"Nobody believes them. It goes to the bigger issue of the lack of credibility our government has these days"
- Fred Thompson, about the proposed Immigration Reform bill under debate and attack
For the past few days, I have addressed weak spots and gaping holes in the various plans to address the problem of illegals in the United States. The response has been contentious, and more than a few people have proven themselves unwilling to do anything more than spew venom and insults. Even among those who claim to be experts in this area. Several people have challenged me to announce my own plan, which sounds fair enough, except that most of those wouldn’t give it attention except to attack it and target their present phobias and malice upon it.
I also held off presenting my ideas for three additional reasons. First, I wanted the readers to note that many of the Blogosphere’s leading figureheads are not presenting any substantive ideas. They’re quick to condemn others and to attack anything someone tries to do, but they are not doing much to try to solve the problem, and therefore they become part of the problem. The Democrats and Liberals have tossed out a lot of garbage, but it’s too easy for me as a Republican to just focus on why Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have neither the inclination nor the mental acuity to present a cogent plan, to say nothing of the wisdom needed to plan for the long term and the nation’s welfare. It is necessary and appropriate to sometimes rebuke the self-anointed “leaders” of the Conservative Movement, who collect lots of money and attention but do not feel that they should be answerable for their decisions and positions. The second reason, was that I wanted readers to realize how much of this depends on recognizing the complexity of the problem and the crucial need for each of us to participate in our own interest. The third reason, was that when one seriously thinks through the problem, one inevitably comes to the hard conclusion that the real solution is not the specific plan to address this issue, so much as it is that we as Conservatives have lost what we once were, and we need to reform – once again – for the good of the nation.
Not so long ago, Democrats were soiling their pants on a daily basis. America had acted unilaterally, and worse – successfully – in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our enemies fled before us, and from National Security to Tax Cuts to Supreme Court picks it seemed that Common Sense had returned home and taken up residence, even in D.C. to a degree. This was very good for Dubya and the Right, and awfully scary for the Left and the Wrong. But suddenly it was gone, and the Donkey Kong took over Congress and the Old Media sneered in its renewed influence.
Where did those days go?
The corruption of a few, the indolence of many others, and the self-serving routine of almost everyone else in the GOP is what happened. In a matter of months almost too fast to believe, the ‘Party of Lincoln’ devolved into egos and petty feuds. An unpopular pick for the Supreme Court was hounded mercilessly, rather than let her have the hearings which the GOP once said were the minimum reasonable standard. A trusted ally was insulted and told – in effect – that the United States would rather have Communist China in charge of our ports than them, simply because they are Arab. Our strongest voice for sanity in the United Nations was deserted by our Senators because the Left didn’t like him. And promising initiatives to reform Social Security, pursue Tort Reform, and yes, to set comprehensive, effective, and consistent laws and metrics on sealing the borders and stopping the flood of illegals entering the United States, were all ignored because the politicians did not see personal gains for tackling them. We had chances, many of them, but the Republicans did not want to do the hard work when they had the majority, so it seems more than slightly naïve to imagine that being in the minority will make things better, especially given the way most Republicans have acted since the 2006 elections. Yeah, elections have consequences, and the 2006 elections seem to have turned most Republicans into spineless narcissists. I mean, besides those who were already that way.
Fixing the Illegal Migration and Border Security problems is not really that hard, fortunately. All it really takes is the will to get the current laws enforced, put up the means to physically enforce the law, like a good fence and document sweeps at businesses, and after some consideration, pass laws to cover the grey areas and what was missed before. But what that will require is the willpower, the party discipline, to make a plan and have everyone support it. To understand that getting some of what you need now and some later, is much better than all-now-or-nothing. That’s why I kept poking at the suggestions made, because while some were good and some were poor, none of them has a prayer of happening unless the Conservatives realize they have to support the Republican Party, and Republicans realize that they have to stand together. The good news is, that the specific actions which will make it possible to seal the borders and reform Immigration, will also make it possible to tend to the other needs of the nation.
So, here are my specifics:
First off, we have retake Congress. There is no chance, whatsoever, that a Congress under the thumb of the Democrats will ever address the key issues with an attendant sense of responsibility or accountability. To that end, even a RINO is more desirable than a Democrat who sounds reasonable but votes along party lines. Obviously, the more conservative the better, but the first critical action is to seek out and support Republicans. All Republicans.
The second step is just as hard, will take just as long, but is just as important. The original Republicans banded together on one key issue – abolishing Slavery – and never yielded on that point. The new Republicans will also have to decide where their home turf is. I had believed that turf would be National Security, but if it is, then anything and everything – including Immigration Reform – comes after that, and cannot be allowed to break ranks. That does not mean that Republicans should not have a party platform on secondary issues, but we must agree to stand together as a party in order to advance the main issue, even when we disagree on other important decisions. I know that some people want to call dealing with the Illegals a National Security issue, but diluting our position with regard to our response to Terrorism has allowed the Left to call for a retreat from Iraq. If that happens, they will next want to quit Afghanistan and anywhere else that our Democracy is incompatible with the Left. The defense of the nation must not fail, no matter what else it costs.
The third step is to remember that the GOP is the party of ideas and open discussion. No, not all ideas are equally valid or good, but the GOP has always allowed for a range of opinion and even dissent. Slamming alternative proposals by other Republicans goes against the spirit of decades of Conservative and GOP ideals, but this repression of simple conversation is an appalling practice which must end now. Bloggers may certainly prefer one program or proposal over others, but I personally find it obscene how often leading figureheads will deliberately misrepresent alternatives in order to avoid a serious debate. Let’s leave that to the Democrats.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
MLP Round 029
Game Scores:
Carter at Washington, 36-24 Washington
Ford at Lincoln, 37-31 Lincoln
McKinley at Truman, 37-32 McKinley
GW Bush at Nixon, 37-30 GW Bush
Reagan at Hayes, 37-28 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Buchanan, 34-20 TR
Taft at Polk, 32-28 Polk
W Harrison at Fillmore, 31-28 Fillmore
Coolidge at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
JQ Adams at J Adams, 31-30 JQA
Taylor at Garfield, 31-29 Taylor
A Johnson at F Roosevelt, 33-21 FDR
Eisenhower at GH Bush, 30-28 Ike
Clinton at Monroe, 30-24 Monroe
Hoover at Kennedy, 32-25 JFK
Cleveland at Tyler, 33-32 Cleveland
Pierce at Jackson, 28-19 Jackson
Madison at Grant, 25-21 Grant
Van Buren at Arthur, 27-26 Van Buren
Wilson at L Johnson, 23-21 Wilson
B Harrison at Harding, 27-25 Harding
Three Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Carter at Washington, 36-24 Washington
Ford at Lincoln, 37-31 Lincoln
McKinley at Truman, 37-32 McKinley
GW Bush at Nixon, 37-30 GW Bush
Reagan at Hayes, 37-28 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Buchanan, 34-20 TR
Taft at Polk, 32-28 Polk
W Harrison at Fillmore, 31-28 Fillmore
Coolidge at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
JQ Adams at J Adams, 31-30 JQA
Taylor at Garfield, 31-29 Taylor
A Johnson at F Roosevelt, 33-21 FDR
Eisenhower at GH Bush, 30-28 Ike
Clinton at Monroe, 30-24 Monroe
Hoover at Kennedy, 32-25 JFK
Cleveland at Tyler, 33-32 Cleveland
Pierce at Jackson, 28-19 Jackson
Madison at Grant, 25-21 Grant
Van Buren at Arthur, 27-26 Van Buren
Wilson at L Johnson, 23-21 Wilson
B Harrison at Harding, 27-25 Harding
Three Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Seeking the Facile Mind of the Hewitts and the Malkins
Almost everyone outside Washington D.C. agrees that the Immigration Reform bill cooked up this week by a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Idiots, Poseurs, Bureaucrats, Gullible, and their assorted staffs, is at best a poorly-designed and incomplete work. For example, in my opinion the bill has some good points and some weak ones, but is useless because it has absolutely no enforcement provisions, as if the federal government will enlist the help of the Keebler Elves to make it work.
But that belief in fairy-tale mechanics is not limited to the proponents of this bill, either. For a long time now, it has been quite the fashion for some people to savagely attack the President and the Congress for whatever they suggest, while presenting no substantive proposal as an alternative. What always happens is that they toss out a goal, like securing the borders, and call it the action, which would be how to make that happen. This is dishonest on its face, especially when it is practiced and repeated by the very people who complain about weak spots in the plans pur forth by the serious people.
This is particularly poor conduct by the media, and there I include the web media and bloggers, especially Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin. There was a time I respected Malkin's well-considered opinion, but she has dived into the sea of 'hate the foreigners' so often and with such clear malice that I cannot consider her work balanced. As for Mr. Hewitt, I generally respect him but have been forced to conclude that on this issue he is not reasonable, and seems unaware that he is using the same rhetorical tactics he has - quite properly - rebuked in others before. So I have a challenge for the Hewitts and the Malkins of the Blogosphere.
The President and the Congress have not been able to come up with an effective, functional plan for securing the borders and addressing Immigration Reform proactively. What specific, detailed plan do you have or know of, which will accomplish the following essential goals:
[] Secure the national borders from constant and pervasive penetration by illegals, and potentially terrorists?
[] Enforce the laws already on the books, which address illegal possession of documents, especially forged and stolen documents, which address employment of illegals by American companies, and which address the disposition of persons found to have entered the United States illegally?
[] Address the presence of more than twelve million foreign nationals already residing in the United States, in a manner which is compliant with the U.S. Constitution, viable given available resources, and realistic regarding the response by those persons to the initiative?
The President has already made specific proposals on these points, and so any claim which effectively tries to take the same suggestion without crediting the President for the idea will be disallowed. Vague homilies such as 'make all illegals leave', or 'we should force businesses to obey the law' will be ridiculed. And in keeping with your own past behavior, ignoring this challenge will allow me to claim that you do not intend to seriously address the issue.
My point is not to harangue or heckle Mr. Hewitt or Ms. Malkin. In the actual case, I frankly do not expect either of them to respond, because neither of them seems interested in solving problems, but only in making a noise about the issue, which is common for media. What I do hope to accomplish, is to remind the reader that complex issues are difficult to sort out in the best of times, and even politicians can be credited with trying to find a good solution with little support or cooperation from the very people who claim they care the most.
But that belief in fairy-tale mechanics is not limited to the proponents of this bill, either. For a long time now, it has been quite the fashion for some people to savagely attack the President and the Congress for whatever they suggest, while presenting no substantive proposal as an alternative. What always happens is that they toss out a goal, like securing the borders, and call it the action, which would be how to make that happen. This is dishonest on its face, especially when it is practiced and repeated by the very people who complain about weak spots in the plans pur forth by the serious people.
This is particularly poor conduct by the media, and there I include the web media and bloggers, especially Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin. There was a time I respected Malkin's well-considered opinion, but she has dived into the sea of 'hate the foreigners' so often and with such clear malice that I cannot consider her work balanced. As for Mr. Hewitt, I generally respect him but have been forced to conclude that on this issue he is not reasonable, and seems unaware that he is using the same rhetorical tactics he has - quite properly - rebuked in others before. So I have a challenge for the Hewitts and the Malkins of the Blogosphere.
The President and the Congress have not been able to come up with an effective, functional plan for securing the borders and addressing Immigration Reform proactively. What specific, detailed plan do you have or know of, which will accomplish the following essential goals:
[] Secure the national borders from constant and pervasive penetration by illegals, and potentially terrorists?
[] Enforce the laws already on the books, which address illegal possession of documents, especially forged and stolen documents, which address employment of illegals by American companies, and which address the disposition of persons found to have entered the United States illegally?
[] Address the presence of more than twelve million foreign nationals already residing in the United States, in a manner which is compliant with the U.S. Constitution, viable given available resources, and realistic regarding the response by those persons to the initiative?
The President has already made specific proposals on these points, and so any claim which effectively tries to take the same suggestion without crediting the President for the idea will be disallowed. Vague homilies such as 'make all illegals leave', or 'we should force businesses to obey the law' will be ridiculed. And in keeping with your own past behavior, ignoring this challenge will allow me to claim that you do not intend to seriously address the issue.
My point is not to harangue or heckle Mr. Hewitt or Ms. Malkin. In the actual case, I frankly do not expect either of them to respond, because neither of them seems interested in solving problems, but only in making a noise about the issue, which is common for media. What I do hope to accomplish, is to remind the reader that complex issues are difficult to sort out in the best of times, and even politicians can be credited with trying to find a good solution with little support or cooperation from the very people who claim they care the most.
MLP Round 028
Game Scores:
Washington at GH Bush, 34-28 Washington
Hayes at Ford, 35-25 Ford
McKinley at Taft, 35-30 McKinley
GW Bush at Kennedy, 36-32 GW Bush
Lincoln at Madison, 31-25 Lincoln
Buchanan at Reagan, 36-23 Reagan
Fillmore at T Roosevelt, 33-31 TR
Polk at A Johnson, 34-19 Polk
Clinton at Jefferson, 34-25 Jefferson
J Adams at Van Buren, 29-23 J Adams
B Harrison at Truman, 32-23 Truman
Taylor at W Harrison, 31-25 Taylor
F Roosevelt at JQ Adams, 30-27 FDR
Eisenhower at Monroe, 31-30 Monroe
Jackson at Cleveland, 33-31 Jackson
Garfield at Tyler, 32-29 Tyler
Wilson at Nixon, 30-21 Nixon
Grant at Carter, 26-22 Carter
Arthur at Pierce, 25-22 Arthur
Hoover at Harding, 27-21 Harding
Coolidge at L Johnson, 27-21 Coolidge
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twenty-Eight Rounds
.1. Washington (27-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.2. Ford (27-1) beats Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
.3. McKinley (27-1) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
.4. GW Bush (27-1) beats Taft, Truman, Harding, JFK
.5. Lincoln (26-2) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.6. Reagan (25-3) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (25-3) beats Garfield, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.8. Polk (22-6) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.9. Jefferson (22-6) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Washington, Clinton
.10. J Adams (20-8) beats Tyler, Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleve.
.11. Truman (20-8) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush
.12. FDR (19-9) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.13. Kennedy (19-9) beats Clinton, Cool, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.14. Fillmore (19-9) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.15. Monroe (17-11) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.16. Taylor (17-11) beats W Harrison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.17. Nixon (15-13) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.18. Jackson (15-13) beats Arthur, Tyler, Cleveland, loses to Garfield
.19. Cleveland (16-12) beats J Adams, Arthur, loses to FDR, Jackson
.20. Eisenhower (16-12) beats LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson, Monroe
.21. Taft (14-14) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.22. Tyler (12-16) beats Arthur, Garfield, loses to J Adams, Jackson
.23. Garfield (13-15) beats Jackson, W Harr, loses to TR, Tyler
.24. Hayes (13-15) beats GH Bush, Madison, loses to Carter, Ford
.25. Quincy Adams (12-16) beats B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.26. Arthur (10-18) beats Pierce, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.27. Carter (9-19) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.28. GH Bush (10-18) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Wash
.29. Harding (8-20) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.30. W Harrison (9-19) loses to Reagan, TR, Garfield, Taylor
.31. Grant (8-20) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.32. Madison (8-20) loses to Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln
.33. Clinton (7-21) beats LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon, Jefferson
.34. Wilson (7-21) loses to Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.35. Coolidge (4-24) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.36. B Harrison (5-23) beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.37. Buchanan (5-23) beats Madison, loses to Carter, Ford, Reagan
.38. LBJ (4-24) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.39. Hoover (3-25) beats A Johnson, loses to Taft, Truman, Harding
.40. Van Buren (3-25) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.41. Pierce (2-26) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.42. A Johnson (1-27) loses to Hoover, B Harr, McKinley, Polk
Washington at GH Bush, 34-28 Washington
Hayes at Ford, 35-25 Ford
McKinley at Taft, 35-30 McKinley
GW Bush at Kennedy, 36-32 GW Bush
Lincoln at Madison, 31-25 Lincoln
Buchanan at Reagan, 36-23 Reagan
Fillmore at T Roosevelt, 33-31 TR
Polk at A Johnson, 34-19 Polk
Clinton at Jefferson, 34-25 Jefferson
J Adams at Van Buren, 29-23 J Adams
B Harrison at Truman, 32-23 Truman
Taylor at W Harrison, 31-25 Taylor
F Roosevelt at JQ Adams, 30-27 FDR
Eisenhower at Monroe, 31-30 Monroe
Jackson at Cleveland, 33-31 Jackson
Garfield at Tyler, 32-29 Tyler
Wilson at Nixon, 30-21 Nixon
Grant at Carter, 26-22 Carter
Arthur at Pierce, 25-22 Arthur
Hoover at Harding, 27-21 Harding
Coolidge at L Johnson, 27-21 Coolidge
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twenty-Eight Rounds
.1. Washington (27-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.2. Ford (27-1) beats Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
.3. McKinley (27-1) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
.4. GW Bush (27-1) beats Taft, Truman, Harding, JFK
.5. Lincoln (26-2) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.6. Reagan (25-3) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (25-3) beats Garfield, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.8. Polk (22-6) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.9. Jefferson (22-6) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Washington, Clinton
.10. J Adams (20-8) beats Tyler, Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleve.
.11. Truman (20-8) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush
.12. FDR (19-9) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.13. Kennedy (19-9) beats Clinton, Cool, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.14. Fillmore (19-9) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.15. Monroe (17-11) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.16. Taylor (17-11) beats W Harrison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.17. Nixon (15-13) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.18. Jackson (15-13) beats Arthur, Tyler, Cleveland, loses to Garfield
.19. Cleveland (16-12) beats J Adams, Arthur, loses to FDR, Jackson
.20. Eisenhower (16-12) beats LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson, Monroe
.21. Taft (14-14) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.22. Tyler (12-16) beats Arthur, Garfield, loses to J Adams, Jackson
.23. Garfield (13-15) beats Jackson, W Harr, loses to TR, Tyler
.24. Hayes (13-15) beats GH Bush, Madison, loses to Carter, Ford
.25. Quincy Adams (12-16) beats B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.26. Arthur (10-18) beats Pierce, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.27. Carter (9-19) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.28. GH Bush (10-18) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Wash
.29. Harding (8-20) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.30. W Harrison (9-19) loses to Reagan, TR, Garfield, Taylor
.31. Grant (8-20) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.32. Madison (8-20) loses to Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln
.33. Clinton (7-21) beats LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon, Jefferson
.34. Wilson (7-21) loses to Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.35. Coolidge (4-24) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.36. B Harrison (5-23) beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.37. Buchanan (5-23) beats Madison, loses to Carter, Ford, Reagan
.38. LBJ (4-24) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.39. Hoover (3-25) beats A Johnson, loses to Taft, Truman, Harding
.40. Van Buren (3-25) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.41. Pierce (2-26) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.42. A Johnson (1-27) loses to Hoover, B Harr, McKinley, Polk
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Original Sin
Original Sin is one of those concepts which few people really want to seriously address. It’s not surprising – those who believe we are sinful tend not to care too much about detailed histories and conjectures, because they really just want to be healed from sin, and those who do not believe we are sinful by nature reject the whole environment as invalid from the start. As a result, people tend to miss the intention of the concept, and to take the good news it offers.
The first thing I would say in addressing this phrase, is to remind the audience that God is indeed good and loving, and therefore, if Original Sin exists as a condition, it is there for a good reason and not to trip us up. Some of the weaker preachers out there try to scare folks into believing in God, by warning they will go to Hell if they do not surrender. And to that end, they sell Original Sin as a way to say ’It doesn’t matter if you do good and love everyone, you’re born condemned and you need Jesus – or else!’
I mean, sheesh, God as Tony Soprano? I don’t think so!
So what’s the deal? Well, I start from the fact that we all sin. We all sin, and that’s just a fact. So we have to do something about it, because sin is a poison, one which an eternal being cannot tolerate. And when I say ‘eternal being’, I’m not saying God has that problem, I mean that we are eternal beings, and the sins we commit in our lives must be addressed or we will forever be pained by them.
For here, I will leave off the importance of being Christian, because I think that’s another major issue which has gotten greatly misunderstood. But we do need to reconcile with God, not because He’s standing off somewhere with His back to us and His arms crossed, angry because we broke His precious rules, but because He is perfectly pure and holy, and we cannot be with Him unless and until our sin is removed.
Basically, we need three things with regard to Sin: We need to clear our souls of sin, we need to change our nature to a holy one, and we need to put our faith into action and produce good fruit. This is the common theme throughout the Bible. The forgiveness of Sin comes from God, who after all desires that we should be free of evil and the pain it brings. The production of faith into good works is the natural result of a grateful soul aligned with God, so the only missing piece is the change in nature. The concept of Original Sin is important to this part, because when properly understood it explains why that change is possible. It’s “Original Sin”, not “Eternal Sin”, meaning that while we must wrestle with moral and ethical questions throughout our lives, we can be comforted in the knowledge that just as our bodies will be left behind when we die, while we receive perfect bodies in the life to come, so too our nature for sinful behavior is also locked into the body, and no longer torments us when we pass over to God. Therefore, the concept of Original Sin should be seen as the promise of hope, not a threat or condemnation.
The first thing I would say in addressing this phrase, is to remind the audience that God is indeed good and loving, and therefore, if Original Sin exists as a condition, it is there for a good reason and not to trip us up. Some of the weaker preachers out there try to scare folks into believing in God, by warning they will go to Hell if they do not surrender. And to that end, they sell Original Sin as a way to say ’It doesn’t matter if you do good and love everyone, you’re born condemned and you need Jesus – or else!’
I mean, sheesh, God as Tony Soprano? I don’t think so!
So what’s the deal? Well, I start from the fact that we all sin. We all sin, and that’s just a fact. So we have to do something about it, because sin is a poison, one which an eternal being cannot tolerate. And when I say ‘eternal being’, I’m not saying God has that problem, I mean that we are eternal beings, and the sins we commit in our lives must be addressed or we will forever be pained by them.
For here, I will leave off the importance of being Christian, because I think that’s another major issue which has gotten greatly misunderstood. But we do need to reconcile with God, not because He’s standing off somewhere with His back to us and His arms crossed, angry because we broke His precious rules, but because He is perfectly pure and holy, and we cannot be with Him unless and until our sin is removed.
Basically, we need three things with regard to Sin: We need to clear our souls of sin, we need to change our nature to a holy one, and we need to put our faith into action and produce good fruit. This is the common theme throughout the Bible. The forgiveness of Sin comes from God, who after all desires that we should be free of evil and the pain it brings. The production of faith into good works is the natural result of a grateful soul aligned with God, so the only missing piece is the change in nature. The concept of Original Sin is important to this part, because when properly understood it explains why that change is possible. It’s “Original Sin”, not “Eternal Sin”, meaning that while we must wrestle with moral and ethical questions throughout our lives, we can be comforted in the knowledge that just as our bodies will be left behind when we die, while we receive perfect bodies in the life to come, so too our nature for sinful behavior is also locked into the body, and no longer torments us when we pass over to God. Therefore, the concept of Original Sin should be seen as the promise of hope, not a threat or condemnation.
MLP Round 027
Game Scores:
Monroe at Washington, 36-30 Washington
Ford at Buchanan, 31-20 Ford
A Johnson at McKinley, 37-21 McKinley
Harding at GW Bush, 36-26 GW Bush
Carter at Lincoln, 37-22 Lincoln
Reagan at Fillmore, 32-31 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Taylor, 33-30 TR
JQ Adams at Polk, 32-27 Polk
Jefferson at Eisenhower, 31-30 Jefferson
Pierce at J Adams, 30-21 J Adams
Truman at Hoover, 28-26 Truman
Van Buren at F Roosevelt, 33-24 FDR
Kennedy at Wilson, 33-25 JFK
Cleveland at Arthur, 32-26 Cleveland
Taft at B Harrison, 31-22 Taft
W Harrison at Garfield, 29-25 Garfield
Tyler at Jackson, 28-24 Jackson
Nixon at Coolidge, 27-22 Nixon
Madison at Hayes, 28-25 Hayes
GH Bush at Grant, 28-25 GH Bush
L Johnson at Clinton, 25-24 Clinton
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Monroe at Washington, 36-30 Washington
Ford at Buchanan, 31-20 Ford
A Johnson at McKinley, 37-21 McKinley
Harding at GW Bush, 36-26 GW Bush
Carter at Lincoln, 37-22 Lincoln
Reagan at Fillmore, 32-31 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Taylor, 33-30 TR
JQ Adams at Polk, 32-27 Polk
Jefferson at Eisenhower, 31-30 Jefferson
Pierce at J Adams, 30-21 J Adams
Truman at Hoover, 28-26 Truman
Van Buren at F Roosevelt, 33-24 FDR
Kennedy at Wilson, 33-25 JFK
Cleveland at Arthur, 32-26 Cleveland
Taft at B Harrison, 31-22 Taft
W Harrison at Garfield, 29-25 Garfield
Tyler at Jackson, 28-24 Jackson
Nixon at Coolidge, 27-22 Nixon
Madison at Hayes, 28-25 Hayes
GH Bush at Grant, 28-25 GH Bush
L Johnson at Clinton, 25-24 Clinton
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Friday, May 18, 2007
What Is, Is What? Immigration Reform and Congress
There are some things that you just know are a bad idea. Leaving teenagers unsupervised on a weekend. Letting the neighbor who can’t even remember your name “borrow” your new rider mower. And trusting a “bipartisan” bill from Congress.
What a piece of work, this latest thing on “Immigration Reform”.
It’s got something for everyone, which is what usually happens when committees of poll-driven narcissists put out public policy. There are Republicans who like it, there are Republicans who hate it, there are Democrats who like it, there are Democrats who hate it, there are both Republicans and Democrats who won’t say whether they like it until they find out from their staff which position is more poll-popular in their state or district. The whole issue of Immigration Reform has been a total mess for years, and it’s not as if putting Pelosi and Reid in charge of the whorehouse has improved the character of the lineup.
As you might expect, I give President Bush a little slack for this. The GOP-controlled Congress sat on its hands rather than deal with this for years, so it’s not as if he could expect Donkey Kong to get it right. And like it or not, President Bush’s 2007 position on Immigration Reform is the same as it was in 2000 when he first ran for President.
On the other hand, I have to say this bill will hurt Bush in the long term. Most of his decisions were made with a proper attention to the ethical results, doing what was right rather than what was easy or popular. I think that in this case, however, the results as time passes will be disappointing, because of one critical flaw in the bill.
Oh, the bill has more than one flaw in it. As self-serving political postures go, this one actually has some good points, but also more than a few warts. But there is one aspect to it, which is so serious that even if the rest of the bill was perfect in its intent and design, would doom it to failure.
Enforcement.
People who work with Immigration and who know the issues first-hand, have always said that a lot of the problems we face could be solved by simply enforcing the laws which are already on the books. There are a number of reasons why this has not happened, including friction between local and federal law enforcement agencies, politics played by local governments which do not wish to obey the law themselves, and gaps in the legislation which need to be fixed. Congress, as you might guess, is not in the habit of going back and fixing its mistakes, and the Pelosi/Reid team is not about to show the maturity and diligence needed to address the matter in depth now. And the present bill demonstrates that fact. There is no mention about how the fence being built will be repaired when, as is inevitable, ‘coyotes’ and leftist activists cut into it. There is no mention about who will prosecute the businesses caught hiring illegals, or how they will be caught (It’s already illegal now, you know, just not enforced). And so on.
The Senate ought to vote this bill down, but it will not. Bush ought to veto this bill, but he won’t. And we ought to know better than to believe that this Congress would seriously try to address the flood of illegals crossing the border, but you know Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charles Gibson will sing the praises of Senora Pelosi for a long time on this.
At least with the teenagers, you could ground them.
What a piece of work, this latest thing on “Immigration Reform”.
It’s got something for everyone, which is what usually happens when committees of poll-driven narcissists put out public policy. There are Republicans who like it, there are Republicans who hate it, there are Democrats who like it, there are Democrats who hate it, there are both Republicans and Democrats who won’t say whether they like it until they find out from their staff which position is more poll-popular in their state or district. The whole issue of Immigration Reform has been a total mess for years, and it’s not as if putting Pelosi and Reid in charge of the whorehouse has improved the character of the lineup.
As you might expect, I give President Bush a little slack for this. The GOP-controlled Congress sat on its hands rather than deal with this for years, so it’s not as if he could expect Donkey Kong to get it right. And like it or not, President Bush’s 2007 position on Immigration Reform is the same as it was in 2000 when he first ran for President.
On the other hand, I have to say this bill will hurt Bush in the long term. Most of his decisions were made with a proper attention to the ethical results, doing what was right rather than what was easy or popular. I think that in this case, however, the results as time passes will be disappointing, because of one critical flaw in the bill.
Oh, the bill has more than one flaw in it. As self-serving political postures go, this one actually has some good points, but also more than a few warts. But there is one aspect to it, which is so serious that even if the rest of the bill was perfect in its intent and design, would doom it to failure.
Enforcement.
People who work with Immigration and who know the issues first-hand, have always said that a lot of the problems we face could be solved by simply enforcing the laws which are already on the books. There are a number of reasons why this has not happened, including friction between local and federal law enforcement agencies, politics played by local governments which do not wish to obey the law themselves, and gaps in the legislation which need to be fixed. Congress, as you might guess, is not in the habit of going back and fixing its mistakes, and the Pelosi/Reid team is not about to show the maturity and diligence needed to address the matter in depth now. And the present bill demonstrates that fact. There is no mention about how the fence being built will be repaired when, as is inevitable, ‘coyotes’ and leftist activists cut into it. There is no mention about who will prosecute the businesses caught hiring illegals, or how they will be caught (It’s already illegal now, you know, just not enforced). And so on.
The Senate ought to vote this bill down, but it will not. Bush ought to veto this bill, but he won’t. And we ought to know better than to believe that this Congress would seriously try to address the flood of illegals crossing the border, but you know Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charles Gibson will sing the praises of Senora Pelosi for a long time on this.
At least with the teenagers, you could ground them.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
MLP Round 026
Game Scores:
Washington at Jefferson, 35-34 Washington
Fillmore at Ford, 35-33 Ford
McKinley at Quincy Adams, 39-27 McKinley
GW Bush at Truman, 35-32 GW Bush
Lincoln at GH Bush, 36-28 Lincoln
Taylor at Reagan, 31-28 Reagan
W Harrison at T Roosevelt, 33-28 TR
Polk at Van Buren, 27-23 Polk
J Adams at Cleveland, 31-30 Cleveland
F Roosevelt at Pierce, 30-22 FDR
Eisenhower at L Johnson, 32-21 Ike
Grant at Monroe, 30-27 Monroe
Coolidge at Kennedy, 32-30 JFK
Hoover at Taft, 30-25 Taft
Garfield at Jackson, 31-28 Garfield
Clinton at Nixon, 30-23 Nixon
Hayes at Carter, 26-24 Carter
Arthur at Tyler, 32-30 Tyler
Buchanan at Madison, 26-25 Buchanan
Wilson at Harding, 27-23 Harding
B Harrison at A Johnson, 20-19 B Harrison
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Washington at Jefferson, 35-34 Washington
Fillmore at Ford, 35-33 Ford
McKinley at Quincy Adams, 39-27 McKinley
GW Bush at Truman, 35-32 GW Bush
Lincoln at GH Bush, 36-28 Lincoln
Taylor at Reagan, 31-28 Reagan
W Harrison at T Roosevelt, 33-28 TR
Polk at Van Buren, 27-23 Polk
J Adams at Cleveland, 31-30 Cleveland
F Roosevelt at Pierce, 30-22 FDR
Eisenhower at L Johnson, 32-21 Ike
Grant at Monroe, 30-27 Monroe
Coolidge at Kennedy, 32-30 JFK
Hoover at Taft, 30-25 Taft
Garfield at Jackson, 31-28 Garfield
Clinton at Nixon, 30-23 Nixon
Hayes at Carter, 26-24 Carter
Arthur at Tyler, 32-30 Tyler
Buchanan at Madison, 26-25 Buchanan
Wilson at Harding, 27-23 Harding
B Harrison at A Johnson, 20-19 B Harrison
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Dubya Standard
I watched the Republicans debate in South Carolina on Tuesday, and I noticed how many of them tried to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan. It was, frankly, laughable. The Reagan Aura has grown far beyond anything a mortal man could hope to claim, but even the real Reagan was much more than any of these yokels could hope to compare.
I happen to think that the Republicans in the race would be very wise to try to show how much they are like our current President, George W. Bush. Yep, that’s right. For all the conventional wisdom that folks should try to avoid being seen with Dubya, I argue that anyone who wants to get elected in 2008 had better start moving towards him, not away.
There are many reasons why I believe this. Let’s start with the obvious fact that somehow got lost; Dubya collected more than 62 million votes in 2004. And at that time, his Job Approval, the number most media hacks were noting, was floating around 50 percent. The present media number is an average Job Approval of 34%, according to Real Clear Politics, which by simple math means that President Bush still has over 42 million people who vote by the Bush Standard. Not that 42 million would be enough to win, but only a complete moron would drive away 42 million or think that they could win without them.
Before I continue, I should be careful to say that I am not looking for a Bush clone. Much as I admire Dubya, the man has made mistakes, not least in ignoring the political consequences of a decision. It’s laughable, how many Democrats accuse the President of politicizing a decision when it is plain that he does nothing of the sort; after all, a man who wanted to play politics would have timed the ‘Fort Dix’ story to break last fall, or would have spun the capture of key Al Qaeda operatives for maximum press, or might have ignored the welfare of two Middle East countries in a bombastic effort to produce the corpse of Osama as some kind of bloody trophy, rather than let the military do their job and keep his mouth shut for the most part. Not that I want a Macchiavellian type of politician, but that Bush most definitely has steered clear of deceit and hype, and a successful politician, like it or not, has to consider how to build that political capital. James Carville may be a soulless monster, but he is popular in D.C. for a reason. Any successful President, like it or not, is probably going to need something of that killer instinct, or to trust an advisor who has it.
The next reason for would-be Presidents to consider Dubya, is the accomplishments he has made. I know it’s quite the fashion to tab Bush as a “failed” President somehow, but in reality his work has been effective. His tax cuts unquestionably eased the 2001 recession which followed the 9/11 attacks, his Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary nominations have been superb from the perspective of judicial reform (rolling back the tide of activist judges who ignore the Constitution), his National Security doctrine has prevented another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and has severely damaged the capabilities of Al Qaeda and other Islamogfascist organizations (far too many people judge the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the peculiar assumption that terrorists would have stayed home and been peaceful, rather than grown in ambition and violence, if we had just let Saddam go on in his murderous ways). And yeah, Dubya has done a pretty good job of helping Americans understand the signature differences between a Republican President and a Democrat President.
Folks also forget how Bush got elected. Every President has a certain element which makes the difference in election, and for many that difference comes down to, well, likeability. People like Dubya, and always have. Next to him, Kerry and Gore were stone-faced goons. And we’ve seen that before. Republicans should remember that Bill Clinton worked hard to show himself as relaxed and comfortable, a nice guy, while Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush came off as stuffy and self-absorbed. And yet “Poppy” Bush was a heckuva lot more likeable than Mike “mechanitron” Dukakis. And do I need to remind you how much more Ronald Reagan was, than Walter “Sourpuss” Mondale or Jimmy Carter? Sure, it’s not everything, but time and time again we see Presidents win in part because they just come across as a good guy. Shewt, remember “I like Ike”?
By now, you can see where I am going. Hillary, McCain, bye-bye, thanks for playing, but you’re both outta-there. I will keep up the suspense somewhat by not going further here, but it’s not that hard to understand, that the person with the “right stuff” to be the next President of the United States, ought to be studying George W. Bush.
With attention and respect.
I happen to think that the Republicans in the race would be very wise to try to show how much they are like our current President, George W. Bush. Yep, that’s right. For all the conventional wisdom that folks should try to avoid being seen with Dubya, I argue that anyone who wants to get elected in 2008 had better start moving towards him, not away.
There are many reasons why I believe this. Let’s start with the obvious fact that somehow got lost; Dubya collected more than 62 million votes in 2004. And at that time, his Job Approval, the number most media hacks were noting, was floating around 50 percent. The present media number is an average Job Approval of 34%, according to Real Clear Politics, which by simple math means that President Bush still has over 42 million people who vote by the Bush Standard. Not that 42 million would be enough to win, but only a complete moron would drive away 42 million or think that they could win without them.
Before I continue, I should be careful to say that I am not looking for a Bush clone. Much as I admire Dubya, the man has made mistakes, not least in ignoring the political consequences of a decision. It’s laughable, how many Democrats accuse the President of politicizing a decision when it is plain that he does nothing of the sort; after all, a man who wanted to play politics would have timed the ‘Fort Dix’ story to break last fall, or would have spun the capture of key Al Qaeda operatives for maximum press, or might have ignored the welfare of two Middle East countries in a bombastic effort to produce the corpse of Osama as some kind of bloody trophy, rather than let the military do their job and keep his mouth shut for the most part. Not that I want a Macchiavellian type of politician, but that Bush most definitely has steered clear of deceit and hype, and a successful politician, like it or not, has to consider how to build that political capital. James Carville may be a soulless monster, but he is popular in D.C. for a reason. Any successful President, like it or not, is probably going to need something of that killer instinct, or to trust an advisor who has it.
The next reason for would-be Presidents to consider Dubya, is the accomplishments he has made. I know it’s quite the fashion to tab Bush as a “failed” President somehow, but in reality his work has been effective. His tax cuts unquestionably eased the 2001 recession which followed the 9/11 attacks, his Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary nominations have been superb from the perspective of judicial reform (rolling back the tide of activist judges who ignore the Constitution), his National Security doctrine has prevented another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and has severely damaged the capabilities of Al Qaeda and other Islamogfascist organizations (far too many people judge the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the peculiar assumption that terrorists would have stayed home and been peaceful, rather than grown in ambition and violence, if we had just let Saddam go on in his murderous ways). And yeah, Dubya has done a pretty good job of helping Americans understand the signature differences between a Republican President and a Democrat President.
Folks also forget how Bush got elected. Every President has a certain element which makes the difference in election, and for many that difference comes down to, well, likeability. People like Dubya, and always have. Next to him, Kerry and Gore were stone-faced goons. And we’ve seen that before. Republicans should remember that Bill Clinton worked hard to show himself as relaxed and comfortable, a nice guy, while Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush came off as stuffy and self-absorbed. And yet “Poppy” Bush was a heckuva lot more likeable than Mike “mechanitron” Dukakis. And do I need to remind you how much more Ronald Reagan was, than Walter “Sourpuss” Mondale or Jimmy Carter? Sure, it’s not everything, but time and time again we see Presidents win in part because they just come across as a good guy. Shewt, remember “I like Ike”?
By now, you can see where I am going. Hillary, McCain, bye-bye, thanks for playing, but you’re both outta-there. I will keep up the suspense somewhat by not going further here, but it’s not that hard to understand, that the person with the “right stuff” to be the next President of the United States, ought to be studying George W. Bush.
With attention and respect.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
MLP Round 025
Game Scores:
L Johnson at Washington, 36-28 Washington
Ford at Taylor, 32-30 Ford
Van Buren at McKinley, 37-25 McKinley
Taft at GW Bush, 36-26 GW Bush
Monroe at Lincoln, 37-33 Lincoln
Reagan at W Harrison, 37-35 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Garfield, 31-29 TR
Pierce at Polk, 32-21 Polk
Madison at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
Jefferson at Grant, 31-25 Jefferson
Tyler at J Adams, 30-28 J Adams
Truman at Wilson, 30-25 Truman
Cleveland at F Roosevelt, 33-29 FDR
Nixon at Eisenhower, 31-30 Nixon
Kennedy at Clinton, 31-25 JFK
Quincy Adams at B Harrison, 31-22 JQA
Jackson at Arthur, 29-26 Jackson
GH Bush at Hayes, 28-25 Hayes
Carter at Buchanan, 22-20 Carter
Harding at Coolidge, 27-22 Harding
A Johnson at Hoover, 29-21 Hoover
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
L Johnson at Washington, 36-28 Washington
Ford at Taylor, 32-30 Ford
Van Buren at McKinley, 37-25 McKinley
Taft at GW Bush, 36-26 GW Bush
Monroe at Lincoln, 37-33 Lincoln
Reagan at W Harrison, 37-35 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Garfield, 31-29 TR
Pierce at Polk, 32-21 Polk
Madison at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
Jefferson at Grant, 31-25 Jefferson
Tyler at J Adams, 30-28 J Adams
Truman at Wilson, 30-25 Truman
Cleveland at F Roosevelt, 33-29 FDR
Nixon at Eisenhower, 31-30 Nixon
Kennedy at Clinton, 31-25 JFK
Quincy Adams at B Harrison, 31-22 JQA
Jackson at Arthur, 29-26 Jackson
GH Bush at Hayes, 28-25 Hayes
Carter at Buchanan, 22-20 Carter
Harding at Coolidge, 27-22 Harding
A Johnson at Hoover, 29-21 Hoover
Four Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
MLP Round 024
Game Scores:
Washington at Nixon, 36-30 Washington
Ford at W Harrison, 33-25 Ford
McKinley at Pierce, 35-18 McKinley
GW Bush at A Johnson, 35-19 GW Bush
Jefferson at Lincoln, 37-31 Lincoln
Reagan at T Roosevelt, 37-33 Reagan
Cleveland at Polk, 32-29 Polk
Carter at Fillmore, 31-19 Fillmore
J Adams at Jackson, 29-28 J Adams
Coolidge at Truman, 32-28 Truman
Madison at Taylor, 30-21 Taylor
Eisenhower at Kennedy, 33-32 Ike
Tyler at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
Monroe at Hayes, 29-28 Monroe
Wilson at Taft, 30-23 Taft
Hoover at JQ Adams, 27-23 JQA
Garfield at Arthur, 29-26 Garfield
GH Bush at Buchanan, 31-20 GH Bush
L Johnson at Grant, 25-22 Grant
Clinton at Harding, 28-27 Clinton
B Harrison at Van Buren, 26-23 B Harrison
Four Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 2 have 2 wins, and one President has one win.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twenty-Four Rounds
.1. Washington (23-1) beats Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.2. Ford (23-1) beats Garfield, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.3. McKinley (23-1) beats Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Pierce
.4. GW Bush (23-1) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.5. Lincoln (22-2) beats JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson
.6. Reagan (21-3) beats Madison, TR, loses to Ford, Garfield
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (21-2) beats Carter, Mad, loses to Ford, Reagan
.8. Polk (18-6) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.9. Fillmore (18-6) beats Monroe, GHB, Carter, loses to Jefferson
.10. Jefferson (19-5) beats Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Lincoln
.11. J Adams (17-7) beats Garfield, Arthur, Jackson, loses to FDR
.12. Truman (17-7) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Washington
.13. Taylor (16-8) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Monroe
.14. FDR (15-9) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.15. Eisenhower (15-9) beats Taft, Harding, JFK, loses to Truman
.16. Monroe (15-9) beats Taylor, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Fillmore
.17. Kennedy (16-8) beats Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington, Ike
.18. Cleveland (14-10) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk
.19. Taft (12-12) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Ike
.20. Quincy Adams (11-13) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GWB
.21. Garfield (11-13) beats Arthur, loses to Ford, J Adams, Reagan
.22. Jackson (12-12) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.23. Nixon (11-13) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Washington
.24. Hayes (11-13) beats Nixon, LBJ, loses to Jefferson, Monroe
.25. GH Bush (9-15) beats W Harr, Buchanan loses to Taylor, Fillmore
.26. Tyler (10-14) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.27. Grant (8-16) Beats Harding, LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon
.28. W Harrison (9-15) beats Carter, Madison, loses to GH Bush, Ford
.29. Arthur (9-15) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Garfield
.30. Clinton (6-18) beats A Johnson, Harding, loses to Taft, Truman
.31. Madison (8-16) loses to Reagan, TR, W Harrison, Taylor
.32. Wilson (7-17) beats Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft
.33. Carter (6-18) loses to TR, W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore
.34. B Harrison (4-20) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Tyler, Cleve
.35. Harding (5-19) loses to Grant, Washington, Ike, Clinton
.36. LBJ (4-20) beats Buchanan, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.37. Buchanan (4-20) loses to LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.38. Van Buren (3-21) beats Hoov, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, B Harr
.39. Coolidge (3-21) loses to JQA, A Johnson, Taft, Truman
.40. Pierce (2-22) beats Hoover, loses to GWB, B Harr, McKinley
.41. Hoover (2-22) loses to Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.42. A Johnson (1-23) beats Coolidge, loses to Clinton, Wilson, GWB
Washington at Nixon, 36-30 Washington
Ford at W Harrison, 33-25 Ford
McKinley at Pierce, 35-18 McKinley
GW Bush at A Johnson, 35-19 GW Bush
Jefferson at Lincoln, 37-31 Lincoln
Reagan at T Roosevelt, 37-33 Reagan
Cleveland at Polk, 32-29 Polk
Carter at Fillmore, 31-19 Fillmore
J Adams at Jackson, 29-28 J Adams
Coolidge at Truman, 32-28 Truman
Madison at Taylor, 30-21 Taylor
Eisenhower at Kennedy, 33-32 Ike
Tyler at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
Monroe at Hayes, 29-28 Monroe
Wilson at Taft, 30-23 Taft
Hoover at JQ Adams, 27-23 JQA
Garfield at Arthur, 29-26 Garfield
GH Bush at Buchanan, 31-20 GH Bush
L Johnson at Grant, 25-22 Grant
Clinton at Harding, 28-27 Clinton
B Harrison at Van Buren, 26-23 B Harrison
Four Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 2 have 2 wins, and one President has one win.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twenty-Four Rounds
.1. Washington (23-1) beats Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.2. Ford (23-1) beats Garfield, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.3. McKinley (23-1) beats Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Pierce
.4. GW Bush (23-1) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.5. Lincoln (22-2) beats JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson
.6. Reagan (21-3) beats Madison, TR, loses to Ford, Garfield
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (21-2) beats Carter, Mad, loses to Ford, Reagan
.8. Polk (18-6) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.9. Fillmore (18-6) beats Monroe, GHB, Carter, loses to Jefferson
.10. Jefferson (19-5) beats Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Lincoln
.11. J Adams (17-7) beats Garfield, Arthur, Jackson, loses to FDR
.12. Truman (17-7) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Washington
.13. Taylor (16-8) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Monroe
.14. FDR (15-9) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.15. Eisenhower (15-9) beats Taft, Harding, JFK, loses to Truman
.16. Monroe (15-9) beats Taylor, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Fillmore
.17. Kennedy (16-8) beats Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington, Ike
.18. Cleveland (14-10) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk
.19. Taft (12-12) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Ike
.20. Quincy Adams (11-13) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GWB
.21. Garfield (11-13) beats Arthur, loses to Ford, J Adams, Reagan
.22. Jackson (12-12) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.23. Nixon (11-13) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Washington
.24. Hayes (11-13) beats Nixon, LBJ, loses to Jefferson, Monroe
.25. GH Bush (9-15) beats W Harr, Buchanan loses to Taylor, Fillmore
.26. Tyler (10-14) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.27. Grant (8-16) Beats Harding, LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon
.28. W Harrison (9-15) beats Carter, Madison, loses to GH Bush, Ford
.29. Arthur (9-15) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Garfield
.30. Clinton (6-18) beats A Johnson, Harding, loses to Taft, Truman
.31. Madison (8-16) loses to Reagan, TR, W Harrison, Taylor
.32. Wilson (7-17) beats Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft
.33. Carter (6-18) loses to TR, W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore
.34. B Harrison (4-20) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Tyler, Cleve
.35. Harding (5-19) loses to Grant, Washington, Ike, Clinton
.36. LBJ (4-20) beats Buchanan, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.37. Buchanan (4-20) loses to LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.38. Van Buren (3-21) beats Hoov, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, B Harr
.39. Coolidge (3-21) loses to JQA, A Johnson, Taft, Truman
.40. Pierce (2-22) beats Hoover, loses to GWB, B Harr, McKinley
.41. Hoover (2-22) loses to Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.42. A Johnson (1-23) beats Coolidge, loses to Clinton, Wilson, GWB
Saturday, May 12, 2007
MLP Round 023
Game Scores:
Kennedy at Washington, 36-30 Washington
T Roosevelt at Ford, 35-30 Ford
Cleveland at McKinley, 37-29 McKinley
JQ Adams at GW Bush, 36-25 GW Bush
Lincoln at L Johnson, 31-21 Lincoln
Hayes at Jefferson, 34-28 Jefferson
Garfield at Reagan, 31-28 Reagan
Polk at Tyler, 30-28 Polk
Fillmore at GH Bush, 31-28 Fillmore
Arthur at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Truman at Clinton, 30-23 Truman
Taylor at Carter, 28-26 Taylor
Jackson at F Roosevelt, 33-32 FDR
Harding at Eisenhower, 30-24 Ike
Buchanan at Monroe, 30-22 Monroe
Taft at Coolidge, 30-22 Taft
Grant at Nixon, 30-25 Nixon
W Harrison at Madison, 26-25 W Harrison
A Johnson at Wilson, 25-24 Wilson
Pierce at B Harrison, 22-21 B Harrison
Van Buren at Hoover, 24-23 Van Buren
Four Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 2 have 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Kennedy at Washington, 36-30 Washington
T Roosevelt at Ford, 35-30 Ford
Cleveland at McKinley, 37-29 McKinley
JQ Adams at GW Bush, 36-25 GW Bush
Lincoln at L Johnson, 31-21 Lincoln
Hayes at Jefferson, 34-28 Jefferson
Garfield at Reagan, 31-28 Reagan
Polk at Tyler, 30-28 Polk
Fillmore at GH Bush, 31-28 Fillmore
Arthur at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Truman at Clinton, 30-23 Truman
Taylor at Carter, 28-26 Taylor
Jackson at F Roosevelt, 33-32 FDR
Harding at Eisenhower, 30-24 Ike
Buchanan at Monroe, 30-22 Monroe
Taft at Coolidge, 30-22 Taft
Grant at Nixon, 30-25 Nixon
W Harrison at Madison, 26-25 W Harrison
A Johnson at Wilson, 25-24 Wilson
Pierce at B Harrison, 22-21 B Harrison
Van Buren at Hoover, 24-23 Van Buren
Four Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 2 have 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The American Muslim’s Burden
Fifty years ago, the United States enjoyed prominence in the world as the Champion of World War 2, but at home there were questions to resolve. Not least among them, the status of many Japanese-Americans interred during the war. It’s intriguing to see how many people, including historians, gloss over the Internment Camps and the slipshod version of Justice handed out to people who committed no offense and who lost years of freedom and a large portion of their property simply because of their race. In these modern times I wonder how well we have learned the lessons from those days, if at all.
By that I not only mean that the United States government has to plan for future conditions where large-scale profiling may be crucially needed to address a threat, but also how a demographic group might plan to prevent suffering the same fate as those citizens from Japan did. We see the conflict coming, and must all of us prepare for what may be delicately put as The Muslim Question.
This week, a plot was revealed where a group of Muslims planned to attack hundreds of people at Fort Dix. In the past year, we have seen attacks by Muslim terrorists at the University of North Carolina, at an office in Denver, and at a Jewish Community Center in Seattle, not to forget the plan to bomb international airline flights with liquid explosives. The problem is growing, and at some point it is inevitable that the public will simply demand that the focus be brought to where the source obviously breeds: Fascist Islam.
I have said many times, and will say again, that since Islam, with over a billion adherents, is responsible for less than two thousand terrorist attacks in a year, it is foolish to blame the whole faith. In fact, it should become obvious that while Fascist Islam is a cause of Terrorism, Islam as a whole is not. A lot of people never noticed that in the Fort Dix case, there was close cooperation between the FBI and Muslim informants, this was hardly the first time that the Muslim Community in a town has alerted the authorities when a terrorist cell showed up. American Muslims as a group should be recognized as significantly different from the monsters we see on television, or those idiots at CAIR who refuse to admit even the most serious and obvious problems. But increasingly, Americans are seeing Muslims in general as anti-American and as enemies of our ideals. And the blame for that impression lies, in part, with the Muslims themselves.
We’ve all seen protests by Muslims. Protests against cartoons, against the United States (of course), against the Pope, and all sorts of things. But what we do not see, at least in the United States, is a protest against Al Qaeda, against the hijacking of Islam by psychopaths, or against the rising tide of hate speech by this Imam or that. A few mosques have made some gestures towards showing support for America and Freedom, but in the main Islam has been silent about all it receives from the West, from money to protection to guarantees of respect for Muslim culture. It is long overdue for Muslims to choose to support their country as well as their culture, and to show that they belong to the nation as part of it.
By that I not only mean that the United States government has to plan for future conditions where large-scale profiling may be crucially needed to address a threat, but also how a demographic group might plan to prevent suffering the same fate as those citizens from Japan did. We see the conflict coming, and must all of us prepare for what may be delicately put as The Muslim Question.
This week, a plot was revealed where a group of Muslims planned to attack hundreds of people at Fort Dix. In the past year, we have seen attacks by Muslim terrorists at the University of North Carolina, at an office in Denver, and at a Jewish Community Center in Seattle, not to forget the plan to bomb international airline flights with liquid explosives. The problem is growing, and at some point it is inevitable that the public will simply demand that the focus be brought to where the source obviously breeds: Fascist Islam.
I have said many times, and will say again, that since Islam, with over a billion adherents, is responsible for less than two thousand terrorist attacks in a year, it is foolish to blame the whole faith. In fact, it should become obvious that while Fascist Islam is a cause of Terrorism, Islam as a whole is not. A lot of people never noticed that in the Fort Dix case, there was close cooperation between the FBI and Muslim informants, this was hardly the first time that the Muslim Community in a town has alerted the authorities when a terrorist cell showed up. American Muslims as a group should be recognized as significantly different from the monsters we see on television, or those idiots at CAIR who refuse to admit even the most serious and obvious problems. But increasingly, Americans are seeing Muslims in general as anti-American and as enemies of our ideals. And the blame for that impression lies, in part, with the Muslims themselves.
We’ve all seen protests by Muslims. Protests against cartoons, against the United States (of course), against the Pope, and all sorts of things. But what we do not see, at least in the United States, is a protest against Al Qaeda, against the hijacking of Islam by psychopaths, or against the rising tide of hate speech by this Imam or that. A few mosques have made some gestures towards showing support for America and Freedom, but in the main Islam has been silent about all it receives from the West, from money to protection to guarantees of respect for Muslim culture. It is long overdue for Muslims to choose to support their country as well as their culture, and to show that they belong to the nation as part of it.
MLP Round 022
Game Scores:
Washington at Harding, 36-27 Washington
Ford at Reagan, 33-31 Ford
McKinley at Tyler, 35-28 McKinley
Van Buren at GW Bush, 36-23 GW Bush
Madison at T Roosevelt, 33-21 TR
Lincoln at Nixon, 33-30 Lincoln
Jefferson at Buchanan, 31-20 Jefferson
Polk at Jackson, 30-28 Polk
Grant at Kennedy, 32-22 JFK
Fillmore at Monroe, 31-30 Fillmore
Eisenhower at Truman, 32-31 Truman
B Harrison at Cleveland, 31-22 Cleveland
Garfield at J Adams, 30-29 J Adams
F Roosevelt at Arthur, 29-26 FDR
GH Bush at Taylor, 30-28 Taylor
JQ Adams at Wilson, 30-25 JQA
Hayes at L Johnson, 28-21 Hayes
Taft at Clinton, 28-23 Taft
Carter at W Harrison, 25-21 W Harrison
A Johnson at Coolidge, 23-22 A Johnson
Pierce at Hoover, 25-23 Pierce
Five Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, and one President has one win.
Washington at Harding, 36-27 Washington
Ford at Reagan, 33-31 Ford
McKinley at Tyler, 35-28 McKinley
Van Buren at GW Bush, 36-23 GW Bush
Madison at T Roosevelt, 33-21 TR
Lincoln at Nixon, 33-30 Lincoln
Jefferson at Buchanan, 31-20 Jefferson
Polk at Jackson, 30-28 Polk
Grant at Kennedy, 32-22 JFK
Fillmore at Monroe, 31-30 Fillmore
Eisenhower at Truman, 32-31 Truman
B Harrison at Cleveland, 31-22 Cleveland
Garfield at J Adams, 30-29 J Adams
F Roosevelt at Arthur, 29-26 FDR
GH Bush at Taylor, 30-28 Taylor
JQ Adams at Wilson, 30-25 JQA
Hayes at L Johnson, 28-21 Hayes
Taft at Clinton, 28-23 Taft
Carter at W Harrison, 25-21 W Harrison
A Johnson at Coolidge, 23-22 A Johnson
Pierce at Hoover, 25-23 Pierce
Five Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, and one President has one win.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
All Those Channels and Nothing On …
This is going to be one of those articles where I show my age. Monday night I was sitting at home with the family and we were watching “CSI:Miami”. And saw what is arguably the lamest episode they ever put out. In a nutshell, we found out that Wolf, who was kicked off the team in an earlier episode, decides he wants to be a cop after all, makes a predictable speech and comes back and makes another predictable speech to Horatio “Strike a Pose” Cain, who takes him back, all is forgiven. Yawn. But the real issue I had, was the case where the team is able to find a few trace amounts of blood on a boat, and from that are somehow able to get the Coast Guard to help them intercept a drug kingpin. No explanation of how they do that, shoot they don’t even explain how they knew where he was, but oh well. The real problem is that this ‘kingpin’, as soon as they say they know the victim was on his boat, gives up and confesses, not only that he is in fact a drug kingpin, but also that he murdered the victim. I guess Cain gave the guy one of those ‘Perry Mason’ type stares; you know, how Mason was able to get his client off by somehow arranging for The Real KillerTM to take the stand in court, where the right tone of voice and a hard stare would produce a confession? David Caruso steals the act without so much as a nod to Raymond Burr.
So yeah, there’s a lot of shows where it’s obvious the writers just mail it in, and the same can be said for network news, but the whole thing about CSI was supposed to be all the cool ways forensics could solve cases. No need for soap opera storylines, car chases, ridiculous poses – well, OK, Caruso has always been big on posing whenever he saw a camera, but most of the people on the show don’t do that – the lab and Science were supposed to tell the story. No Science in this episode. Not much acting either, but oh well.
It seems that broadcast television in general has become as drab and low-quality as, say, the New York Times. According to AOL, the top shows right now are:
American Idol
Lost
Dancing With the Stars
24
The Sopranos
Let’s see now, two of the five have no plots whatsoever, one is available only on cable, and of the other 2, even their fans are saying the shows aren’t what they used to be.
Wowzers.
Is it just me, or does TV in general suck?
So yeah, there’s a lot of shows where it’s obvious the writers just mail it in, and the same can be said for network news, but the whole thing about CSI was supposed to be all the cool ways forensics could solve cases. No need for soap opera storylines, car chases, ridiculous poses – well, OK, Caruso has always been big on posing whenever he saw a camera, but most of the people on the show don’t do that – the lab and Science were supposed to tell the story. No Science in this episode. Not much acting either, but oh well.
It seems that broadcast television in general has become as drab and low-quality as, say, the New York Times. According to AOL, the top shows right now are:
American Idol
Lost
Dancing With the Stars
24
The Sopranos
Let’s see now, two of the five have no plots whatsoever, one is available only on cable, and of the other 2, even their fans are saying the shows aren’t what they used to be.
Wowzers.
Is it just me, or does TV in general suck?
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Questions For The Day
I understand that one thing which has united extremists on both the Left and Right sides of the aisle, is their contempt for President Bush’s attempts to reform Immigration and establish a semblance of Border Security. But as I have mentioned before, Bush’s plan is in many ways similar to one proposed by President Reagan. Something which many Bush-haters refuse to acknowledge, even though it is patently obvious to anyone who bothers to check the facts. The reason for this is obvious; Conservatives revere Reagan and desperately want to avoid acknowledging any similarity by President Bush to their patron saint. Liberals desperately fear the Reagan aura, and desperately want to avoid acknowledging any similarity by President Bush to their most feared adversary.
But it occurs to me to note further, that besides having a similar point of view on this question, both men were better informed than most people on the issue – both Reagan and Bush served as Governors of large border states who have had to face the illegal immigrant issue head-on, without the luxury of passing the buck a la McCain or playing political Rottweiler a la Tancredo. In short, Reagan and Bush were each far more qualified to speak with authority than many of the talking heads in the media or Congress.
My questions for today are these:
1. Who, if anyone, of the major contenders for President has a demonstrable plan for dealing with Illegal Immigration and Border Security?
2. Considering that any bill which could become law will have to pass through Congress, where many a good idea has been perverted beyond recognition, what is the “best” possible bill which could actually become law in the next two years?
3. No bill dealing with Border Security or Immigration Reform can come into being without the President signing it. What approach would you recommend your advocate take in getting President Bush to sign the bill?
4. It can reasonably be said that a lot of the problem is not a need for new laws, nearly so much as it is a need for existing laws to be enforced, and enforced consistently. How would you persuade Congress to support improved enforcement initiatives?
But it occurs to me to note further, that besides having a similar point of view on this question, both men were better informed than most people on the issue – both Reagan and Bush served as Governors of large border states who have had to face the illegal immigrant issue head-on, without the luxury of passing the buck a la McCain or playing political Rottweiler a la Tancredo. In short, Reagan and Bush were each far more qualified to speak with authority than many of the talking heads in the media or Congress.
My questions for today are these:
1. Who, if anyone, of the major contenders for President has a demonstrable plan for dealing with Illegal Immigration and Border Security?
2. Considering that any bill which could become law will have to pass through Congress, where many a good idea has been perverted beyond recognition, what is the “best” possible bill which could actually become law in the next two years?
3. No bill dealing with Border Security or Immigration Reform can come into being without the President signing it. What approach would you recommend your advocate take in getting President Bush to sign the bill?
4. It can reasonably be said that a lot of the problem is not a need for new laws, nearly so much as it is a need for existing laws to be enforced, and enforced consistently. How would you persuade Congress to support improved enforcement initiatives?
MLP Round 021
Game Scores:
Truman at Washington, 36-29 Washington
Garfield at Ford, 35-29 Ford
Jackson at McKinley, 37-32 McKinley
GW Bush at Pierce, 35-18 GW Bush
T Roosevelt at Carter, 32-26 TR
Kennedy at Lincoln, 37-27 Lincoln
Reagan at Madison, 37-25 Reagan
Fillmore at Jefferson, 34-30 Jefferson
J Adams at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
Arthur at Polk, 32-29 Polk
Taft at Eisenhower, 30-28 Ike
Monroe at Taylor, 31-30 Monroe
Hoover at Cleveland, 31-25 Cleveland
Nixon at Hayes, 28-27 Hayes
Tyler at B Harrison, 28-22 Tyler
Coolidge at JQ Adams, 27-25 JQ Adams
W Harrison at GH Bush, 29-28 GH Bush
Wilson at Van Buren, 28-23 Wilson
Harding at Grant, 25-24 Grant
Clinton at A Johnson, 23-19 Clinton
L Johnson at Buchanan, 24-20 LBJ
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 1 President is winless.
Truman at Washington, 36-29 Washington
Garfield at Ford, 35-29 Ford
Jackson at McKinley, 37-32 McKinley
GW Bush at Pierce, 35-18 GW Bush
T Roosevelt at Carter, 32-26 TR
Kennedy at Lincoln, 37-27 Lincoln
Reagan at Madison, 37-25 Reagan
Fillmore at Jefferson, 34-30 Jefferson
J Adams at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
Arthur at Polk, 32-29 Polk
Taft at Eisenhower, 30-28 Ike
Monroe at Taylor, 31-30 Monroe
Hoover at Cleveland, 31-25 Cleveland
Nixon at Hayes, 28-27 Hayes
Tyler at B Harrison, 28-22 Tyler
Coolidge at JQ Adams, 27-25 JQ Adams
W Harrison at GH Bush, 29-28 GH Bush
Wilson at Van Buren, 28-23 Wilson
Harding at Grant, 25-24 Grant
Clinton at A Johnson, 23-19 Clinton
L Johnson at Buchanan, 24-20 LBJ
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 1 President is winless.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Good-bye, Mister Clemens
I was thrilled when Roger came to pitch for the Astros, and I will not forget what he did for us as a pitcher.
But I also remember what he said. About what made Houston different, about what made the Astros different. About how New York couldn't match that.
It is now obvious Clemens lied.
I'm an adult, I understand these things.
But I expected better of a man who claimed to understand what it means to be from Texas.
Clemens will be in the Hall of Fame. He's got tremendous talent and he's a great athlete and loves to win.
But he broke his word, and sold his integrity.
So in my book Clemens went from Stand-Up Guy to Mercenary. And that's all there is to that.
But I also remember what he said. About what made Houston different, about what made the Astros different. About how New York couldn't match that.
It is now obvious Clemens lied.
I'm an adult, I understand these things.
But I expected better of a man who claimed to understand what it means to be from Texas.
Clemens will be in the Hall of Fame. He's got tremendous talent and he's a great athlete and loves to win.
But he broke his word, and sold his integrity.
So in my book Clemens went from Stand-Up Guy to Mercenary. And that's all there is to that.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Global Warfare - Part 2
There is an understandable focus on American actions and intentions, especially since the MSM is obsessed with finding fault with any and all American objectives. However, in both historical and modern contexts, there are a number of significant players, whose objectives are every bit as “global” as those of the United States. Also, the fact that we do not operate in a vacuum, but in an environment influenced by all the separate players, means that these different directives must be considered in forming a comprehensive understanding of the world’s condition, and to determine future priorities and strategies.
First, we must understand that despite their losses in past conflicts, it is incorrect to presume that Fascism and Communism have ceased to operate on the world stage. Iran’s present regime, for instance, operates in a framework of political and military objectives which are essentially Fascist in character. Also, despite the fall of Communism as a feasible economic theory, the Communist style of political regime remains in control of a number of countries, especially for cult of personality regimes like the Chavez dictatorship in Venezuela.
Speaking of Communists, it is all too easy to forget that the nation with the world’s largest population remains Communist in doctrine and legal construction. It should also be noted that China’s military growth is proceeding at a rate faster than any other nation on earth, for reasons never yet stated by Beijing’s Politburo. That military growth includes rocket delivery of military satellites (and a Satellite Interception Platform), a new generation of electric-motor submarines, and development of aircraft carriers. This can mean only an intention to project power, to establish military control in support of a Hegemony.
We should also consider that there are a number of groups and nations which have cooperated on several levels towards common goals. The amorphous construction of Al Qaeda, at times, is partly due to the fact that different groups may claim or deny cooperation as it suits their aims. The principle aim for these Middle East groups and nations as a whole is to drive away the United States as a military force, because the U.S. alone is capable of thwarting major actions by an Anti-Israeli alliance.
Also important to note is the rising strength and significance of the nations of India and Pakistan, whose border feuds have never been resolved, but who have both indisputably developed nuclear arms. At this time, U.S. military presence in the Middle East helps to restrain hostility between the two nations, but if the Americans appear to retreat, this will destabilize the peninsula.
Looking back at Venezuela again, it should be noted that a number of nations hope to establish a Hegemony in South America, and Brazil looks much more like a target than an aggressor.
And then there is Europe, a continent which has never been able to resolve its differences, but always found new arguments on those occasions where they settled old ones. The American lead kept them out of trouble for nearly a century, but the diminishing American presence has not led the Europeans to think and act more responsibly, but even less so.
Just a few things to think about.
First, we must understand that despite their losses in past conflicts, it is incorrect to presume that Fascism and Communism have ceased to operate on the world stage. Iran’s present regime, for instance, operates in a framework of political and military objectives which are essentially Fascist in character. Also, despite the fall of Communism as a feasible economic theory, the Communist style of political regime remains in control of a number of countries, especially for cult of personality regimes like the Chavez dictatorship in Venezuela.
Speaking of Communists, it is all too easy to forget that the nation with the world’s largest population remains Communist in doctrine and legal construction. It should also be noted that China’s military growth is proceeding at a rate faster than any other nation on earth, for reasons never yet stated by Beijing’s Politburo. That military growth includes rocket delivery of military satellites (and a Satellite Interception Platform), a new generation of electric-motor submarines, and development of aircraft carriers. This can mean only an intention to project power, to establish military control in support of a Hegemony.
We should also consider that there are a number of groups and nations which have cooperated on several levels towards common goals. The amorphous construction of Al Qaeda, at times, is partly due to the fact that different groups may claim or deny cooperation as it suits their aims. The principle aim for these Middle East groups and nations as a whole is to drive away the United States as a military force, because the U.S. alone is capable of thwarting major actions by an Anti-Israeli alliance.
Also important to note is the rising strength and significance of the nations of India and Pakistan, whose border feuds have never been resolved, but who have both indisputably developed nuclear arms. At this time, U.S. military presence in the Middle East helps to restrain hostility between the two nations, but if the Americans appear to retreat, this will destabilize the peninsula.
Looking back at Venezuela again, it should be noted that a number of nations hope to establish a Hegemony in South America, and Brazil looks much more like a target than an aggressor.
And then there is Europe, a continent which has never been able to resolve its differences, but always found new arguments on those occasions where they settled old ones. The American lead kept them out of trouble for nearly a century, but the diminishing American presence has not led the Europeans to think and act more responsibly, but even less so.
Just a few things to think about.
MLP Round 020
Game Scores:
Washington at Taft, 36-30 Washington
Ford at Madison, 34-25 Ford
McKinley at Arthur, 35-26 McKinley
GW Bush at Cleveland, 36-31 GW Bush
GH Bush at T Roosevelt, 33-28 TR
Lincoln at Harding, 33-27 Lincoln
Reagan at Carter, 33-26 Reagan
Polk at J Adams, 31-30 J Adams
Kennedy at Hayes, 32-28 JFK
Taylor at Jefferson, 34-29 Jefferson
L Johnson at Fillmore, 31-22 Fillmore
Grant at Truman, 32-28 Truman
Eisenhower at A Johnson, 28-19 Ike
B Harrison at Jackson, 28-24 Jackson
W Harrison at Monroe, 31-30 W Harrison
F Roosevelt at Garfield, 30-29 Garfield
Buchanan at Nixon, 30-21 Nixon
Hoover at Tyler, 28-25 Tyler
Clinton at JQ Adams, 27-23 JQA
Wilson at Pierce, 24-18 Wilson
Coolidge at Van Buren 24-23 Coolidge
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 1 President is winless.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twenty Rounds
.1. Washington (19-1) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
.2. Ford (19-1) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.3. McKinley (19-1) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.4. GW Bush (19-1) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.5. Teddy Roosevelt (19-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.6. Lincoln (18-2) beats A Johnson, Taft, Truman, Harding
.7. Reagan (18-2) beats Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.8. Jefferson (16-4) beats W Harr, Taylor, loses to Reagan, TR
.9. Kennedy (15-5) beats Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Taylor
.10. Fillmore (15-5) beats Harding, Nixon, LBJ, loses to JFK
.11. J Adams (14-6) beats Hoover, B Harr, Polk, loses to McKinley
.12. Truman (14-6) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.13. Polk (14-6) beats Garfield, FDR, loses to McKinley, J Adams
.14. Eisenhower (12-8) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.15. Jackson (12-8) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush
.16. Taylor (13-7) beats JFK, LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson
.17. Cleveland (12-8) beats Clinton, Cool, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.18. Monroe (12-8) loses to Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.19. Garfield (10-10) beats Carter, Madison, FDR, loses to Polk
.20. Nixon (10-10) beats W Harr, Taylor, Buchanan, loses to Fillmore
.21. FDR (11-9) beats B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk, Garfield
.22. Tyler (9-11) beats Coolidge, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.23. Quincy Adams (8-12) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Wash, Ike
.24. Arthur (9-11) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.25. Taft (9-11) beats Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.26. Hayes (9-11) beats Harding, loses to Taft, Truman, JFK
.27. W Harrison (7-13) beats LBJ, Monroe, loses to Nixon, Jefferson
.28. Madison (8-12) beats Carter, loses to GH Bush, Garfield, Ford
.29. GH Bush (7-13) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.30. Wilson (5-15) beats Pierce, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.31. Grant (6-14) Beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.32. Carter (6-14) loses to Garfield, Madison, Ford, Reagan
.33. Harding (5-15) beats Buchanan, loses to Fillmore, Hayes, Lincoln
.34. Coolidge (3-17) beats Van Bur, loses to Tyler, Cleveland, Pierce
.35. Clinton (4-16) beats Pierce, loses to Cleveland, Van Buren, JQA
.36. Buchanan (4-16) loses to Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.37. LBJ (3-17) loses to TR, W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore
.38. Van Buren (2-18) beats Clinton, loses to Wash, Ike, Coolidge
.39. Hoover (2-18) loses to J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.40. B Harrison (2-18) loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur, Jackson
.41. Pierce (1-19) beats Coolidge, loses to Ike, Clinton, Wilson
.42. A Johnson (0-20) loses to Lincoln, Grant, Washington, Ike
Washington at Taft, 36-30 Washington
Ford at Madison, 34-25 Ford
McKinley at Arthur, 35-26 McKinley
GW Bush at Cleveland, 36-31 GW Bush
GH Bush at T Roosevelt, 33-28 TR
Lincoln at Harding, 33-27 Lincoln
Reagan at Carter, 33-26 Reagan
Polk at J Adams, 31-30 J Adams
Kennedy at Hayes, 32-28 JFK
Taylor at Jefferson, 34-29 Jefferson
L Johnson at Fillmore, 31-22 Fillmore
Grant at Truman, 32-28 Truman
Eisenhower at A Johnson, 28-19 Ike
B Harrison at Jackson, 28-24 Jackson
W Harrison at Monroe, 31-30 W Harrison
F Roosevelt at Garfield, 30-29 Garfield
Buchanan at Nixon, 30-21 Nixon
Hoover at Tyler, 28-25 Tyler
Clinton at JQ Adams, 27-23 JQA
Wilson at Pierce, 24-18 Wilson
Coolidge at Van Buren 24-23 Coolidge
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 1 President is winless.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twenty Rounds
.1. Washington (19-1) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
.2. Ford (19-1) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.3. McKinley (19-1) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.4. GW Bush (19-1) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.5. Teddy Roosevelt (19-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.6. Lincoln (18-2) beats A Johnson, Taft, Truman, Harding
.7. Reagan (18-2) beats Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.8. Jefferson (16-4) beats W Harr, Taylor, loses to Reagan, TR
.9. Kennedy (15-5) beats Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Taylor
.10. Fillmore (15-5) beats Harding, Nixon, LBJ, loses to JFK
.11. J Adams (14-6) beats Hoover, B Harr, Polk, loses to McKinley
.12. Truman (14-6) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.13. Polk (14-6) beats Garfield, FDR, loses to McKinley, J Adams
.14. Eisenhower (12-8) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.15. Jackson (12-8) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush
.16. Taylor (13-7) beats JFK, LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson
.17. Cleveland (12-8) beats Clinton, Cool, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.18. Monroe (12-8) loses to Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.19. Garfield (10-10) beats Carter, Madison, FDR, loses to Polk
.20. Nixon (10-10) beats W Harr, Taylor, Buchanan, loses to Fillmore
.21. FDR (11-9) beats B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk, Garfield
.22. Tyler (9-11) beats Coolidge, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.23. Quincy Adams (8-12) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Wash, Ike
.24. Arthur (9-11) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.25. Taft (9-11) beats Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.26. Hayes (9-11) beats Harding, loses to Taft, Truman, JFK
.27. W Harrison (7-13) beats LBJ, Monroe, loses to Nixon, Jefferson
.28. Madison (8-12) beats Carter, loses to GH Bush, Garfield, Ford
.29. GH Bush (7-13) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.30. Wilson (5-15) beats Pierce, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.31. Grant (6-14) Beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.32. Carter (6-14) loses to Garfield, Madison, Ford, Reagan
.33. Harding (5-15) beats Buchanan, loses to Fillmore, Hayes, Lincoln
.34. Coolidge (3-17) beats Van Bur, loses to Tyler, Cleveland, Pierce
.35. Clinton (4-16) beats Pierce, loses to Cleveland, Van Buren, JQA
.36. Buchanan (4-16) loses to Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.37. LBJ (3-17) loses to TR, W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore
.38. Van Buren (2-18) beats Clinton, loses to Wash, Ike, Coolidge
.39. Hoover (2-18) loses to J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.40. B Harrison (2-18) loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur, Jackson
.41. Pierce (1-19) beats Coolidge, loses to Ike, Clinton, Wilson
.42. A Johnson (0-20) loses to Lincoln, Grant, Washington, Ike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
