dropped.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Security, Mediscare, Coffee
.0.
My father is guarded more closely than the National Archives, it seems. Certainly better than classified documents in general.
My father is presently resting in the Critical Care wing of Memorial City Hospital, where he has been diagnosed with severe pneumonia, complicated by the vestiges of a viral infection, along with a weak heart and his diabetes. Until this morning, I had to take their word for where he was, because I wasn’t allowed to see him. The hospital staff was worried that his immune system had failed, so only his immediate care-givers were allowed into his wing, let alone his room. After the first few hours, they relented somewhat and let Mom in to see him, but only after getting her into one of those bio-hazard suits, a bulky awkward affair that no 73-year-old woman can easily manage, to say nothing of doing so while wearing a leg brace.
This morning the rest of the family was admitted, though only one at a time, and under strict conditions. First, you show your ID to the floor RN, and you scrub up at a wash station while they prepare a code card for you. It has your photo on it and must be returned to the duty nurse every time you leave the wing. After you put on the bio-suit, which smells of ammonia and plastic, the duty nurse enters a code on the wing’s magnetic doors, which will then open when you swipe the code card through it, which registers your entry time and identity. You are also on camera while you are on the floor, and your visit inside the wing is taped. You then proceed to the room for your patient – your card will open no other room door – and swipe the card through the holder at the door to Dad’s room, which then unlocks to admit you. Then you can go in to see the patient, who may have a hard time knowing who’s visiting, since the suits all look alike. Certainly it took Dad a while to recognize me.
Anyway, to get to the point, first I’m happy to say Dad looks a bit better. His kidneys are no longer on strike, and his fever is down a notch to 101. I can’t speak to the long-term prognosis, but at least it’s better, although those geniuses at MCH still think a breathing tube would be a swell idea. But I was struck by the level of security used there. I mean wow, I’ve handled some sensitive material before, but with nothing like that kind of precaution. And needless to say, in light of our recent discussions about border security, the level of attention at the hospital certainly made an impression.
The next element is Medicare. Where to begin with those guys? I guess I started thinking about that, when it occurred to me that Dad has been in either a Hospital or Hospice for two and a half weeks, plus the various ambulance trips, and special care in ICU, Intermediate Care, and now Critical Care. I began to wonder just how big the bill was going to be. I mean, I got hit by a drunk driver back in 1994 and just a quick ER trip without even an overnight stay rang up $1,800 very fast. I can only imagine what this whole episode is going to cost. I tried asking the hospital, but as I am not the patient or his spouse (even though I was calling on behalf on Mom) the hospital refused to tell me. As for Medicare, let’s just say my calls to them enjoyed the same kind of success as my 2004 attempt to contact every member of the House and Senate on the hot issues. Sure, maybe the guys at Medicare will have it all covered. But maybe they won’t and a few weeks or months down the road my Mom and Dad will have a demand letter from the hospital for whatever Medicare does not cover. So far all I have been able to confirm is the “initial” deductible of $952.
Look, I’m not saying Medicare should always be ‘this’ or never do ‘that’, specifically. But finding out how to meet your responsibility should not be this difficult, especially when you are already under the stress of a medical crisis. Maybe that Medicare Reform, if it actually gets here before I’m old enough to need Medicare, could include better access to information?
Lastly, just on a personal note, thanks to everyone for your prayers and good wishes. And thank God for coffee.
My father is guarded more closely than the National Archives, it seems. Certainly better than classified documents in general.
My father is presently resting in the Critical Care wing of Memorial City Hospital, where he has been diagnosed with severe pneumonia, complicated by the vestiges of a viral infection, along with a weak heart and his diabetes. Until this morning, I had to take their word for where he was, because I wasn’t allowed to see him. The hospital staff was worried that his immune system had failed, so only his immediate care-givers were allowed into his wing, let alone his room. After the first few hours, they relented somewhat and let Mom in to see him, but only after getting her into one of those bio-hazard suits, a bulky awkward affair that no 73-year-old woman can easily manage, to say nothing of doing so while wearing a leg brace.
This morning the rest of the family was admitted, though only one at a time, and under strict conditions. First, you show your ID to the floor RN, and you scrub up at a wash station while they prepare a code card for you. It has your photo on it and must be returned to the duty nurse every time you leave the wing. After you put on the bio-suit, which smells of ammonia and plastic, the duty nurse enters a code on the wing’s magnetic doors, which will then open when you swipe the code card through it, which registers your entry time and identity. You are also on camera while you are on the floor, and your visit inside the wing is taped. You then proceed to the room for your patient – your card will open no other room door – and swipe the card through the holder at the door to Dad’s room, which then unlocks to admit you. Then you can go in to see the patient, who may have a hard time knowing who’s visiting, since the suits all look alike. Certainly it took Dad a while to recognize me.
Anyway, to get to the point, first I’m happy to say Dad looks a bit better. His kidneys are no longer on strike, and his fever is down a notch to 101. I can’t speak to the long-term prognosis, but at least it’s better, although those geniuses at MCH still think a breathing tube would be a swell idea. But I was struck by the level of security used there. I mean wow, I’ve handled some sensitive material before, but with nothing like that kind of precaution. And needless to say, in light of our recent discussions about border security, the level of attention at the hospital certainly made an impression.
The next element is Medicare. Where to begin with those guys? I guess I started thinking about that, when it occurred to me that Dad has been in either a Hospital or Hospice for two and a half weeks, plus the various ambulance trips, and special care in ICU, Intermediate Care, and now Critical Care. I began to wonder just how big the bill was going to be. I mean, I got hit by a drunk driver back in 1994 and just a quick ER trip without even an overnight stay rang up $1,800 very fast. I can only imagine what this whole episode is going to cost. I tried asking the hospital, but as I am not the patient or his spouse (even though I was calling on behalf on Mom) the hospital refused to tell me. As for Medicare, let’s just say my calls to them enjoyed the same kind of success as my 2004 attempt to contact every member of the House and Senate on the hot issues. Sure, maybe the guys at Medicare will have it all covered. But maybe they won’t and a few weeks or months down the road my Mom and Dad will have a demand letter from the hospital for whatever Medicare does not cover. So far all I have been able to confirm is the “initial” deductible of $952.
Look, I’m not saying Medicare should always be ‘this’ or never do ‘that’, specifically. But finding out how to meet your responsibility should not be this difficult, especially when you are already under the stress of a medical crisis. Maybe that Medicare Reform, if it actually gets here before I’m old enough to need Medicare, could include better access to information?
Lastly, just on a personal note, thanks to everyone for your prayers and good wishes. And thank God for coffee.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Paving The Career Path - Part 3
-- [] --
(continued)
Okay, after all this you may well have more information than you find interesting, but it was necessary to establish a basic overview of the matter. It should be clear by now that while you want to be sure that your selected school is properly accredited, and to consider how your desired employer will view that school or degree on your resume, the actual value of the choice is different for each person. In my case, for example, any of the three schools I have chosen would represent serious work and a fully recognized degree on my resume, but they would be much less expensive than other options. Talk about your ROI! Also, the ability to study and test at home in a flexible schedule allows me to continue to focus on my existing work and family responsibilities. I have no illusion about the extra weight to come, but at least if an emergency comes up, I have more control over my studies and with proper planning should be able to avoid the crisis of having to damage school, work, or family because of a conflict. Also, not having to deal with traffic saves me time and no small amount of stress.
Having chosen the Online MBA has its costs, of course. I will have to be self-disciplined even more than the ordinary graduate student. I will have to make time for the studies, assignments and examinations on my own responsibility. I have to find the places to get my textbooks, since I won’t be on campus, and since I will be hundreds of miles from the campus, I will have to pay close attention to when and how the professor will be available for questions. I will have to maintain my own equipment to insure that I get all the lectures, and I will have to run my own degree plan with the knowledge that no one is watching out for me. I will have to accept that my path does not include internships, and probably far fewer interviews with potential employers than students who can schedule an on-campus interview. And of course, no matter how hard I work for my degree, there will always be those employers who believe, however wrongly, that my degree is not worth as much, not as deserved, as an MBA claimed by the more traditional method. Knowing this in advance helps me not only understand the range of my opportunity, but play my hand to its best advantage.
I do not want to bore my readers, but from some of the mail I have received there seems to be a desire to understand the MBA process, especially as it impacts advancement to executive positions. I think we are all somewhat intrigued by top-level positions, seeing people of great wealth and power, and wondering if and how we might climb there ourselves. It certainly follows the mantra of the American Dream to believe that we can make our dreams reality if we work hard and can get lucky just once or twice. And it suits my personal ideals, to believe that anyone who figures out the way to success has a moral obligation to show that way to anyone interested in making the commitment. So I plan to chronicle my journey as I go, and I appreciate the feedback from my readers, especially questions and insights.
Good luck and God bless.
(continued)
Okay, after all this you may well have more information than you find interesting, but it was necessary to establish a basic overview of the matter. It should be clear by now that while you want to be sure that your selected school is properly accredited, and to consider how your desired employer will view that school or degree on your resume, the actual value of the choice is different for each person. In my case, for example, any of the three schools I have chosen would represent serious work and a fully recognized degree on my resume, but they would be much less expensive than other options. Talk about your ROI! Also, the ability to study and test at home in a flexible schedule allows me to continue to focus on my existing work and family responsibilities. I have no illusion about the extra weight to come, but at least if an emergency comes up, I have more control over my studies and with proper planning should be able to avoid the crisis of having to damage school, work, or family because of a conflict. Also, not having to deal with traffic saves me time and no small amount of stress.
Having chosen the Online MBA has its costs, of course. I will have to be self-disciplined even more than the ordinary graduate student. I will have to make time for the studies, assignments and examinations on my own responsibility. I have to find the places to get my textbooks, since I won’t be on campus, and since I will be hundreds of miles from the campus, I will have to pay close attention to when and how the professor will be available for questions. I will have to maintain my own equipment to insure that I get all the lectures, and I will have to run my own degree plan with the knowledge that no one is watching out for me. I will have to accept that my path does not include internships, and probably far fewer interviews with potential employers than students who can schedule an on-campus interview. And of course, no matter how hard I work for my degree, there will always be those employers who believe, however wrongly, that my degree is not worth as much, not as deserved, as an MBA claimed by the more traditional method. Knowing this in advance helps me not only understand the range of my opportunity, but play my hand to its best advantage.
I do not want to bore my readers, but from some of the mail I have received there seems to be a desire to understand the MBA process, especially as it impacts advancement to executive positions. I think we are all somewhat intrigued by top-level positions, seeing people of great wealth and power, and wondering if and how we might climb there ourselves. It certainly follows the mantra of the American Dream to believe that we can make our dreams reality if we work hard and can get lucky just once or twice. And it suits my personal ideals, to believe that anyone who figures out the way to success has a moral obligation to show that way to anyone interested in making the commitment. So I plan to chronicle my journey as I go, and I appreciate the feedback from my readers, especially questions and insights.
Good luck and God bless.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Paving The Career Path - Part 2
-- [] --
( continued )
In choosing a school, therefore, you will have to know your requirements. If you are young and have little or no effective work experience, you need to get into the best-known program you can afford, which offers the sort of degree you are seeking. Be sure to keep an open mind, however, and measure not what the street says but a value based on the qualities you are looking for in specific. If, like me, you are old enough to have done a few things with your life, the resume will have a greater impact on your course, and the school has less influence than the degree, provided your school meets reasonable standards. If you are young, by the way, don’t forget the internship, which not only is pretty standard for young MBA students but a great way to create an opening for your first position after graduation. If you are older, like me, internship is not an option, so keep that in mind as well.
I strongly advise anyone to make their own decisions, because what fits one person may not be right for someone else. In the case of the University of Phoenix, for example, I cannot say whether that school is good or bad for an MBA, because I don’t know the exact situation of the person considering or attending the school. I will say that once you begin graduate studies at a school, you are not going to want to drop that school unless you are completely unhappy with it, because most graduate schools I have spoken with will not accept transfer credits from another graduate school, especially if it is from a different region or accrediting body. So if you are already attending the University of Phoenix in pursuit of an MBA, you would need to weigh the cost of throwing away everything you’ve done up to that point, although if your grades are good, that could help with your application to another school.
Maybe explaining how I decided on my schools for application will help. I began by considering all AACSB-accredited business schools in the U.S., which gave me more than 400 possible choices. I trimmed that list pretty fast, however, when I decided that moving from the Houston area was not a possibility, especially since I could not afford to give up my full-time job, and it would be an unacceptable burden on my wife and daughter. That dropped the list down quickly to only a hdnful of schools. Next, I considered whether I could manage to go to school full-time and decided no. That meant considering only part-time programs at area AACSB-accredited schools, and that is a short list, folks. In my case it lowered the count to Rice University, the University of Houston, Texas A&M in the Woodlands, Tulane University, or the University of Texas Houston MBA program. It got worse when I considered what was needed to participate in these programs. Starting times for classes, as well as on-site residency requirements, further cut down the feasibility. So much so that I added Houston Baptist University and the University of St. Thomas to the list as possible contenders, even though neither is AACSB-accredited. I began to feel that I could not find a program which was a good fit, and given the commitment a student makes at that level, this is a serious issue. So I backed off from AACSB, and did some more research. I mentioned that full-time studies was not viable for me. I recognize that this takes away some of the experiences that make the MBA path, such as face-to-face peer discussion in class and on-campus recruiting later. It also removes the possibility of internships, though at my point in work that’s not so big a deal. I point it out here because of what it means for younger students.
So, back to the search engines, and once again I had to consider the value and limits of online education. It’s no surprise that I found it easy to get information from the University of Phoenix, Capella, and similar for-profit schools. And as I have mentioned before, these schools are fully accredited at the regional level, the same as many traditional ‘brick and mortar’ schools. Such schools exist for the simple fact that many people cannot attend school in the old way. They either do not have a schedule which allows them to meet the demands of even many part-time programs. For some reason, a lot of schools do not offer starting times which allow working people a decent chance to get from work to the campus, to say nothing of the Saturday-only programs which are the best face-to-face option I have seen yet. I can only conclude that because of the functional difficulties for the universities, most schools with a significant reputation do not feel compelled to make their schedule ‘student-friendly’, since they get all they need through the traditional methods. Of course, that cuts out a lot of smart people with solid experience, but that would not be the first time a school proved unaware of real-world conditions. Not to insult the schools which are not attentive to experienced people, but it seems to be that a Business School should be more responsive to people who have real Business experience. When schools cater only to students with theoretical experience, that explains how people like Ken Lay can happen, officers who have never had to look too deep below the surface to test their theories. I have a sneaking suspicion that sometime in the future, those schools which have paid the most attention to veteran businesspeople will gain prestige for the accomplishments of their students, while schools which insist on remaining on old-style methods will find themselves less in touch with evolving business practices. This should give hope to people who attend schools like Capella and U-Phoenix; while the schools lack respect now from many employers, the degree is solid enough and over time, the eventual emergence of successful alumni from those schools will win respect, albeit slowly.
But the AACSB holds its respect for good reason, and many of its members also have learned the value of offering online MBAs. More than a hundred of its U.S. member schools, in fact, offer an online MBA, which blew up the roster of candidate schools again. This I sorted out by examining two critical components; residency requirements and cost. Many schools, even when offering an online degree, have certain minimum expectations of campus time, and if the distance was too far or the amount of time beyond feasibility, that scratched them for me. Also, state schools charge tuition according to the residency state of their students, so Texas schools would be significantly less expensive for me than out-of-state schools. For the most part, private schools either did not offer an onine MBA, or their tuition was already beyond my scope. Don’t misunderstand me please; if a school was expensive but offered a significantly higher level of professional advantage, it could be worth the cost. In the same way, a school which was less expensive might not be the best choice if the resulting degree could not be expected to procure the openings I want. So, to get to the point, I wanted schools with names people would recognize, which offered a serious MBA and within practical cost and effort ranges. When it was all sorted out, my top three choices were the University of Texas at Dallas, Texas A&M University - Commerce, and the University of Houston at Victoria. All three schools offer an MBA on generally the same level as their home schools at UT, A&M, and UH, all three are themselves specifically credentialed as accredited members of the AACSB. All three offer low tuition to Texas residents, and all three offer a program which is almost completely online. So these three schools are my primary selections. You may note that I chose UT-Dallas instead of UT-Austin; this is because UT-Austin does not offer an online MBA. The same for Texas A&M; the College Station campus does not offer an online MBA. And again the same for UH; the Houston campus does not offer an online MBA. What Dallas, Commerce, and Victoria have in common is the high standard of their home school, but the need to go online to bring in students they cannot recruit in normal way, because of their geographic location. From conversations I have had with advisors at the schools, the online students are treated on the same level as any other, which means the same expectations and comparable results; in a low student-to-teacher ratio and with a flexible access to the professors for questions and assignment, the conditions are ideal for a disciplined and self-motivated student.
So, having decided on these schools, I took my GMAT and sent my scores in to the schools, followed by my undergrad transcript. I asked managers at my company to send in letters of recommendation to the schools, and I have completed my online applications. The next step is completing the essays and sending them in with my resume. Then I will have to wait and see. I mentioned these steps, because I want the reader to understand that any significant school is going to want a lot of information from applicants, and if a school is not diligent when you apply, you have a warning sign early on about how they will regard you later on into the program.
[ to be continued ]
( continued )
In choosing a school, therefore, you will have to know your requirements. If you are young and have little or no effective work experience, you need to get into the best-known program you can afford, which offers the sort of degree you are seeking. Be sure to keep an open mind, however, and measure not what the street says but a value based on the qualities you are looking for in specific. If, like me, you are old enough to have done a few things with your life, the resume will have a greater impact on your course, and the school has less influence than the degree, provided your school meets reasonable standards. If you are young, by the way, don’t forget the internship, which not only is pretty standard for young MBA students but a great way to create an opening for your first position after graduation. If you are older, like me, internship is not an option, so keep that in mind as well.
I strongly advise anyone to make their own decisions, because what fits one person may not be right for someone else. In the case of the University of Phoenix, for example, I cannot say whether that school is good or bad for an MBA, because I don’t know the exact situation of the person considering or attending the school. I will say that once you begin graduate studies at a school, you are not going to want to drop that school unless you are completely unhappy with it, because most graduate schools I have spoken with will not accept transfer credits from another graduate school, especially if it is from a different region or accrediting body. So if you are already attending the University of Phoenix in pursuit of an MBA, you would need to weigh the cost of throwing away everything you’ve done up to that point, although if your grades are good, that could help with your application to another school.
Maybe explaining how I decided on my schools for application will help. I began by considering all AACSB-accredited business schools in the U.S., which gave me more than 400 possible choices. I trimmed that list pretty fast, however, when I decided that moving from the Houston area was not a possibility, especially since I could not afford to give up my full-time job, and it would be an unacceptable burden on my wife and daughter. That dropped the list down quickly to only a hdnful of schools. Next, I considered whether I could manage to go to school full-time and decided no. That meant considering only part-time programs at area AACSB-accredited schools, and that is a short list, folks. In my case it lowered the count to Rice University, the University of Houston, Texas A&M in the Woodlands, Tulane University, or the University of Texas Houston MBA program. It got worse when I considered what was needed to participate in these programs. Starting times for classes, as well as on-site residency requirements, further cut down the feasibility. So much so that I added Houston Baptist University and the University of St. Thomas to the list as possible contenders, even though neither is AACSB-accredited. I began to feel that I could not find a program which was a good fit, and given the commitment a student makes at that level, this is a serious issue. So I backed off from AACSB, and did some more research. I mentioned that full-time studies was not viable for me. I recognize that this takes away some of the experiences that make the MBA path, such as face-to-face peer discussion in class and on-campus recruiting later. It also removes the possibility of internships, though at my point in work that’s not so big a deal. I point it out here because of what it means for younger students.
So, back to the search engines, and once again I had to consider the value and limits of online education. It’s no surprise that I found it easy to get information from the University of Phoenix, Capella, and similar for-profit schools. And as I have mentioned before, these schools are fully accredited at the regional level, the same as many traditional ‘brick and mortar’ schools. Such schools exist for the simple fact that many people cannot attend school in the old way. They either do not have a schedule which allows them to meet the demands of even many part-time programs. For some reason, a lot of schools do not offer starting times which allow working people a decent chance to get from work to the campus, to say nothing of the Saturday-only programs which are the best face-to-face option I have seen yet. I can only conclude that because of the functional difficulties for the universities, most schools with a significant reputation do not feel compelled to make their schedule ‘student-friendly’, since they get all they need through the traditional methods. Of course, that cuts out a lot of smart people with solid experience, but that would not be the first time a school proved unaware of real-world conditions. Not to insult the schools which are not attentive to experienced people, but it seems to be that a Business School should be more responsive to people who have real Business experience. When schools cater only to students with theoretical experience, that explains how people like Ken Lay can happen, officers who have never had to look too deep below the surface to test their theories. I have a sneaking suspicion that sometime in the future, those schools which have paid the most attention to veteran businesspeople will gain prestige for the accomplishments of their students, while schools which insist on remaining on old-style methods will find themselves less in touch with evolving business practices. This should give hope to people who attend schools like Capella and U-Phoenix; while the schools lack respect now from many employers, the degree is solid enough and over time, the eventual emergence of successful alumni from those schools will win respect, albeit slowly.
But the AACSB holds its respect for good reason, and many of its members also have learned the value of offering online MBAs. More than a hundred of its U.S. member schools, in fact, offer an online MBA, which blew up the roster of candidate schools again. This I sorted out by examining two critical components; residency requirements and cost. Many schools, even when offering an online degree, have certain minimum expectations of campus time, and if the distance was too far or the amount of time beyond feasibility, that scratched them for me. Also, state schools charge tuition according to the residency state of their students, so Texas schools would be significantly less expensive for me than out-of-state schools. For the most part, private schools either did not offer an onine MBA, or their tuition was already beyond my scope. Don’t misunderstand me please; if a school was expensive but offered a significantly higher level of professional advantage, it could be worth the cost. In the same way, a school which was less expensive might not be the best choice if the resulting degree could not be expected to procure the openings I want. So, to get to the point, I wanted schools with names people would recognize, which offered a serious MBA and within practical cost and effort ranges. When it was all sorted out, my top three choices were the University of Texas at Dallas, Texas A&M University - Commerce, and the University of Houston at Victoria. All three schools offer an MBA on generally the same level as their home schools at UT, A&M, and UH, all three are themselves specifically credentialed as accredited members of the AACSB. All three offer low tuition to Texas residents, and all three offer a program which is almost completely online. So these three schools are my primary selections. You may note that I chose UT-Dallas instead of UT-Austin; this is because UT-Austin does not offer an online MBA. The same for Texas A&M; the College Station campus does not offer an online MBA. And again the same for UH; the Houston campus does not offer an online MBA. What Dallas, Commerce, and Victoria have in common is the high standard of their home school, but the need to go online to bring in students they cannot recruit in normal way, because of their geographic location. From conversations I have had with advisors at the schools, the online students are treated on the same level as any other, which means the same expectations and comparable results; in a low student-to-teacher ratio and with a flexible access to the professors for questions and assignment, the conditions are ideal for a disciplined and self-motivated student.
So, having decided on these schools, I took my GMAT and sent my scores in to the schools, followed by my undergrad transcript. I asked managers at my company to send in letters of recommendation to the schools, and I have completed my online applications. The next step is completing the essays and sending them in with my resume. Then I will have to wait and see. I mentioned these steps, because I want the reader to understand that any significant school is going to want a lot of information from applicants, and if a school is not diligent when you apply, you have a warning sign early on about how they will regard you later on into the program.
[ to be continued ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
