Two Packs of Yammering Canardists, Heavy on the Ego

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pweh.

Why The Left Fears Petraeus

I do not know if there is really a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy or not, despite the constant admonitions from people connected with the Clintons. But this past week has certainly verified that the Left has such a machine. The New York Times breaks the law and its own policies in order to run a full-page character assassination on General Petraeus by a group known for its strong and increasing influence in Democrat affairs, and no leading Democrat is willing to denounce it for the vicious smear it so obviously is. Indeed, Schumer goes so far as to claim we must thank terrorist warlords for the decrease in violence, and Hillary Clinton states that it would take a “willing suspension of disbelief” (a phrase commonly associated with fiction) to accept the sworn testimony of a career military officer and combat veteran, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in his role. A certain duck colleague of Bugs Bunny will need a new stage name, because the Left has laid a firm claim on “Daffy”!

But aside from pointing out the obvious, what is the deal with the Left’s hysteria? Although it’s well known that they have a psychotic reaction to the President and anything he says or does, the Left usually lets the President speak before they blow up. Shoot, they hate Rove but don’t go out and campaign in the media against him, so there’s a special emotion going on in the hard little rocks which serve as hearts in the Left, where General David Petraeus is concerned.

That emotion is fear. Raw, powerful, growing fear.

Recognizing this fact, we would reasonably next wonder why the Left fears Petraeus so much. And I have an idea.

California.

It all comes back to the 2008 elections. The Democrats have done very well for themselves over the years in politics. They are the acknowledged masters in most local and Congressional races, especially in major cities and the large states. But they have never been able to lock up the White House. Oh sure, they win every so often, but not as often as they expect, and never in the kind of numbers they think should happen. And rather than examine the problem critically, with an eye to root causality and a logical response, the Left takes a very emotional perspective, and demands that the world act on the orders from Never-Never-Land. Or DNC headquarters, which tries hard to play the role of Tinkerbell. While Bill Clinton won 2 times in 1992 and 96, he never got a majority. Only two of the last seven Presidents have been Democrats. And the Donks have not out and out stomped the GOP candidate since 1964. So the White House race is always dicey for the Left, and this time is no exception.

So what’s the deal with California? History, for one. Cali is worth 55 Electoral Votes, more than 20 percent of the tally needed to be elected President. So that’s big right there. But what’s even more important is that the GOP does not need California, but the Democrats do. Dubya won twice without California, but in the last 9 times that the Democrats lost California, they only won the White House twice.

Also, California is on the move. W. took 44.4% of the Cali vote in 2004, 41.7% in 2000, Dole took 38.2% in 1996, and Bush I took 32.6% in 1992. See the trend?

Sure, it would be a real surprise if California got into play for 2008 but if it does, the Democrats are done. Period. End of story. So the Donks cannot afford to lose Cali. The problem is, Cali is not all Democrat, not by a long shot, and the trend is to close the gap.

There’s a lot of military people from California. Catch a Padres game on an afternoon in San Diego, and you will see a sea of Navy in the bleachers. The Army still has the Presidio in San Francisco, and the Marines come from all over Cali. And besides the bases, there’s the military families. The Democrats played a gamble, when they decided to oppose the War. They figured the GOP owned the pro-war side, so they could try to neutralize it by flashing patriotism of their own or else they could try to play against the war, and from 2002 on that was their game. They’re one-for-three in elections on that strategy. But that election gave them both Houses of Congress and they felt strong for 2008, so they doubled-down on the Anti-War effort, with all the major Donk candidates shoving each other to prove themselves the biggest opponent to the war. When General Petraeus came up for a vote, it seemed a sure thing that extra troops would mean higher casualties, more to use against President Bush, and when General Petraeus came back to report, he’d be admitting disaster and thus serve the Democrats well.

The reality was a bit different. The surge is working, so well in fact that the Democrats are desperately worried that it looks like we are winning. And winning not only would take away the ‘War-Monger’ card to play on the public All those Democrats who were on the record as saying we could not win, well they’d look weak and spineless at best. And every single Democrat running for the Oval Office could and would be painted as a defeatist. There was but one, desperate hope. A foul, nasty, dirty little trick of a hope, but the Democrats devoured eagerly and made it their identity. Just as they had misrepresented the war and its conduct for years, so now the Democrats turned on the leading figure in that war, General Petraeus. Never mind that they themselves had unanimously approved the man. Never mind that the troops found him eminently credible and a fit leader. Never mind that on his watch, entire regions of Iraq had become manageable and countless lives saved, military and civilian both. It was far more expedient to the Democrats to sacrifice the last vestige of their honor, than to accept the consequences of their earlier deceit and treachery. Having subtly demeaned and maligned the troops already in many separate decisions, it was just one more step to take that step into public derision of the military.

While things have been difficult for the GOP in recent times, it must be remembered that to keep the White House, they only need to hold the states they have. And winning in Iraq improves those odds for the Republican candidate and hurts the Democrat. But states with heavy military populations, are truly wild cards, and if the Democrats’ war-hate gamble fails, states like California could flip and make the race a laugher for the Republican. If Petraeus is believed by the average American, the Democrat will not be supported in the election. So they fear him, because the consequences of their decision are more ominous for their personal egos than they ever imagined possible.

MorOn.org

You know what? They’re right, it IS easy and fun to play on names. Of course, it makes more sense when you are targeting a malicious group of screaming malcontents whose ability to comprehend an issue rarely extends beyond echoing the screeds of their propagandists, rather than falsely defaming the honor and mission of a man who has spent his life in honorable service defending our country and all its citizens, and a man impeccably capable of explaining the scope and requirements of the present war in Iraq.

My 9/11 Article

You will notice that I did not post on 9/11. That was intentional. I spent the day watching documentaries on the victims, real people, good people, who did not one thing to deserve being murdered, to deserve the callous attacks by a few evil men who – quite wrongly – believed that they had the right to kill people they knew were innocent for the sake of their ‘cause’. It truly, deeply, disgusts me that anyone could or would pretend that 9/11 was the victims’ fault.

I am not a military expert, but I have read history and the works of some wise and intelligent men, so I know the basics. There is, to put it simply, a faction in the Middle East which exists to destabilize the region, in the same way that the Nazis’ violence in the 1930s destabilized Germany. It’s exactly the same fascist vision, carried out the same way, accompanied by the same lies for the same tactical reasons. The fanatical beliefs are in much the same vein, so it hardly surprises me to see how much of their ferocity is based on hatred of the Jewish people, a desire for genocide even as they lie about their motives. “Islam means peace” is in the same key as “we only want living room”, and no mistake about it.

This is not an attack on Islam, though. There are good Muslims, just as many Germans were good, kind people. But the threat is real, vicious and determined, and just as there were people who played up the Nazis’ propaganda, so too the Fascist Muslims have their own puppets. Famed pilot Charles Lindbergh supported and defended the Nazis, and so did Joe Kennedy, named Ambassador to England. In historical fact, there was a time in the 1930s when it seemed the Nazi Party even had a future in American politics. But the Democrats and Republicans of that day had enough backbone to stand for their principles and not kowtow to Der Reich, the way that modern politicians bend over backward to avoid looking offensive to groups whose minions chant ‘Death to America’ in ritualistic practice.

We are at war. Like all wars, this one has its detractors and its supporters, and people who make their political futures on the war as if they were the only, or at least the first, to have opposed the war or fought in its worst battles. Like all wars, there are times when things go as planned, and others where the plan seems to have failed. But those who fight and those who lead them are our very best, men of valor and ingenuity and integrity. It is beyond disgusting that anyone in America would make their fortunes by defaming our troops and our leaders.

We are the good guys. These days there many people who make their way through Life insulting and deriding America. Many of these people, oddly enough, are Americans by birth if – obviously – something else by choice. But when one looks around and honestly judges nations by what they do rather than by their slogans and chants, it is America – always – which does the most to help everyone else. We are the nation always called to defend the territory of free nations. We are the nation which sends more charity, most of it private, to other nations. By the way, did anyone notice what the world did when 9/11 happened? When Katrina hit? We got messages of solidarity, but nothing more. Compare that to our response to the 2004 Tsunami, to countless requests for military protection, to the continual outpouring of charity to South America, Asia, the Middle East, and everywhere there is need. Look at the agreements signed by nations, and then consider how well they keep their word. Imagine a world, where China, Russia, and Germany kept their promises to any degree like what the United States does. No, we’re not perfect but we’re hardly the hypocrites one finds in Europe. And it’s even more a contrast to consider the world as run by the United Nations.

So, our best go off to help everyone else, to heal them and defend them and die for them, and for that the people with the backbone to do the heavy lifting are villainized by people not worthy to clean their toilets. I guess we each remember 9/11 as we are able, some focusing on the good people, the victims and those who avenge them, while others look in the mirror and retch, and try to transfer that contempt to everyone they know, rather than admit their wrongs and try raise their level of consideration above those vermin they now so admire.

But the good shall prevail. I count on it.

Reich Shows Why Hillary Clinton Must Not Be President

The September 10 issue of BusinessWeek includes an interview with Robert Reich, the Labor Secretary under President Clinton. Economics Editor Peter Coy interviewed the Berkeley Professor for Public Policy, and posted excerpts in a one-page article on page 86, in the IdeasOutsideShot section. However inadvertently, Dr. Reich’s comments provide evidence that another Clinton Administration would be bad for America.

Coy admiringly compared Reich to Milton Friedman in places, but the comparison does not hold up to inspection. Reich admits that “Capitalism has proven itself the most successful system ever designed for allocating resources to where they’re most needed”. But Reich is unable to let go of the Socialist ideals he used to guide his decisions under Bill Clinton, and they are obvious in two key claims made by Reich in the interview. First, Reich bemoans executive compensation, claming “CEO pay diverges mammothly from the pay of average workers”. Reich also claims that job security is far too unstable in modern times, concluding that government needs to “police the border between capitalism and democracy”. The statements, as I see them, are not only dishonest on their face, but are wholly incompatible with American ideals.

Let’s start with that gripe about CEO pay. The first question to ask, is whether that claim is really true. We sure hear it a lot, how the average CEO makes a ton of money while the regular guy gets shafted. To find out, I checked with the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on how many CEOs there are, and what they are paid. Using the Standard Occupational Codes (SOC), I found that there are 299,520 people coded as 11-1011, or “Chief Executives”. Sounds like a lot, until you remember that there are 300 million Americans, and the size of these businesses vary quite a bit. Anyway, those CEOs average an annual salary of $144,600, nice but not especially awesome, given the hours, responsibility, and personal risk they assume with the job. The BLS also says the Mean Annual salary for all occupations is $39,190, so the average CEO pulls down about 3.7 times what the average worker makes. And since the average CEO is either the outright owner of his company, or proved his worth to get the job through a combination of education and experience and personal ability, the range is not – despite the hype – quite as Dr. Reich claims.

So where do Reich and a lot of other screaming meanies get the idea that CEOs are, in general, overpaid? It comes down to a very selective list; compensation for CEOs of the S&P’s top 500 public corporations is around $10.2 million a year as of 2006, which does work out to around 260 times what the average worker makes. Of course, the same factors of experience and proven results make it hard to condemn these leaders with any validity, so what Liberals like Reich do, is to smear the whole on no basis other than blaming them for success, skewing the overall picture by focusing only on the few who make great deals of money, and highlighting the very few whose dishonesty makes headlines. It should be obvious to the thinking reader, that if fraud and corruption were common among the country’s business leaders, the nation would have had many more severe economic crises than we have seen. In actual fact, most CEOs work hard, are notably honest in terms of their job performance, and demonstrate a serious desire to see the employees of their company succeed. The attacks on CEOs, in essence, proves to be no more than envy, someone who does not make a lot of money resenting someone who does, even though there is no cause for that resentment. Millions of people who make ordinary incomes spend a lot of money to see rich athletes play professional sports, yet they do not complain that these athletes make so much more money than they do. They pay outrageous prices for tickets to see celebrities in concert and shows, and do not whine about those celebrities making huge amounts of money for what they do. Is it really reasonable to make J.K. Rowling a billionaire, then complain because the CEO whose company provides safe and nutritious food to your kids makes a few million? Is it reasonable to call A-Rod a great guy just for playing baseball, but despise the CEO of the company which improves automobiles for greater safety and comfort as greedy, especially when the guy actually making something which improves your life makes less money than the jock whose actions do nothing to improve your life? Don’t misunderstand, I do not resent authors or athletes or even celebrities, but if it’s OK for them to make millions, then morally it’s more OK for people who lead companies which keep us healthy and happy with their products to be rewarded by their directors. It is, to say it plainly, a futile and Socialist ideal to blame CEOs simply because they happen to succeed in their pay.

The complaint about job security might at first seem more reasonable; what could be more reasonable than to expect your employer to respect and protect your job as well as you do your company? The reality, however, is that you have the right to quit your job at any time and take a better position, and the company has that same opportunity. The way you keep your job, is to convince your employer that it hurts them to let you leave, and it is to their advantage to keep you happy. If you are doing your job in such a way that you look replaceable, it seems to me that you have the problem, not the employer. I’m not saying that all employers are wise or reasonable, but given the unemployment rate basically since Carter was President, a competent person should be able to find work. To bring up job security in an era where Unemployment has consistently tracked below 5% nationally, seems to me to do no better than play on fear.

Envy and fear; that is the essence of Dr. Reich’s opinion on Capitalism. He seems honestly unable to recognize the ideals and ethics by which the overwhelming majority of American businesses operate, or even to understand that all corporations, every one, are made up by their employees and leaders, real people with real visions and the determination to succeed through hard work, inspiration, and optimistic courage. As for his statement regarding a “border” between Capitalism and Democracy, it shows to me yet another obstacle in Reich’s mind, that he believes the two concepts should be rivals or even opponents. At least Reich, however unconsciously, admits a connection between Democracy and Capitalism; the more pervasive a form of Socialism is practiced, the less it has to do with Democracy at all, as evidenced by the unhappy histories of the Iron Curtain countries.

So what does this have to do with the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Perhaps these quotes from the Lady Senator will illuminate her present economic theories:

“We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (06/29/04)

“(We) can’t just let business go on as usual, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” (06/04/07)

“We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground” (06/04/07)

“I certainly think the free-market has failed” (06/04/07)


Robert Reich is not just an old party hack from the days of Bubba, but a valid barometer for the Clinton style of policy. And another Clinton Administration would simply be poison for America and her citizens.

Fate, Folly, Fred

OK, Mr. Thompson, so you have finally decided you’re in the race. Late and a sloppy entry, but you have time to make up for that, just to long as you don’t screw up again. And let’s be honest, you have screwed up. I have this sneaking suspicion that when you decided to declare your candidacy on the ‘Tonight Show’, it was because someone in Marketing thought that was some slick ‘outside the box’ thinking. In fact, sir, it was plain stupid. You not only set yourself up as a shallow celebrity seeking applause without facing any of the hard questions which real candidates address, you demonstrated poor sense of timing and delivery – you managed to suggest that the debate you skipped was not worth your attention, and by extension you implied the same thing about the voters who watched that debate.

Let’s get right to the brass, Mr. Thompson. Yes, you have assets, but maybe you don’t see them as they really are. People are sick and tired of preening and posturing mandarins and narcissists, and so it’s refreshing to see someone who promises candor and a strong backbone. Your problem, sir, is that you do not hold the monopoly on those qualities, so that your advantage is in transit. To coin certain phrases, use it or lose it and the clock is running. But we must also address your liabilities. I liked you as a Senator, all things considered, but it does not speak well of your sense of commitment that you jumped ship so quickly – a reasonable voter must ask what happens if you became President, then got tired of the job? Surely you know that the office of President is a four- or eight-year colonoscopy in plain and constant view of the public, under even the best of circumstances? So how do we know you are committed, sir? The question needs a better answer than how you feel just now.

You also have a problem in your rivals for the nomination. A mayor of New York, renowned for common sense and personal courage; a charismatic governor with talent for executive work; a bonafide hero from the Vietnam War who, tactless and boorish though he is at times, stands by what he believes regardless of the climate; and a plain-speaking southern governor whose quiet tact and reason are compelling. With all due respect for your intelligence and charisma, Mr. Thompson, you need to do a much better job of explaining why your resume is the superior one to these proven leaders. America needs a GOP nominee who not only can but will whip the pretender from the Left, and lead the nation’s defense against her enemies and towards her commonwealth. A few quips get you looked at, sir, but now is the time for you to show your mettle and your stamina. You have a lot of work to do, and it’s past time to begin, sir.

Once Again The Difference

Whoopi Goldberg’s racist comments yesterday on ‘The View’ have earned their share of rebuke, (ht WSBTV)
but it is also a helpful illustration of the dilemma faced by Goldberg and her fellow thuggists. It is patently false to claim that dog-fighting is culturally accepted by the majority of people in any part of the United States, and for Ms. Goldberg to offer such a weak argument warns me that there is something far closer to home which she wants to avoid. Goldberg wants to blame a group of her choosing, rather than face up to a serious problem with her lifestyle culture. The ‘Thug Life’ is a stupid, self-destructive one, which offers no real advantages while denying young men and women their very identities in the coming world. A culture which glamorizes violence, selective hatred and racism, vulgarity and promiscuity, the ‘Thug Life’ also cheats young people of opportunity by cutting off access to advancement in business and social communities; while advocates claim small success in niche outlets based on the expression of the cult, the world in general rejects the hatred practiced by this cult and those who express it.

It is normal in human behavior to go through a stage of rebellion, but maturity requires a person to accept reality and address conditions constructively. The way is difficult, but success rewards the individual with stable friendships and marriages, success in financial endeavors and professional growth, and in the additional tool of conflict resolution and negotiation. The ‘Thug Life’ culture, however, which appears to me to be an extension of the ‘I’m a Victim’ culture made prevalent by extensive Welfare and other government programs which subsidize poverty and helplessness, actively discourages reaching out to different cultural groups, and ridicules individuals who seek to better themselves through hard work and education. The sum effect of the ‘Thug Life’ is to invite despair and failure in place of hope and joy, and so the end of Mr. Vick’s career is representative of the culture he embraced, rather than an outlier.

I hasten to emphasize that the ‘Thug Life’ is not restricted to a single demographic group. As we have seen in even recent history, women as well as men engage in it, Whites and Hispanics as well as Blacks, and in all geographic areas. It is not a ‘Southern’ problem, because the behavior is also prevalent in the North and on both coasts. It takes on different aspects according to the selected hatred of choice by the groups which practice it, so that the Crips have much in common with the Aryan Nation, more than either group would like to admit. It is pervasive, in the same way that a particularly vicious variant of a virus strikes the whole country in a wave, and it is just as deadly. I do not find it a coincidence, that the culture which thinks nothing of killing dogs in fights for amusement, loses so many young people to drugs, alcohol, and violence as well. At the risk of sounding like a revival preacher, it also occurs to me that this culture is depressingly void of a spiritual dimension. It is, therefore, no wonder that a culture which mocks God cannot find Him when they finally realize their need for Him.

The Commission

There is a web site which, ostensibly, exists to allow for respectful debate and the thoughtful exchange of experiences and opinions between believers of different faiths and philosophies. In reality, sadly, the owners of this site have allowed their personal bias to lean more and more heavily against traditional Christianity, and to a lesser extent against Judaism and Islam. This is a loss for the ideal of free discussion, but in context hardly surprising. If one believes the Bible, as I do, there is abundant evidence that those people who have a direct relationship with God live on lines completely alien to those who do not have such a relationship with God. What makes the matter all the more strange, is that once a person is aligned with God, they realize that we are made and meant to have contact with the Father, the more the better. And so human existence is a series of paradoxes; believers strongly desire to grow closer to God, and our natural lives get in the way, especially our selfish nature, while non-believers make their way with God’s help, unaware and therefore ungrateful for all He does, even though in many cases He does more for them than for those who seek Him in earnest.

The Commission of Christ is a mystery, and I do not pretend to understand it fully, except that I know that I know nothing, or near enough to nothing that it is hubris to think I am measurably further along the Way than anyone else I could think of for comparison. But I know this – the Commission is a personal covenant, one which carries great and sobering responsibility, yet also holds promises of breath-taking generosity by God, including the absolute assurance that we shall be neither lost nor forgotten. I understand that those who have not accepted the Way generally regard that assurance as a fable, which seems to me a coping mechanism; how anyone could or would refuse such a gift is baffling beyond my comprehension, except that they cannot imagine such Grace and Hope may exist in this world. That, or they imagine that humans can somehow become what we always dreamed, the collective evidence of History and human nature ignored.

I have been wrestling with the question of just why it matters that we should spread Christianity, if God makes Himself available to anyone who will seek Him. And it occurs to me that the heart of Christ’s teaching is indeed the heart; the doctrines, all the words and rituals, though they matter in certain ways and places, are secondary, far miniscule, next to the simple dedication of one’s heart – and there is no better service than to live in imitation and honor of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For some, this is stating the obvious. For others, sheer madness or myth. For me, it’s just remembering who I am, and Whose.

Gut Sense of the White House Race

OK, it's Saturday and I'm not in a numbers-type analysis mood. I just finished two assignments for school, and the formal part of the brain is sitting idle for a bit, and watching the casual Saturday brain do its thing.

Maybe the best thing about being a 2-bit blogger as I am, is that I am free to post what I want, just as I see fit. No one ever asks me anymore when I am going to post on this or that, which would bother me if I did not remember that I am not some wise old sage who has all the answers. Don't get me wrong, when I post I do want to make sense and try to make my point. I really appreciate you good people who read my writing, and I have not forgotten my promise to work on 'Reditio' and to follow up on a few projects of some importance. But at least I am free to sit back on a Saturday and just pontificate, without even the need for a staff and cassock for the look.

So what about these guys running for President? I said long ago we'd miss W when he's gone, and looking at what we have to choose from, I'd say the thoughtful observer misses him already. Sorry Jeb, that doesn't mean there's a groundswell for you to run, just so we can get another Bush in the White House, although I admit it would almost be worth it just to see Hillary blow the gasket when she hears the words "Bush" and "Candidate" and "President" in the same sentence.

I wonder if we could get Laura to run? That way, there'd be someone with real intelligence and class in the race, and the media would implode trying to find any kind of dirt on her, but Laura doesn't seem interested in spending much time and attention with criminals and con men, so she would hardly be interested in working with Congress, as the President must do as a major part of the job.

I know how the world works, so I have a sense on what is going on, but really - is there anyone who understands American History, who gets his or her hopes for the future of our great Constitutional Republic raised by the prospect of President Hillary, or McCain or Obama or Fred? After the way he ditched his buddy Senator Craig, even Mitt Romney seems shallow and craven to me, and that makes the rest of the field look even more dirty. Honestly, I do not believe there is a candidate of note in either party right now, who could look our Founding Fathers square in the eye and say they will do them proud if they gain the office. Reagan could have done that, because he did the job right. Bubba Clinton could have done that, because he had that much Chutzpah. And Dubya could have done that, because for all his mistakes he did his level best, something rare enough in D.C.

I'd like to be pleasantly surprised by our next President. But as I said, I'm a realist.

A Disgusting Lack of Principle

I am disgusted. Not in the way Mitt Romney is, but rather with people like Romney, who put image ahead of principle in certain times and places. We all screw up, but someone accused of public misconduct gets lonely real quick; one’s closest friends and supporters become curiously absent when they are needed most.

I don’t know, really, what happened in that airport bathroom. Neither do you, by the way. What I have read, however, sounds like a very, very weak case against Senator Craig, and if someone I knew and respected had been arrested on such a charge and said he did not do it, my first reaction would be public defense of the man, not a political excuse to trash him. The fact that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct suggests to me that the police realized that they could not make the charges stick as originally advertised. Yes, Craig plead guilty. But not to what we are hearing in the media, not to the strangely enthusiastic chorus of a political lynch mob.

The Democrats, hypocrites by rule, are going after Craig simply because he is Republican. Clinton was groping women for years while President, but they defended him. Barney Franks’ boyfriend once ran a brothel out of his Congressional office, but only two Democrats even wanted to censure Franks, and none wanted him canned. I could go on and on along those lines, but it’s common knowledge that Democrats will never turn on one of their own, while even a rumor against a Republican moves them to self-righteous fury.

The Republicans, however, might be even worse. From what I have read, Tom Delay committed no crime, but when the wolves went after him, his party and colleagues deserted him and he quit, as much in disgust as exhaustion. Alberto Gonzalez was completely in the right with regard to the U.S. Attorney firings, but no Republican had the guts to say so, and so he quit as well. It seems that courage is in short supply among the GOP, especially the kind which directs a man to stand for his allies and victims of witch-hunts.

Some Thoughts About Why The Democrats Nominate Horrible Presidential Candidates

Yes it’s me again, and as usual I have been looking at some numbers and finding some interesting messages. It’s no surprise that I said, and still do, that the GOP candidate will win the White House in 2008. The extended discussion of why that will be so, cannot be explained in a short setting, but one thing which pushes the results that way, is the incredibly poor candidates presented by the Democrats every so often. And so that is where I begin.

I was looking at the party delegates to each convention in 2004, and I noticed something odd. The key to the Presidential election, as everyone knows, is how the 538 electoral votes play out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, so I expected the proportion of delegates to be some multiple of that 538. Say, 1076, 1614, 2152, you get the idea. But the GOP sat 2,509 delegates in 2004 (4.66 times 538) and the Democrats sat 3,061 delegates (5.69 times 538). Odd.

I dug in a bit deeper, and found a very useful site which displayed how the numbers were driven. The Democrats’ seating may be seen at thegreenpapers.com here, and the Republicans’ seating is here.

I drew out each state and noted their delegates to the convention and the state’s Electoral Vote value, and from that was able to determine how many delegates per EV the state held. I expected a fairly consistent ratio, but it does not work out that way. The sum results of my examination were that the Democrats and Republicans target states they feel are important, and ignore the Electoral College ratios in preference to their own bias when selecting delegates, which is crucial to the decision of who gets the party nod for the White House race. What else is interesting about that is that the Democrats and Republicans choose different strategies for picking their lead candidates. This can be best illustrated by looking at where each party placed the most delegates per electoral vote.

The Democrats’ heaviest delegate-per-EV allocations were as follows:

1. New York, 6.61 delegates per EV
2. Michigan, 6.53 delegate per EV
3. Illinois, 6.48 delegates per EV
4t. Wisconsin, 6.30 delegates per EV
4t. Minnesota, 6.30 delegates per EV
6. Pennsylvania, 6.24 delegates per EV
7. New Jersey, 6.20 delegates per EV
8. Connecticut, 6.14 delegates per EV
9. Ohio, 6.10 delegates per EV
10. Maryland, 6.00 delegates per EV

The reader may note that only Ohio could be considered a ‘red’ state, and so the strategy was to consolidate Democrat support in mostly hard-blue states.


The Republicans’ heaviest delegate-per-EV allocations were as follows:

1. Alaska, 9.67 delegates per EV
2t. Montana, 9.33 delegates per EV
2t. Wyoming, 9.33 delegates per EV
4. South Dakota, 9.00 delegates per EV
5. North Dakota, 8.67 delegates per EV
6. Idaho, 8.00 delegates per EV
7. New Hampshire, 8.00 delegates per EV
8. Utah, 7.20 delegates per EV
9. Nebraska, 7.00 delegates per EV
10. Nevada, 6.60 delegates per EV

The GOP also focused on its core territory, but New Hampshire and Nevada were a lot more in play.

So, the Democrats consolidated Blue States, and the Republicans consolidated Red States. This is not as balanced as it might first appear, but before I go there, let’s look at the top states by delegate tallies, beginning with the Democrats:

1. California – 322 delegates, 55 EV
2. New York – 205 delegates, 31 EV
3. Texas – 170 delegates, 34 EV
4. Florida – 154 delegates, 27 EV
5. Illinois – 136 delegates, 21 EV
6. Pennsylvania – 131 delegates, 21 EV
7. Ohio – 122 delegates, 20 EV
8. Michigan – 111 delegates, 17 EV
9. New Jersey – 93 delegates, 15 EV
10. Massachusetts – 81 delegates, 12 EV

So the top ten D states by delegate count carry 1,525 delegates (49.8% of total) and represent 253 Electoral Votes (47.0% of total). Note also that New York gets nudged ahead of Texas, Illinois ahead of Pennsylvania, and the South is largely ignored except for Florida. This should give you an idea of the theme for the Democrats’ thinking.

OK, now look at the Republicans’ top states by delegate count:

1. California – 173 delegates, 55 EV
2. Texas – 138 delegates, 34 EV
3. Florida – 112 delegates, 27 EV
4. New York – 102 delegates, 31 EV
5. Ohio – 91 delegates, 20 EV
6. Pennsylvania – 75 delegates, 21 EV
7. Illinois – 73 delegates, 21 EV
8. Georgia – 69 delegates, 15 EV
9. North Carolina – 67 delegates, 15 EV
10. Virginia – 64 delegates, 13 EV

So the top ten R states by delegate count carry 964 delegates (38.4% of total) and represent 252 Electoral Votes (46.8% of total). Note also that Florida is moved ahead of New York, and the South gets a lot of respect. Note especially that the top-to-bottom disparity between states is much smaller in the Republican delegate counts than in the Democrats’ ranks; the Democrats expect a few states to decide their race, while the Republicans want to see how candidates stand in the nation as a whole. Looking at the results for the last half-century of actual election results, the significance of these strategies means that the Republicans have been weaker in some of the anchor states like New York and California, but generally win more states than the Democrats, and represent a broader appeal in geographic and demographic terms. The Democrats attack weak points and leverage urban centers, while the Republicans attempt to present a generalist for their candidate. This could explain why Barry Goldwater did so poorly in 1964, and Bob Dole in 1996; neither appealed to the nation in general. The Democrats, however, have lately been unwilling to present a generalist for their candidate, instead presenting candidates with limited and tactical approaches, like John Kerry’s OCD fixation on Vietnam as a theme for 2004, and Al Gore’s manic behavior during 2000, as he demonstrated little patience for the ordinary Americans, especially in rural settings.

Applying these findings to the 2008 race, some interesting points become clear. First, for the Democrats, any candidate who wishes to do well must win the urban areas and build name recognition on the coasts first; Bill Clinton’s Southern Strategy of 1992 would be undercut by the Democrats’ convention allocation. This means that any last-minute contender for the Democrats must enter the race before the end of 2007, and it appears that the race will indeed come down to Hillary and Obama. Hillary Clinton is the closest candidate to a generalist on the Democrat side, but she may well be weakened by statements made to seal some of the important Northern states for the nomination. In short, grasping Michigan could cost Hillary the Southwest, and guaranteeing Pennsylvania could lock her completely out of the South. In the case of Obama, he must not depend on Illinois alone, but must demonstrate the ability to challenge in New York. Even if he cannot win the Gotham primary, Obama cannot be seen by Democrats as being out of his league in that state.

No candidate besides Clinton or Obama presently has the standing in an anchor state to challenge either of the leaders.

In the Republican field, an intriguing contest has begun. Fred Thompson has clearly stumbled, and unless he recovers quickly he will be out of contention before he even announces he is running, which is now much less likely than anyone was suggesting even a week ago. A word of advice, Fred – just because the other Fred was able to be a hit by being fat, rude, and witty once a week, does not mean you can do the same; the “Flintstones” after all, was just a cartoon and ended its run before even your first appearance on “Law & Order”.

I mentioned Fred, because political corpses litter the road on the right. I know no one wants to be the bearer of bad news, but someone needs to tell John McCain some straight talk – he’s not Presidential, and never will be. And it’s time to put away this idea of a late entry stunning field. I have always been a supporter of a Condi run, especially the mental image of Dr. Rice in a debate against anyone the Left could put behind a podium. But Dr. Rice has made it clear she is not entering the race, and after Condi the level of potential Presidents who have not already announced drops precipitously. So, in essence we are left with Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and Duncan “someone has to bring up the rear” Hunter. No one else, and I emphasize this, is in anything close to contention. Looking at the delegate allotment, I’d have to say Rudy looks the strongest by any definition. Things could change, and frankly I think more of Huckaby than anyone else of the top four, but Giuliani has been surprisingly steady up to now.

But no matter who the nominees are, the available information tells me that, almost as if it were a tradition, the Democrats will put their foot wrong during next spring, and that may make all the difference.

Executive Compensation – How Do You Figure It?

In one of my classes, the subject of how much high-level executives are paid came up, and the professor asked if we could come up with an equation to define how an executive should be paid. I came up with the following equation:

XC = (N){(Xf [(3Sc(Fp-Pp)) + (0.5(T + (V*Ex)]))2R} – (CP*CE)

where

XC = Executive Compensation

Xf = Standard executive compensation for the industry stated as a multiplier

Sc = Scale of company

T = Duration of contract, including non-competition restrictions

V = Visibility

Ex = Expectations

R = Risk

and

CP = Contractual Penalties

CE = Critical Events (such as arrests, SEC investigations, bankruptcies, and the like)

N = a negating factor voiding the contract (N would equal either 0 or 1)

This equation is based on the assumption that I am attempting to describe executive compensation as it should be developed.

My initial equation was based on the fact that the modern executive compensation generally starts with the base salary, and adds bonuses and perks to it. In the exercise here, to leave the compensation one which attracts a good executive and which rewards superior performance, but also to deter dishonest, lazy or simply incompetent executives, we must add penalties for certain events. In my initial equation, I dumped those into CP or contract penalties, but given the habit of some committees to take short cuts, maybe that is too simple. So I would add the variable CE or Critical Events, such as Bankruptcies, SEC investigations, as a multiplier of CP. A CEO who likes to have expensive lunches is one thing, but one who hires spies to find out what board members are doing (as happened at HP) is of another degree entirely. I would also take a page from the professional sports leagues, and throw in a negation clause, I will call it N, value 0 or 1, which means that under certain circumstances the executive gets nothing at all, although I have to say it would be hard to get someone to sign such a deal, unless the conditions were very carefully defined and unlikely except for egregious conduct (did I mention Michael Vick?).

Anyone else like to play this game?

The Gospel According to the Family Dog

I read C.S. Lewis’ book, “The Problem of Pain” again this week, and noticed something I had merely skimmed before; the relationship between humans and animals. Professor Lewis, a far wiser man than I, declined to state specifically, whether or not he believed animals had souls, except to say that insofar as an animal has a soul, it is because of his master. That is, Dr. Lewis said that if a sheepdog can be said to be “good”, it is because the shepherd is good. Frankly, I have known some fine animals, whose masters did not seem to measure up quite so well, and in saying that I think the dogs in my life whom I have been privileged to be charged with as master, were in many ways my moral superiors. The idea, however, that animals adapt their behavior and character to humans, and perhaps even their way of thinking and identity, is to me a very good idea and worth consideration. And for this article, I take the notion a step further.

Lewis discussed the belief in some Christian circles, that the Fall of Man also led to the Fall of the Animals, a sort of explanation for why animals in the wild are cruel and vicious, killers by nature. Lewis observed that the belief was not Scriptural but simply a speculation, and in the light of the knowledge that animals almost certain preceded Man, offered his own notion – that Man was originally sent to restore the animals to their rightful relationship to God, and this is why Adam was given dominion; it was a reason for his creation. And it is not difficult to agree, that a properly responsible master cares for his pets and animals in such a way as to increase their health, comfort, and in many cases lengthen their life as far as possible. Dogs, for example, which used to live only 5 or 6 years out in the wild may expect to live an average of 13 to 15 years (depending on breed) if they are properly trained and kept by a decent owner. There are domestic dogs which have lived in excess of twenty years, something unthinkable for a wild animal. Lewis also noted that humans are able to convince animals to co-exist, from pets of different species in the same house to farms which train animals to cooperate and work together under the farmer’s command.

Animals and human relationships with them, therefore, work effectively as a kind of analogy for our own relationship with God. Not only because we humans cannot comprehend God’s wisdom and planning, so that we see things as wrong or foolish which are actually quite wise and necessary, but also the key point – we are in a condition which, however one considers it, is beyond our power to correct. Just as we accept that we need people with specialized knowledge and experience for some very serious conditions and situations, so all the more we should understand that we are in a spiritual condition which we cannot correct ourselves. Jesus once counseled a man to tear off whatever part of him caused him to sin; what if that part is our mind or heart?

So, just as our animals depend on us, and they are compelled to accept things we do that they could not possibly understand, so too we must accept that we need God, and that His will is good and loving even though we do not know why it must be so.

So, how does this translate to my dog teaching me the Gospel? Well, the thing about Christianity that gets a lot of flak, is the complaint ‘why does it have to be Christ? Can’t I learn what I need from Ghandi, or MLK, or the Buddha, or some other human teacher or great leader? And the answer must be carefully made. You see, what all great moral leaders teach is the same love and compassion; the mind, heart, and soul can reach towards God from anyone, and many do. The distinction of the Christian comes down to the ‘how’ – How can evil be undone? How can an imperfect person hope to become perfect? How can a lost dream be reclaimed? How can we, finite creatures, hope for an eternal joy? In the end, the only answer which stands up to hard and close examination, is that God paid that price for us, doing what we could not, sending His own Son as the perfect man, to live as we should, to teach what must be known, and in dying to accomplish what was beyond any other man. All we have to do is believe, trust, and obey. Dang, but that’s hard.

And that brings me to my dog. My dog is not a renowned philosopher or theologian, and no one would ever mistake her for one. But she loves without restraint or hesitation, she believes in me, trusts me in everything, and pays close attention to my commands. I’m learning a lot from my dog, which in this measure is an emissary of the Lord.

That’s how I see it, anyway.

Miles Levin

Most of you probably never heard of this brave and articulate young man. He was just 18, and passed away from alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, a rare cancer that basically rips apart nerve tissue. He died Sunday.

What really sets Miles apart, however, is his decision on how to deal with his cancer. For the last two years, Miles blogged about his cancer, shared hope and offered consolation to thousands of readers, many who themselves were fighting Cancer or caring for loved ones in the fight.

CNN noted that Miles wrote of life and all that matters in it:

"He got sick and then better and then sick again and still managed to navigate the milestones of adolescence: keeping up in school, a first serious girlfriend, college applications, prom. He became a little famous and laughed at himself. He wrote about the value of life and somehow acquired an almost supernatural ability to appreciate small pleasures such as a sunny day and the presence of a loving family."

I thank God for such a man, and his generosity and courage of spirit. I just thought I should mention him, and suggest that we could all do with sharing hope and strength, however we may.

Yoda Was Wrong

I used to love the “Star Wars” movies. The whole ‘Jedi Knight’ concept seemed very cool, very noble. And so I especially enjoyed the part of the movies, where Luke Skywalker learned from the great master Yoda, how to become a Jedi Knight. In a crucial scene, Luke complains that he is trying hard, to which Yoda replies

“Do … or do not. There is no try.”

Sounds profound, doesn’t it, a zen kind of wisdom that suggests a deep knowledge of people and reality. But in fact, it’s a crock, a superficial statement that sounds smooth and thoughtful, but really does not ring true when you think about it. Kind of like a Barack Obama speech, come to that.

You see, to try is to make the effort. Nothing, and I mean nothing, happens unless that effort is made. And trying often means failing. Remember learning how to walk, or try to teach it to your kids? Lots of falling down, and getting back up – to try again, over and over again until you can do it. Life is all about trying.

If you do not try, there is no doing. Don’t listen to the puppet.

The Mechanics of Money

I was considering a Bible verse the other day, where Jesus warned His disciples that the poor would always be with them. As one of those people who considers Scripture to be trustworthy, I found that statement just a bit odd. For thousands of years, people have been trying to eliminate poverty, and with good reason; moral people hate to see folks suffer, and poverty is a most cruel burden on people. Also, even those people who do not carry much love for their fellow man, understand that people enduring poverty are not able to contribute effectively to society and the commonwealth. There has been, therefore, a prolonged significant effort to raise the living conditions in almost every country. Even tyrants have come to understand that starvation and deprivation drive the people to drastic measures. Yet, for all the many ideas and programs, people continue to live in poverty in every nation on the globe. The poor, indeed, are always with us.

Modern Economics, however, is finally able to show some of why this happens. There is a minimum level for survival, consisting of a certain degree of food, shelter, clothing, hygiene, and medical care. We can call this a subsistence level. The significance of poverty is that the poverty level determined in most modern calculations is at a higher standard of living than mere subsistence. This is not due to some soft-hearted notion that luxury is a need, but rather that there is a point of means, below which a person cannot maintain provision for the future. That is, a single catastrophic event such as an accident, serious illness or natural disaster could kill this person, not to the degree of probability that a normal person would die, but at a much greater mechanism of probability. Hurricane Katrina is a good example of this effect; Hurricanes do not arrive without warning, and those people who had the means to evacuate in their own vehicles and to property in safer areas did so on their own power; the people who did not evacuate were largely those people who did not understand the threat sufficiently to plan for protection (intellectual poverty), or they lacked the means to evacuate, and had no choice but to try to ride out the storm where they were. The significance of this phenomenon, is that poverty exists as a combination of monetary limits, environmental factors, personal psychology and education. Throughout History, people who have climbed from poverty to the Middle Class and above, have done so by changing two of those planes of existence; education and psychology. Monetary limits turn out to be minor in the long-term scheme; people can and do overcome hard financial times if they have the education and the confidence, work ethic, and determination, but those who do not have those elements do not rise out of poverty, even when substantial financial support is provided, as LBJ’s “War on Poverty” proved.

For many people, the environmental factors turn out to be the wild card. Many children are optimistic and confident, and it appears that their success is simply a matter of effort and time, yet this turns out not to be true all of the time. On this point both Democrats and Republicans have the same goal, though widely different strategies for improving the opportunities for poor individuals to succeed financially. The question seems in many cases to turn on the peer groups chosen; far too many young people pursue convenience, luxury, and entertainment rather than investment and savings, and as a result they become dependent on their job for a prolonged portion of their lives, in many cases never building the foundation to start their own company or enjoy substantial returns on investments. Personal financial success in the United States often comes down to a simple equation based on a balance of savings and sound investments.

Lawyer Arrogance, Snape-Sniping, and Some Thoughts on Graduate School

WARNING – This post contains spoilers for the Harry Potter final book, so if you have not read “Deathly Hallows” and want to be surprised, this is your warning.

A number of you kind readers have asked how the lawyers at the other site where I initially created the story have responded to my question about intellectual property and posting a story for public reading. The short answer is, they have decided not to respond at all, and on reflection it makes sense, though it displays poor moral standards. You see, if the lawyers respond that they would allow me to post the story on their site while considering it my property, they would be as much as admitting that they do not have a right to ideas and creations which they had no substantive part in making, and anyone else might demand the same by equal right. The argument that anything published on their site is their property, is as flawed and arrogant as it would be for the train line which President Lincoln took on his way to Gettysburg to claim that they held the rights to his Gettysburg Address, simply because he wrote the speech while on their train. It is as silly as if CBS claimed the right to those speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, which they happened to broadcast. It’s a greedy lie and they know it, but they can hardly admit that, especially in writing. On the other hand, to publicly demand rights to something they cannot possibly prove they created or even contributed to in any real sense, is to expose themselves to well-deserved ridicule. So, what to do if you are an immoral shyster for a greedy corporation? You simply ignore anything not compelled by a court, and that’s what they did here. So, the advice from Hatman was salient and very useful, and to anyone considering expressing themselves in a way which may be personally significant, they should be wary of the greed of the host site.

I decided a few days ago, that the theme of ‘Stolen Thunder’ is ill-suited to fiction as a regular feature, and that the unfolding series story “Reditio Soteri” was not something which seemed to fit. I have decided to continue the story at an alternate site, ‘Laughing at Nemesis’, which will be linked on the ST sidebar. A complete story from 2004, “Loco Fundy Judgment Day”, is there, and “Reditio Soteri” will be published there as well. Later, probably in 2008, a third story should join the first two.

On now to Harry Potter. There is a popular site for Potter fans, which debates almost every conceivable angle to the story, and now that the last volume of the series has been published, it might be expected that the debates would subside. But people grow to love their arguments, and one of the most popular passions on that site is Snape-hating; that is, finding reasons and excuses to say nasty things about the character Severus Snape, the erstwhile Professor of Potions at Hogwarts School of Magic for Wizards and Witches. That’s understandable to a point, but the final book made clear, beyond reasonable dispute, that Severus Snape had valid reasons for his temperament, and more to the point was the bravest warrior for the cause of Good and Hope, and he was unquestionably a hero, if not the most predictable or warm-fuzzy type in the series. The Snape haters, however, have had a hard time letting go of their malice against the guy, and what’s worse, a number of the moderators have shown clear bias in the debates. One thread which discussed the relationship between Severus Snape and Lily Evans, a crucial foundation for most of the salient events of the series, was locked down when the people supporting Snape began to gain the upper hand against the lies and distortions of the Snape haters. The moderator locking down the thread claimed it was to cool down emotions, although the only posts edited or deleted were by Snape supporters, and some of what was deleted was in no way out of bounds. Snape haters, on the other hand, were allowed to post false and defamatory statements, which the moderators chose to leave posted, proving their bias and bigotry. Hey, it’s a private site, they can do what they want, but it is very intriguing to see adults act in such a dishonest and malicious manner, simply because they cannot stand to be proven wrong. I will leave that be for here, but it does occur to me to discuss some of the complexities of Severus Snape.

The interesting thing about Severus Snape is not that he is uniformly good or bad, but he is a mixture of different qualities, some are reasonable and desirable, while others are still quite nasty. His verbal bullying of students, for instance. Even with what we know now, there is really no cause for his behavior, beyond the rather lame idea that Severus had to act in character for Lord Voldemort. Severus clearly disliked children in general, he had little patience or admiration for hs colleagues at Hogwarts, and he never liked Harry Potter or his friends. That said, it is obvious that by the beginning of Harry’s years at Hogwarts, Severus had been through a lot of hardship, and he was operating under certain restrictions and conditions which could not be publicly stated to Harry. It gets trickier, when we consider the childhood and development of Severus. We have a limited number of witnesses’ statements to use, generally the untrustworthy claims made by Sirius Black, whom we know for certain intended to murder Severus Snape while at Hogwarts (which puts paid to those haughty claims that Gryffindors are always better than Slytherins, but since Wormtail was also a Gryffindor, we should have seen that coming), and Remus Lupin, also a Marauder and close friend to James Potter, now proven to have been a boor and a bully while he was at Hogwarts. I stop here to note that James and Sirius prove out that the Wizarding world, just like the one we know, is quite willing to give a pass to the handsome and the charming and the rich, but they come down hard on those who lack superficial beauty and money. Severus was handicapped from the beginning. We also have the pensieve scenes, which while brief and limited, also give us insight into the conditions and range of options available to young Severus.

Let’s start with the family home. Severus’ mother and father seem to be in constant argument, and it strongly appears that Severus was neglected. Some of that was simple poverty, but it also seems that Severus was never much loved by his parents, a critical loss which Severus felt throughout his life. We also see why he was immediately attracted to Lily from the start; any kind of regard would be amplified, and it seems that Severus shoved any emotion to extremes, you were either his best friend or worst enemy. This also explains, assuming Sirius was honest in the claim, why Severus knew so many curses and hexes by the time he got to Hogwarts – with no one protecting him, he found himself under constant attack. The condition of perpetual imminent threat is a hallmark of Severus Snape.

I also find it necessary to take Lily Evans down from her pedestal. Throughout the story, everyone seemed to love Lily Evans/Potter. Harry, of course, loved his mother, and we are told, over and over again, how smart and vivacious and beautiful she was. And in the last book we see that Severus was utterly devoted to her, so that he spent nearly the last two decades of his life trying to be worthy of her. But the Lily we discover behind the make-up is not nearly so worthy of Severus. Over and over again, in the relationship between Severus and Lily we find that she was born and raised with all kinds of advantages, which she never shared with Severus or indeed seemed to notice. We see, over and over again, Severus Snape reaching out to Lily Evans and caring for her feelings and emotions, but Lily never does as much. At their first meeting, it is Severus who steps forward and speaks, it is Severus who comforts Lily when her sister Petunia ridicules her, it is Severus on the train who cheers Lily up and reminds her about Hogwarts. Although both of the two certainly endured ridicule for their friendship from students in their respective Houses, Lily is the one who complains about it to Severus, who never even observes that he too is mocked for the friendship (unless you want to believe that a Gryffindor would be less considerate than a Slytherin). When they have a disagreement, it is always Severus who steps forward, apologizes, and tries to make amends. Lily has friends she never introduces to Severus, she is aware that James Potter attacks Severus but she never directly acts on Severus’ behalf – a careful examination of the ‘Snape’s Worst Memory’ not only shows that Lily Evans never even attempts to stop the hex attacks on Severus, nor that she smiles slightly at her “best friend” being attacked for no provocation at all, but also we see that Lily never even says directly that Severus is a friend – she could have ended the attack in an instant simply by telling the Marauders that they were attacking a friend of hers. That she chose not to do so, displays a poor character in that respect. Lily Evans was happy to take, to receive enjoyable things and love those people who suited her to know. Lily Evans knew only selfish love, never putting herself to any trouble except for people she already liked, and she was quite willing to throw away her best friend, rather than take the time to consider his needs and give him better options and hope. Only two possibilities exist; either Lily Evans never bothered to think much about why Severus Snape made the kinds of choices he did, or she never considered him worth the effort. Lazy or cruel, two moral destinations that do not speak well of the woman.

This does not excuse Severus’ own flaws and wrongs, to be sure. But on the whole, he was much ill-used and given little on which to build his life; surely he was starved of love and joy. That he could create a Patronus, speaks of a great heart, though one the world never knew.

Now on to Graduate School. I have my Summer Grades at last, but I have held off writing much about them, because just writing for the letters on the screen seems foolish. I did manage to get A’s for all three classes this semester, so the GPA is up to 3.83, though whether that is an accurate reflection or a lucky quirk after 2 semesters remains to be seen. Now that I have handled six classes, however, a pattern is becoming evident. There are differences in classes depending on the material, the professor’s style, and the time available, but in all six classes there was a Mid-term examination, a major case or paper to work on, and a certain degree of group work and board discussion. I want to emphasize that last part for online studies; nothing is more significant about taking classes online, than the two legs that you must be independently disciplined, and that your contribution to the class will be known down to the second every word of your participation. The online class will track your every comment and effort, and so slackers will do poorly in the online environment. Also, while some professors tend to back-load the grades, so that a lot of your work will receive its grade late in the semester, I have noticed that in every class where I held a strong average through the Mid-term exam grade, the rest of the semester was similarly strong, while early problems in a class make the rest of the semester more stressful and accomplishing the ‘A’ more difficult. Improvement is certainly possible; in five out of my six classes so far, my results for the second half of the semester were better than for the first half, but psychologically it is easier to work from a position of strength, and the plain fact is that a good start makes a good finish more likely to happen. So, if you want to do well in a class, get in early with readings and assignments, work the early assignments as if they will make the difference between an A and a B in the class, because it very well might be so.

August 8 Update - Kill the Fiction

Well, writing fiction doesn't seem to be what is wanted here, so I will be writing off-line. Sorry for the two or three people who were enjoying Reditio Soteri.

Grades for the summer are finally all in. Three A's so I now have a 3.83 GPA, but I won't blog on that until I can present the results in a form which might be useful to someone.

I plan to blog on the trends from U.S. Presidential elections in the next few days, as well as some observations on Economics. Please feel free to mention anything you'd like to read about. One of the things about only having a few regular readers, is that I really do care about what you want.

Government Economics – Why Lowering Taxes Means More Revenue

The August 5 debate of Republican candidates for the office of President of the United States had a number of interesting points, but one of the most intriguing came when a reporter tried to imply to Rudy Giuliani that raising taxes was the only way to provide sufficient revenues for things like bridge repair and infrastructure maintenance. Giuliani called the question a “knee-jerk liberal response”, and explained that the key is providing revenue, not pursuing a desire tp punish success.

As an example, let’s look at fiscal 2006. The U.S. Treasury Department reports that 2.4 Trillion dollars were received for fiscal year 2006, an 11.7% increase from fiscal 2005 and a 35.9% increase from fiscal 2003. The gist of that data proves that despite lowering federal income taxes, more money has been coming in. This is a peculiar effect, but it’s been shown before, under Kennedy and Reagan before Dubya tried it again. It seems reasonable to me, to examine the function of this effect.

Let’s start with that 2.4 Trillion dollars. That’s $2,400,000,000,000. Lot of zeroes, hmm? The U.S. population just kicked over 300 million this year, so that works out to $8,000 in federal taxes for every man, woman, and child in the United States. I didn’t pay $8K in federal taxes last year, how about you? And in fact, when we consider that the actual pool of taxpayers is much smaller than the 300 million people living here, round about 132.8 million people according to the IRS, so that means our average is really about eighteen thousand dollars per taxpayer. And no, I don’ think many taxpayers actually put out that much, either. So what’s going on? It may seem at first that the high-wage taxpayers are really getting socked, and they are, but really, when it’s all sorted out, what happens at the federal level is similar to what happens at the state, county, and city levels; it’s business where a lot of that money is made, and in short, if a business is healthy and successful, it pays more in taxes. With me so far?

OK, so it’s in government’s interest for businesses in general to succeed. So how does that work, exactly? It begins with the fact that taxes can only be applied to money which is used. That is, mechanisms like Sales Tax and Excise Taxes and so on, can only be applied when money is used in commerce. Employment taxes and withholding can only be done when employees are actually hired and paid. And since so many taxes are proportional to the level of commerce, the more business a company does, the more taxes it pays.

So what does raising or lowering taxes have to do with increasing revenues? Well, where do you think the money that comes into a business is originated? It comes from the consumers, of course. If the consumers feel times are tight and uncertain, of course they will not be interested in spending money, it’s just too risky, which attitude naturally slows down the economy. And when the economy slows down, so does tax revenue. Now, when on the other hand taxes are lowered, this provides taxpayers with more money, and a lot of that gets spent, which revs up the economy … and in spite of the lower rate, increases the amount of money which comes in to the government. It’s the same reason why stores put products on sale; the lower price is made up and more by the jump in volume sales if the manager has planned it right. Basic economics, really.

The 2004 US Presidential Election – Another Look at the Numbers

I have been reading up on US Presidential elections recently – or, to be accurate, I have been trying to find articles on recent elections, but have been disappointed with the poor quality of analysis done by scholars. What has happened, not only during the Bush Administration, but the Clinton Administration before it, is that researchers have discovered that “peer review” can be a very lenient thing if your peers share the same biases you carry yourself. And no, that’s not to say that the researchers lean one direction politically, nearly so much as it seems they are always looking for hot new trends, and therefore little testing of assumptions is made. The 2004 election, therefore, has seen little serious examination, and given the present position I would argue that leaves room for a more open and productive discussion. I would be arrogant indeed if I proposed that I could write the definitive examination of that election, so I will simply attempt to add to the discussion, and for that I have simply been looking at the hardest of numbers, popular vote results. Strange as it may seem, even the most experienced of election analysts may forget that the election of the President of the United States is not one election, but is dependant on the results of 51 separate state and district elections. Consequently, while it may be more difficult to evaluate and even more so to explain, the separate results from each state and the District of Columbia must be evaluated in distinction.

One of the most obvious things from the 2004 election, was that both the Republican and Democrat candidates enjoyed more votes than their nominees enjoyed in 2000; turnout was obviously superior for the national totals. But a more interesting result occurs, when the percentage of the popular vote each candidate collected is considered for each state. Of the 51 contests, the Democrats’ candidate improved his share of the popular vote in 21 states, maintained the same proportion in 11 others, and was lower in the remaining 19 states. The Republicans’ nominee improved his share in 43 states, maintained the same proportion in 6 others, and was lower in just 2 states. This illustrates both the frustration in the Democrats’ camp, as well as their myopia; both parties were able to improve their share of the popular vote in 2004 from 2000 in 13 states, because the increased focus on partisanship reduced interest in minor-party candidates. Therefore, improvement in the share of the popular vote in a state did not necessarily mean winning more states. The Democrats failed to understand this at the time of the election.

The results of the 2006 mid-term elections show the same effect in another light; the increased partisanship meant that if one major party suffered a loss of confidence in voter support, the other major party would benefit by that margin, which is what happened. The Democrats remained focused, and voters who supported Democrats in 2004 did so again in 2006. However, demoralized Republicans failed to support GOP incumbents to the degree they did in 2004, and this was the decisive margin in many contests. The demonstrated lesson of heightened party polarity is that driving voters to the major parties by reason of a “crucial” decision, requires the same or greater effort to get out the vote in subsequent elections, and at some point the effort must invariably fail, generally at the cost of the party in control. Whether this effect is only general or will also apply to the White House contest in 2008, must be considered according to the needs of that event. The purpose of this article is to show that this effect exists; subsequent analysis may or may not display evidence for trends or prediction.