Education 2005 :Retool or Replace

Earlier this year, I began blogging, partly as a way to educate people about the numbers and messages from this year's election. I was appalled in 2000 by the sheer ignorance of basic political and civic truths by many voters, especially in urban areas. This, many Republican strategists believe, is not only the reason why Democrats remain in power in urban regions, but also why reason and evidence have no effect in changing those minds. Democrats, naturally, claim the opposite; that it is Republican myths and distortions which have tricked rural and suburban voters. The lesson is twofold - that education and logic should be able to clear up the confusion, even if planned, but also that the people affected by the political games are unwilling to be educated.

Thinking this through, I recalled how many of my high school and college acquaintances held no interest in retaining their education. They wanted to know enough to pass the class, get the degree, get the job, but they held no desire to expand on that knowledge, to develop a first-class mind or exercise a healthy curiosity. A startlingly high number of people simply have no desire to learn. I have a strong suspicion that the majority of directors in charge of the Old Media networks fall into this category. That class of people, however, has found their nemesis; an unnamed class of thinkers, now resolved to action and empowered by the coalescence of their numbers into discrete groups and identities. Bloggers are just a spin-off of that new demographic, the deliberate thinker.

Education also comes into question when I think about careers. In an earlier post, I noted that companies are beginning to rethink the intellectual requirements of their positions, especially supervisory posts. After all, it should occur to any competent businessman, that an experienced and accomplished employee with years of solid work and the respect of his peers, even without a college degree, may a better choice for a responsible position than someone straight out of school, no matter the degree or grades. Of course, should companies continue to insist on that piece of paper, the rise of online education plans and business-centered universities is making it possible for the degree to be had later, if not sooner. This also opens the possibility that when someone discovers their original education is not going to advance their career, they can keep working and claim the credentials they need.

This brings us around to the need for defining the strategy for this century's educational system. There are reasonable debates about how to teach kids to read and write, but there can be no serious doubt that the system in place is inadequate to direct young citizens towards excellence. Maybe we can demand a disclaimer be posted on the walls of schools, especially high schools:

Warning - The education presented by this school and district may not be sufficient to prepare the individual for the Real World, and is unlikely to prepare the individual for satisfactory employment, advancement, or successive endeavors.

Now, I'm not trashing the whole system. But I sure want to find a way to encourage that sense of curiosity so common in children, yet so dead among many adults. I want teachers to share a sense of responsibility to police their own ranks, to screen out political correctness and theoretical speculation that misleads students to count revisionism as superior to established success. In other words, teachers need to be conscious of their students' futures when they leave school, a factor too long ignored in many districts.

In my title, I suggested that the educational system needs to be retooled or replaced. That dire-sounding recommendation is actually in progress right now. The fight over school vouchers may become a minor front in the war. That's because of the increasing enrollments in private schools, the families who move to school districts with higher standards ... and home schooling. Home schooling is a real phenomenon. While it's true that computers and online associations make the task easier and more of a group effort, it's amazing to see the explosion in home schooling programs, with impressive results overall. I'd say the NEA is on notice. I can't help wondering if they have bothered to read it.

Intelligence Reform

We have the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.S. Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the US Special Operations Command, the Office of Naval Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, The Naval Security Group Command, the National Intelligence Council, the Air Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Safety, the State Department Counterterrorism Office, the Energy Department's Office of Intelligence, the Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence Support, and now a Director of National Intelligence.

So, who's in charge?

The Gangs Are All Here

They say all good things must come to an end, and in my case that includes my initial enthusiasm for author Kyle Mills. I really enjoyed Smoke Screen, and was looking forward to see if his other work was as good. In short, no it is not. I’m plugging my way through Sphere of Influence, but the thick and clumsy stereotypes he throws out, show me that he simply did not do his homework, and the results are disappointing at best.

Mills made three glaring errors early in the book, and they are serious enough that the sense of verisimilitude is lost, frankly blown to pieces. On the one hand, Mils immediately begins by making the CIA bad guys, soulless mercenaries out for money and personal power at all cost. They are also cast as stupid thugs who enjoy violence and do not think through the implications of their actions, morally or pragmatically. Also, Mills casts his hero as a man with a degree in History, yet has done no apparent work to endow his character with even a rudimentary understanding of the major historical events and cultural imperatives of the nations involved in his story. And finally, Mills relies on a decades-obsolete image of Organized Crime dominated by the Sicilian/Italian Mafia, displaying an incredible (literally unbelievable) series of actions and events which would never occur in a real-world 21st-Century environment. All in all, the book is the work which reminds me of a high school ‘D’ student, hoping no one will pay attention to his lack of scholarship and slipshod characterization. I almost feel like re-writing his book myself, so I can read the plot without cringing at so many amateurish errors.

The book prompted me, however, to consider the real nature of crime we know today. Things are both better and worse, as we all know from experience. Violent crime in America is diminishing, and a better feeling of security is present in most people’s lives, for a number of reasons. But looking deeper, I still see a grave threat to our nation, and in many First-World countries, driven by a local menace: Organized Crime, specifically gangs.

In Mill’s laughably simplistic book, the Mafia remains the biggest threat to the citizens of the United States, so far as crime is concerned. And to Mills, ‘Mafia’ means a fat Italian in a silk suit, “The Godfather” without any depth of character. The Sicilian/Italian “Cosa Nostra” remains alive, true, but hardly what it used to be, for three main reasons. First, the FBI has made it a major goal to slice and dice LCN whenever and wherever they can, and all the prosecutions are taking their toll. Second, many LCN bosses began to drive their money into “legitimate” businesses when they could, so that a generation later, the crime going on is less blue-collar (such as hijacking trucks, robbery, drugs, etc.) and more white-collar, especially graft in connection with political officials. And third, rivals have turned on LCN to seize turf and plum opportunities for themselves, and these rivals have grabbed my attention.

Essentially, Organized Crime (OC) in the US has evolved into 4 variant types:

1. “Classic” OC, involving drugs, prostitution, gambling, the usual vices
2. “New Age” OC, including copyright and patent theft, technology robbery and Internet fraud
3. Tiered OC operations, with particular crimes contracted to other OC gangs to hinder investigation and prosecution, leading to highly specialized groups not easily connected to their patrons
4. Youth recruiting movements in 1st-World nations

Major OC gangs and organizations have learned from FBI prosecutions to hide their character and details even from their own memberships, and are made up of major organizations of a variety of sub-groups, including Italian Organized Crime, Eurasian Organized Crime , Asian/African Organized Crime, Central American Gangs, the Russian 'Mafiya', Japanese Yakuza, Jamaican 'Kingfish', Chinese Triads (also here) , Motorcycle Gangs, and American “Street” Gangs.

The good news is, we are winning the war on drugs, prostitution, gambling, and illegal alien smuggling, albeit slowly. The bad news is, the enemy is growing smarter and more diversified, and has targeted new prey.

The US government has not been idle, however. A number of community initiatives are underway (here, here, here, and here, for example), and a number of agencies work hard to provide resources to cross-reference international criminal activity (for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), keyed to the types of activity known to be performed by OC or of likely interest to OC. The threat, however, is real and enduring.

Some focus only an Al Qaeda and similar groups, but the war against Terrorism includes the War on Organized Crime.

Toby Keith - MERCENARY HYPOCRITE

Specialist David Mahlenbrock was killed December 3rd by an IED in Kirkuk, Iraq. The milblog Black Five was first with the information,and a simple but important last request from Specialist Mahlenbrock.

Mahlenbrock was a fan of Country musician Toby Keith, and wanted Keith’s song, "American Soldier" played at his funeral. A nationwide effort is underway to have that song played simultaneously at 1 PM EST today by every station willing to participate. Soldier’s Angels, a non-profit group which works to support U.S. military personnel, asked Toby Keith to personally sing the song when Mahlenbrock is laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.

Toby Keith fumbled the ball, to put it bluntly. His manager released a terse statement, saying that Keith "has set aside this time to spend with his family." Black Five confirms that Keith has no intention of showing up at the funeral. Seems that he doesn’t feel obliged to meet Mahlenbrock’s 19-year-old widow or 11-month-old daughter. Apparently, there’s no royalties to be had, by showing up to honor a fallen warrior.

Smash and Blackfive say Keith has "offered to cut a new CD of his song, dedicated to Specialist Mahlenbrock’s memory."

We’ll see. Toby Keith has not bothered to mention this promise on his website, and in my opinion, Toby has shown his true color: GREEN. Toby had no trouble playing up his love for the troops, when he could get a good song, a nice video, and sell out concerts, but when it comes down to meeting a debt of honor, ol’ Toby is just not cut out to meet the same standards as the men he pretends to support.

I’d say Toby has dropped to the level of the Dixie Chicks, but at least they were honest about their loyalties. Toby Keith is a mercenary loser, putting his personal comfort over a soldier’s family. For Christmas, somebody ought to get Keith a dictionary, and highlight the page with the word "honor".

Presidential Election Contest Winner - GOLD MEDAL

Hundreds entered the contest,

and twenty-three predictors landed within one percent of the actual results,

but only one walked away with the [mythical] trophy; Robear, or in real life, Robert Kornegay.

Robert has his own blog, called Mission Mind , which Robert sub-titles "The Conservative Nexus of Faith and Reason". I have linked to it from Stolen Thunder, and recommend it for at least a courtesy visit, and more if you like reading up on religion and politics.

Robert tells me an ancestor of his was the youngest singer of the Declaration of Independence (once again affirming the link between bloggers and revolutionary change), and further, Robert tells us “I am as old as Israel (the current version, that is)”.

Robert describes himself as a “political junkie whose first vote was for Nixon in 1968”. Robert is married, a father, and a grandfather, who has also served as a Christian missionary to Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Robert was a General Contractor “who built his last home first (and we still own it)”, and is presently working on his Masters in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. In what remaining spare time he has, Robert loves sailing, and also restores sailboats.

Robert credits his political acumen to excellent political analysis, and for some reason believes our site and articles help in that education. I strongly recommend a visit, soon, to Robert's site.

Congratulations, Robear, and to all the winners of this year’s contest!

Channeling Scrooge

'Tis the season, as they say, so 'Incoming!" says I.

I notice my color turning a Grinch-like green as I react to the incessant demands for money, money, money. This is the season where the hard-sell for all things impractical, whether obscenely pricey jewelry, designer clothing which serves no effective purpose but to highlight the inadequacies of any normal person, while deepening the pockets of french designers, or over-priced toys my little one will delight in for a few days, while I take months to pay the bills.

I have begun to hate the television, as well. Try explaining to a 4-year-old about the Victoria's Secret harlot, er, slut, er, "model" on the TV, wearing a santa hat and a thong and not much more. Try explaining why the kids who scream "gimme!" in a commercial are not good children, even though the commercial clearly shows them getting everything they demand. Try explaining why, with all the peppermint and chocolate candies flying around, you still expect them to eat their vegetables. Arrgh.

I also notice this is when the volume on charity demands gets cranked up. Groups I've never heard from except at Yuletide (if ever before), strongly imply that anyone who wants to consider themselves human, must fork over moolah in exelcious.

And then there's tipping, the peculiar art of paying additional fees and bonuses for something you have already paid for once. Newsweek put out a guide for this extortion, er, remuneration, suggesting anywhere from $10 to "one or two weeks' pay" for all those things we already pay for. I did a quick summary in my head, and if I followed their advice, I'd blow a month's pay on these bonuses, before I spent even a penny on my own family and friends.

The word flows unbidden to my lips, and escapes without restraint: "Humbug!"

Not that I am unfeeling to my fellow man. Far from that, actually. But the notion that I am somehow obliged to spend money I do not have, solely to please people I barely know, by which action I should deprive my family, strikes me as unacceptable in the extreme. With year-end deadlines, harassed shoppers making driving home a combat exercise, and no bonus (as usual), I could skip the season and find myself greatly relieved.

And there it is; the bonus. Some years back, it seems almost everyone got a Christmas/Holiday/Year-End Bonus, and the extra money made it possible to do some nice things for the family and friends. But enter the auditors. That is, I think I know what happened.

If a company gives out a Year-End bonus, they will necessarily do so before the 4th-Quarter and Annual numbers for a company are known, which adds a known but controllable cost to an unknown balance entering into the period. Someone began to sell companies on the notion of presenting the annual bonus at the end of the succeeding period, the 1st Quarter of the next year. This allowed a company to know how much of a bonus they could afford, but it added an additional advantage. As more and more companies deferred the bonus for 3 or 4 months, they gained the interest from holding the money that much longer. Also, any financial difficulty became a reason to reduce or deny bonuses, especially since the bonus was separated from the moral expectation that the company do the right thing. Legally, the company had never been required to give bonuses, and as more and more companies joined the deferment of bonuses, it became easier and easier to delay, reduce, or deny bonuses at all. In my own personal experience, in 24 years of working, I have only once received a Christmas Bonus, and only four times received any kind of bonus. This, in spite of regular promotions and recognitions for excellence. Companies simply do not reward excellence. The Ghosts of Christmases Past and Present have been sacked, to be replaced by the Spirit of the Bottom Line.


This year, like the last, has been a hard one for my family financially. So while we will buy a few gifts for my daughter and a few close friends, my wife and I have again agreed not to buy anything for each other, planning to save what we can. I find myself grateful for my family, my job, and for the ability to thumb my nose at Madison Avenue.

If you find yourself able to buy the gifts you know your family and friends will delight in, go for it. And if you are able to help others in need, may you receive just as much joy in return. But if you are like me, and find yourself just a mite tired of all of this mercenary exuberance, while working for a company that thinks a form-letter greeting counts as recognition, don't worry too much. You're not channeling Scrooge, it's the people who have forgotten why the old traditions mattered, who are in his sway.

Merry Christmas, no purchase necessary!

Presidential Election Prediction Winner - ‘Silver Medal’

Josh Bauer, or "JB" as he tagged his prediction, claimed second place in the Election Prediction Contest .

Josh will be a junior at Arizona State University next fall, having transferred from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. Josh is working on his first book, entitled Last of the Dreadnoughts: The Story of Battleship Texas. Josh is 32 years old.
Josh describes himself as a "recovering liberal. It’s been 12 years and 1 1/2 months since I voted for a democrat. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell showed me the light."
Josh goes on to note "You and the other influential blogs need to work to draft Jeb in ‘08. I volunteered for Dubya, and although I would vote for Rudy over any Democrat, I could never put in the hours for him that I did for GW."

Next up, the profile for "Robear", our champ.

Congratulations Josh, and thanks for your hard work this election!

Election Prediction Winner Profile 'Bronze Medal'

During the month of October, readers were invited to submit their predictions for the 2004 US Presidential Election. Twenty-three predictions landed within one percent of the actual results, and I have identified the five winners, promising profiles on these keen analysts. This article is the first of three such profiles.

The fifth place winner, Van Pham, and the fourth place winner, Charles Fulner, did not provide any additional information, so I will leave these men of mystery to their more subtle accolades.
Third place was taken by a reader named "Larry", whose e-mail name is "Hippy Leftist". If that tag is accurate, we need to acknowledge that Liberals are just as sharp in reading trends and political campaigns as Conservatives.

"Larry" is Larry Jones, who didn’t pass along much in the way of details, and he does not seem to have his own blog or website, but the first profile already provides a twist from what one might expect.

Profiles still to come, for runner-up "JB" and our champion, "Robear".

Again, Congratulations Larry!

The Political Power of Jesus Christ

Now that President Bush has won a second term, the usual politicos have stepped out of the shadows to demand homage (and influence) for having 'delivered' the victory. This is especially important, if nauseating, because Dubya's twice-proven coat-tails. Everyone able to claim and hold a chunk of the credit for this election, will be able to build a little cottage business from that for the next 4 years, which is exactly what most of them mean to do. I leave that ugly business to Washington, who will unfortunately ignore the people as they carve up this golden goose.

Fortunately for the nation, the President himself has a bolder vision, and one keenly focused on the American people. A number of analysts have remarked on the peculiar fact that Bush kept Dick Cheney on as VP, a man who never wanted to be President, and therefire will not run for office in 2008. Very few seem to have considered why Bush wanted it that way. On the one hand, yes, it clears the decks for Bush to pursue major goals for his Administration in his second term, some of which are breathtaking in their scope and audacity, but it's also claimed that this will allow the Democrats at least an equal footing to start off the 2008 Presidential Race, possibly even an early lead. President Bush, however, has larger goals and responsibilities in mind.

Writing for The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes identified five aspects of the Bush Presidency; Activist, Outsider, Press-Basher, Surpriser, and Visionary. It strikes me that these same qualities describe my Lord, Jesus Christ. I am NOT saying that President Bush is just like Jesus Christ, but I am saying that Jesus' influence on Dubya is showing, right down to how he does his job. And it occurs to me, that the main reason folks re-elected Bush was because he is true to his faith.

No, not many people voted for Bush because he is a Christian. Some were out-and-out offended by his clear devotion to Christ. But as the decision came closer, it became obvious that Bush was honest and direct about his work and his mind and heart. Agree with him or not, Bush was the one man who demonstrated the competence and confidence needed for the job. The war is controversial, but only those who are completely unbalanced believe that Bush did not care about the troops or the innocents. When leadership, integrity, decisiveness and clarity were considered, Bush came out the winner in every poll.

Now that the election is over, those who thought this was just a political trick expect the religion to go back in the box, but that's not the case. Dubya is serious about his faith, and he lives by it. We can expect that faith to direct him in decisions waiting for his attention, from Tort Reform to Tax Reform, from Supreme Court Appointments to School Vouchers, from Energy Independence to Eliminating Global Terrorism.

The downside of all this, is that once it's apparent Dubya lives by his faith, we're gonna see all the wannabes show up, the fakes who put up the image, but don't live by it. Then again, that's been the facade for more than a century, so it will come down to walking the walk.

In the coming generation,the Republican and Democratic parties need to retool and refocus their energies, or they will be passed and left behind by some as-yet unformed response to the needs of the nation. It is my belief that the Lord has allowed America its power to act as a trustee, and we need worthy leaders to follow up on the responsibilities we have on our hands. I worried that with weak men, America would be in its decline, and within a century would be no more consequential to world affairs than, say, France is now. With the energy and bold vision of George W. Bush, I think we have been given a new lease.

New Site Worth A Look

I do not usually promote other sites, but a new site has started, whcih should be worth a visit or three.

Patrick Hynes, who started up the "Crush Kerry" site, has begun a sister site to promote American Values in movies and culture. the site is called "Passion for Fairness", and if it meets up to the "Crush Kerry" standard, should be both informative and entertaining.

Back to History Class

Sixty-three years ago today, the world changed radically and permanently. The Empire of Japan, fearing that the United States intended to thwart her ambitions in the South Pacific, especially regarding oil and rubber supplies. decides to launch a pre-emptive strike at the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. Strategists believed that such an attack would prevent effective defense against Japanese offensives, and would allow the Empire to negotiate a treaty with the United States from a position of strength. The United States was engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the Empire of Japan at the time, rather naively believing several myths. Among those myths, that the U.S. could impose a blockade on oil and materials shipments to Japan without consequence, and that moving the Pacific Fleet from San Francisco to Hawaii would remind the Japanese of their relative weakness to American battleships. The U.S. Congress also believed that the 'small' Japanese were not willing to risk a conflict with a 'great' power like America. Thirty minutes into the first raid, those myths were violently dispelled.

Many people like to look at the present War against Terrorism in the context of Vietnam, especially our invasion of Iraq. I see it much more like a World War, with the fate of many nations in the balance. Terrorism is at least as great a threat as Fascism was, and it's not hard to look at Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, and see a counterpart to Marshal Tojo or Adolf Hitler. And frankly, the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese never managed to bomb New York, which the terrorists already did.

There are two ways, essentially, to view the WoT in the light of Pearl Harbor. One is to consider how tactically brilliant yet strategically wrong the Japanese were in the attack. The attack worked flawlessly, but instead of convincing America to accommodate Japan, the attack enraged the nation and convinced them to try to eradicate Japan. Some on the Left might want to argue that the decision to pre-emptively invade Iraq has united the militants against the U.S., and inflamed a hatred of America in the Muslim world. They may point to the continuing violence in Iraq as a sign that we are not considered liberators, to the missing bin Laden as a failure to accomplish a signal objective, to the lack of WMD stockpiles in Iraq as an indictment against the validity of the war. They may point to the resentment in many nations against perceived U.S. aggression, to the stubborn refusal by President Bush to admit significant mistakes as a sign of arrogance and myopia, and they may demand we return to the methods of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. But they would be wrong.

The second way is to consider History. People were being killed in many places by terrorists, long before President Bush was elected in 2000. The Khobar Tower bombings, the Kenya Embassy bombing, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and many other attacks during the Clinton years, show that appeasement and indecision cost innocent lives, and only encourage the monsters. We know for a fact that the 9/11 attacks were planned long before President Bush even chose to run for President, and would have happened no matter who was in office. In fact, one of Ronald Reagan's few mistakes in office, would have to include leaving Lebanon after the Beirut bombings which killed so many Marines. Terrorists are only stopped by force and determination.

The claim that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 is insultingly deceitful in its callous arrogance. That is, he was known to have sheltered, paid, supplied, and sponsored almost a dozen terrorist groups, right up to the invasion. Several of the worst terrorist leaders of the 20th Century were captured or killed by the Coalition in Iraq. Also, remember those warehouses of suicide vests found by Marines, or the torture houses cleared out just last week in Fallujah? Only the most cynical hypocrite could pretend that Hussein is not exactly the sort of terrorist supporter we need to remove. And as others have mentioned, when a rat bites your child, you don't want to just get that one rat, you want to wipe out ALL the rats. We are facing in Iraq the kind of thugs known to cut the heads off unarmed innocents, women as well as men. They are precisely the sort we need to hunt down and exterminate; they cannot be allowed to exist. If it is right to chase down Nazis for their atrocities, it is right to hunt down Islamo-fascists. And many people don't seem to understand where these thugs were bred. They blame the Americans, as if the humiliation of a few prisoners at a prison, however unlawful, would drive a person to become an inhuman monster. The fact is, anyone who has seen the mass graves, the laboratories where Bio-weapons were tested on prisoners, or prisons built specifically to torture children, should be able to understand that these thugs were bred by the policies of the Baathist regime of Hussein, and instructed in their cruel tortures by the sons of the beast, Uday and Qusay. To blame anyone else is obscenely dishonest.

Some have tried to claim that President Bush always wanted to invade Iraq, because there were plans made for the invasion before 9/11. Such claims amount to an admission of stupidity. At the time of Bush's inauguration, Iraq was known to have the largest standing army in the Middle East, Hussein was known to be in violation of his cease-fire provisions, including the disposition of known stockpiles of WMD, including Chemical and Bio-weapon stockpiles, and was known to be actively seeking fissionable materials. Hussein had already committed numerous clear acts of war, including firing on Coalition aircraft in the 'no-fly' zones, and at least one known attempt on the life of a U.S. President. Bush would have been justified in attacking Iraq on February 1, 2001, especially since the official U.S. policy on Iraq had been Regime Change since 1998. After the 9/11 attacks, Hussein's known contacts with terrorist groups, along with worries about the status of his WMD programs and materials, made tolerance of the regime unacceptable. Also, the U.S. was well aware that following the removal of the Taliban, Al Qaeda would seek to re-establish itself in another Middle Eastern country. The fact that AQ entered Iraq after the invasion, only confirms the knowledge that AQ intended to go there in any case. As for the WMD, if anyone wants to pretend that known stockpiles of BW and CW just went away, they are living in a dreamworld and in complete denial of the facts. Surveillance of smuggling operations across the border to Iran and Syria just before the invasion began show the likely new home of the weapons. Fortunately, the successful war is already making an impact, as Libya, Iran, and Syria have all modified their compliance with inspector to deal with the reality that the U.S. is able to enforce any necessary decision. And for those who want to suggest that the best response to our casualties is to give up and go home, I suggest that a few words with any Marine unit which has served in Iraq is in order. While a few individuals may be found who believe the war unworthy of their efforts, the heavy majority of U.S. troops are proud of their work, and serious about their mission. And not particularly interested in the sad-sack pessimism of the Left.

What next? In war, nothing goes completely according to plan, but plans can be made. The simple fact is, most Muslims are not fascists, and no more stomach for 'Jihad' than any other people, especially against innocents. There is reason to believe that Iran can be coaxed to a more moderate stance, especially with the help of China. While the Left likes to imply that President Bush is stubborn, unilateral, inflexible, and stupid, the reality is that he has a good grasp of the conditions in the countries involved, and his plans for the future will stabilize the region and all participants. Just as the Left falsely accused Bush of wanting to bring back the draft, they falsely believe he intends to invade more countries. It is not, to be blunt, likely that Bush will do that, but the Democratic Republic of Iraq will change the region and the world, and her neighbors will find themselves forced to adapt to that new reality, or be left behind.

The Empire of Japan is no more. There is still an Emporer in Japan, but the nation is ruled by a Constitution, one drawn up and implemented by the Americans when they liberated the country from the fascist regime. Japan does not see eye to eye with the U.S. in everything, but does remain one of our strongest allies, especially in that part of the world. Iraq may well follow the same course.

Fads, Trends, and Revolution

There’s all kinds of talk out there, and it’s easy to get swept up in the emotion. I am old enough to recall some of the completely foolish ideas to take root in my lifetime, from Pet Rocks to Polyester Suits to Ancient Astronauts to Bill Clinton’s “Black” Presidency. I also have been fortunate enough to witness some truly amazing changes, from the first Lunar Landing to the fall of the Berlin Wall to the Internet. I have also noted trends through time, as people changed their economic, social, religious, and behavioral standards, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. I agree with those who say we stand at a crossroads, but I don’t always agree with where the roads ahead really lead.

I write about whatever strikes my mood, but it is fascinating to me also, to see how many facets of life are presently coming together. For example, President Bush is the first truly Evangelical President, which may explain why so many secularists are anxious about him. This is not to say that Dubya pushes his beliefs on others; compared to Clinton or his father, George W. is not prone to make any more religious statements, and his public pronouncements are the epitome of tolerance and broad-minded acceptance of others. But the simple fact that when this President goes to church, he does so to praise God, rather than look good on the cameras, irks the anti-church crowd. The knowledge that President Bush prays before making important decisions strikes anger into the hearts of those who would rather he decided by committee. The reality that President Bush does what he honestly believes is right, rather than acting on the directives from Congress, creates panic in those who want a weaker President, someone less decisive, less likely to be direct and plain-speaking. Personally, I applaud the man. No, I don’t agree with him on everything, but in the main he has the right idea. Will future Presidents follow Bush’s lead? I don’t know, but considering that devotion to an absolute Justice, and a sense of total accountability for all his actions, have been the mark of great Presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to yes, George W. Bush, it’s not a bad lead.

I wonder what we can expect from Congress. In the past, Congressmen and Senators had an easy out. Business was everyday stuff, except for those rare occasions when the public demanded action, and many politicos knew how to posture for the home crowd, while actually doing almost nothing to change the status quo, since they could always blame it on the other party’s obstruction. Now, however, there are clear lines. Democrats truly hate Republicans, and Republicans enjoy control of the White House and both Houses of Congress. They have an incredible opportunity to move the nation forward – if they are honest and bold enough to take the chance. I am truly encouraged by blogs in that respect; we need to keep their feet to the fire, not letting up just because they say they’re on our team.

Then there’s the Economy. We came out of the recession pretty well, but there’s a serious need to address the trade deficit, as well as the National Debt. It must not be a contradiction in terms any longer, to demand a lean Federal Budget.

As for the War on Terror, we must never forget that 9/11 was more than one evil planner, more than one group of murderers who hate America and all we stand for, that we are in a war for our very existence, and what happens in Fallujah is critical to what will be later in Houston, Washington, or New York. Every war has its point of decision, where will is tested, where determination runs against the cost, and the pessimists, cowards, and hidden enemies try to dissolve the effort. Now we run and throw away the hope of the world to come, or else we stand fast and remember the cost in the perspective of the deep reality of History, and hold precious the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers by not quitting the field, now or ever, until the war is completely won and the enemy utterly undone, by whatever means is needed. We must count this war as revolution against fascist ideologies, against a new and immoral enemy, against an evil subtle but feral, to establish not only a representative government for the people in the Middle East, but a model to instill hope and positive direction.

We can play at this, make it a fad, or we can start a trend, and change the world. Every issue, every vote, every decision now is critical to that work.

Election Prediction Winners!

Now that most of the states have been certified, we can now see who won the Predictions Contest.

The scoring is simple. I looked for an exact hit on the Popular Vote percentages claimed by President Bush and Senator Kerry, and counted the Electoral Vote results for a tie-breaker, if needed.

In the end, President George W. Bush claimed 50.9% of the Popular Vote and 286 Electoral Votes, while Senator John Kerry claimed 48.0% of the Popular Vote and 252 Electoral Votes.

Nobody got the exact 50.9-48.0 pick, so my next step was to measure aggregate accuracy, then the EV pick, then the date and time of submission, and here I’m listing the winners, in order of their accuracy, for the voters who were within 0.5% of the actual results. It’s amazing how many people were in that x-ring!


SPECIAL MENTION: Tim McDonald was not able to get within 0.5% of the aggregate accuracy, but he was the only voter to accurately predict President Bush would claim 50.9% of the PV (Tim called it 50.9-46.5 Bush, with a 317-221 EV split). That earns an Honorable Mention.


0.5 range, places 22 and 23
23rd [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 48.6 [B291-247] David M. McClory, 10.30.04, 11:29 PM
22nd [] Bush 50.7, Kerry 48.3 [B276-249] William Winfield, 10.29.04, 1:51 PM

0.4 range, places 18 through 21
21st [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B304-238] T Brewer, 10.14.04, 3:53 PM
20th [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B302-236] Michael Fabiano, 10.14.04, 10:55 PM
19th [] Bush 50.5, Kerry 48 [B300-238] Pete Gardiner, 10.31.04, 10:30 PM
18th [] Bush 50.7, Kerry 48.2 [B300-238] George Tobin, 10.27.04, 3:34 PM

0.3 range, places 1 through 17
17th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [EV unk] Jerryx, 10.31.04, 2:33 PM
16th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B312-226] Rich F, 10.15.04, 1:13 PM
15th [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 47.8 [B307-231] Ben Maller, 10.31.04, 12:18 AM
14th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B306-232] Excelsior, 10.27.04, 11:19 PM
13th [] Bush 50.8, Kerry 48.2 [B301-237] Doc Steve, 10.23.04, 9:39 PM
12th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B301-237] mike the analyst, 10.21.04, 11:27 AM
11th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B301-237] Dominick S., 10.12.04, 2:10 PM

AND THE TOP TEN:
10th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B298-240] Rachel DiCarlo, 10.29.04, 11:30 AM
9th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B297-241] Michael Call, 10.15.04, 6:20 PM
8th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] VACons, 10.26.04, 8:02 AM
7th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] Paul, 10.24.04, 10:19 AM
6th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B296-242] SGG, 10.12.04, 3:00 PM

AND THE FIVE BEST:
5th [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B295-243] Van Pham, 10.12.04, 2:08 PM
4th [] Bush 51.2, Kerry 48 [B279-259] Charles Fulner, 10.12.04 3:31 PM
3rd [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B292-246] Larry, 10.15.04, 3:31 PM
2nd [] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B291-247] JB, 10.12.04, 3:05 PM

and our 1st Place CHAMPION is…

[] Bush 51, Kerry 48 [B290-248] RoBear, 10.12.04, 3:18 PM

CONGRATULATIONS!

I will start looking up to see the homepages of the top 5 winners and will link to them here at Stolen Thunder, and will (if possible), write up profiles of the top 5 and their homepages for here and on Polipundit.

Also worth noting, are the people who got the EV pick exactly right:

Anthony Roberts posted at 8:46 PM on October 30, picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 51-48.5 PV prediction was only 0.6 aggregate points off!

soccer4ever posted at 12:38 PM on October 25, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 51-47 PV prediction was 1.7 aggregate points off.

Duncan Currie posted at 11:30 AM on October 29, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 52-47 PV prediction was 1.9 aggregate points off.

Finally, Carl Richardson posted at 1:50 AM on October 31, also picking 286-252 for the EV mark. The 50.1-49.3 PV prediction was 2.3 aggregate points off.

Congratulations to our prediction sharpshooters!

Asymmetrical Warfare

In classical history, whenever a power found itself stronger than its neighbors, wars of conquest usually resulted. Besides the obvious advantage of setting your frontiers as far from the capital as possible, the tributes and levies from victories made life better for all the citizens of the empire. Generally, an empire would stop its expansion only upon one of three situations;

1. The decision by the empire that it had expanded as far as it could with the available forces at hand, to be extended or retracted as later conditions would determine. Examples of this would be the Roman and British empires;

2. The empire collapses from within, through corruption, insurrection, or the like. This may be seen in the fall of the Roman empire, or more recently in the collapse of Soviet Union;

3. An adversary successfully repels the invader, or else an opposing power makes aggression an undesirable risk. This may be illustrated by the uneasy border between France and Germany, and the Great Wall of China.

The rise of democratic republics in the last centuries of the second millennium changed all that. From men like Washington and Wellington, came the notion of armies which existed not for conquest principally, but to defeat foreign threats. Also at that time, alliances became firmer and more enduring, like the U.S.-U.K. alliance to eradicate international piracy in the 19th Century. This continued through the 20th Century, as two "World" wars were fought between opposing coalitions for a variety of reasons, including the survival of the regime. And it was in that environment that the United States rose to dominance in every major measure. By the end of the 20th Century, the USA was understood to be unmatched in military power, economic weight, and social influence. Not surprisingly, a number of nations began to fear American power, in terms of their own future.

Although the Soviet Union was no more, the Communist Party remained a force in the modern world. Also, Fascists left over from the German, Italian, and Japanese regimes of a half century ago had left their mark on a new generation. In addition to these, a new surge of religious violence by Islamic terrorists began to undermine stability in a number of Middle Eastern and Asian countries. As the 21st Century began, President-elect George W. Bush knew he had to plan to meet these threats.

The attacks on 9/11 irrevocably changed the world. Simply put, it is impossible to proceed under the old conditions. A loose confederacy of communists, fascists, and anti-American activists tried to stop the preparation for war, but in the end the Congress granted the needed authority and a U.S.-led coalition of nations invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq, putting pressure along the way on nearby regimes known to support or promote terrorist groups. Now, a year and a half after the fall of Baghdad, the United States is moving to its next stage in the operation.

Liberals often demand that the U.S. scale back operations, pointing to more than thirteen hundred U.S. military casualties, and many thousands of civilian losses. However, they do not understand the scope of the conflict, nor recognize that the civilian losses would have happened in other nations, had the U.S. not invaded Iraq. The distinction is that if the invasion had not happened, Saddam's terrorist-supporting regime would still exist, and with it, a dozen or so terrorist groups would still be based there, in all likelihood including Al Qaeda. As it is, while the loss of life is horrible, many terrorist leaders have been captured or killed, and the remaining organizations are disorganized and weakened. They can and will continue their 'Jihad' against the West, especially America, but the simple fact is, we are winning.

So, what next, assuming Iraq is stabilized in the next year or so? It's vital here, to understand the nature of the conflict.

It's no coincidence, that Anti-American sentiment is rising in many places. In the first place, Leftist groups are trying to work public mood against the American forces, just as the Communists did so well during the Vietnam War. This will be ongoing, but will not enjoy nearly the level of support and supply that happened when the Kremlin was around to sponsor them. Also, mainland European nations have agonized over the fact that where the United States was once a junior partner in their estimation, America now is self-sustaining in virtually every arena. While cooperation is necessary for everyone to profit as much as possible, the fact is that there are many proud nations forced to deal with the fact that they need the US' help, while America is truly and fully independent. This why so many French and German diplomats insist to anyone who will listen, that the U.S. is morally obligated to work with them; it is no longer conceivable to argue that the United States has a functional need of any nation's alliance.

This sounds arrogant, which is certainly the way that Europe and Africa and Asia have played it, but it's also important to understand the advantages to the American way of things. It is to everyone's benefit to eradicate international state-sponsored terrorism, and only the United States is ready and willing to take up that challenge. It is to everyone's benefit for new technologies to be developed to meet the future's energy needs, and only the United States has major corporations ready and willing to take up that challenge. It is to everyone's benefit for democratic republics to be the way of government in every major nation, and the United States is able and intent on pressing that advancement. Every nation in the world has people trying to match the U.S. success in commerce and technology; we allow more immigrants, by far, than any nation on the face of the earth. We send more charity food and materials to other nations, by far, than any other country. We allow every race and creed and culture to come here and become full citizens, something no other nation fully does. We are the only major nation on the face of the earth, which affirms that the government has no authority, except that the people grant it (the Communist governments claim to be the 'People's' republics, but do not allow grass-root political campaigns, or political debate, and brutally suppress dissent). We are the good guys, and the only nation both able and willing to do on a global scale, what we have been asked over and over to do on a national scale.

But for all the nobility of our ideals, we still face the limits I noted in the classical case. At some point the United States will either discover the limits to our powers and have to stop there, in which case some Middle East or Asian version of NATO will become vital to advancing our common goals (an enhanced SEATO, perhaps). Otherwise, we may fail because of indecision or weak willed command, or face some as-yet unforeseen enemy's rise to power.

This means that the next four years are critical. Fortunately, we seem to have a leader who understands that matter.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

One of the most ridiculous charges levelled against President Bush by the Left, has been the "rush to war' claim. Anyone with even a cursory grasp of events, knows that President Bush resisted the pressure to attack Afghanistan immediately, then when he decided to act, did so in the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq with direct communication to the rogue regimes, with direct communication to the United Nations, and with the specific authority granted by Congress.

It might be worthwhile, for all of that, to consider a little-known document, actually made public back on September 17, 2002. It's called "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". It's well worth reading. Shoot, it ought to be mandatory text for modern Civics!

I have taken the liberty of pulling out selected portions of that document for this article. Just a quick review may explain a lot of what's been going on, and what we can expect for the immediate future.

"Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us"

Right there on page one, President Bush explains why pre-emption is necessary. We don't have the luxury of waiting to see what these enemies will do, because technology makes their weapons available at hand. Once we know a group's existence and intent, it is immediately necessary to hit them at their home, or they will strike us in ours.

"The United States and coutries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases"

That, right there, is a valid and important reason for invading Iraq. Only the most naive or foolish would believe that once we destroyed the Taliban and drove Al Qaeda from their Afghan bases, they would not run to the next best friend they had: Iraq. Yes, the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime are not so strong as Dan Rather would accept, but it is incontrovertable, that when President Bush wrote these words in 2002, Saddam's regime was home, supplier, trainer, or supporter to a dozen terrorist organizations. Let's not forget that after we brought down his regime, American forces caught terrorist leaders Carlos the Jackal, Abu Abbas, and Abu Nidal, each in their day the most evil man known to the world. And we found them all living and hiding in Iraq.

From page 4:

"The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. the enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism - premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."

The Taliban clearly fit that description. So did Al Qaeda. So did Saddam's regime. So do the men working under Al-Zarqawi and Sadr. These are NOT 'Minutemen', or 'Freedom Fighters', or people driven to that resort. They are thuggish animals, who chose their work and fate.

"While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country"

We did strive, it was necessary, we are succeeding.

There's more, but the simple fact is, President Bush told the world exactly what he was going to do, why, and what to expect. And it's well worth reading to see the goals ahead.

Nobody's Leaving...

Among the various responses by Democrats, Leftist, and 'Seriously Unbalanced & Biased People Against Reality' (SUBPAR) have included varying degrees of an intense desire to escape the Truth. Some promise to flee the country, while others have claimed they intend for the 'Blue' States to secede. Sorry folks, that's not going to happen, and not just because Liberals have abad habit of not following through on their promises ("Last call for the flight to Paris. Mr. Baldwin? Ms. Streisand?"). The simple fact is, it's not feasible nor legal.

The United States faced a secession crisis, as most people know, in the Civil War from 1861 to 1865. Eleven states announced their secession from the United States of America, on the argument that the states are bound to the nation only by their choice. Another device used for leverage is the United States' treaty annexing Texas, which appeared to grant Texas the right to secede. A right granted to one state must apply to all, was the reasoning.

That reasoning, however, was built on a false premise. Because of the strategic value Texas represented in American expansion to the Pacific Ocean, as well as military value locking off Mexico from the U.S., the treaty came in two parts, which did different things.

There was a U.S. Congressional Resolution making Texas a State, and granting it the right to split into as many as five states, created in 1845. That resolution, however, said nothing about the State having a right to leave the USA. That's because of a treaty from a year before, where Texas essentially dissolved its sovereignty to become part of the United States. In other words, the Republic of Texas became a territory of the United States, then a State. That means that the State of Texas, while it had (and still has) special privileges because of the treaty which made it a State, never had a right to become sovereign on its own again. Any such thought or claim is a mistake at best.

Now, you may wonder why this history lesson is relevant to the rants from Sore Loser Left. I mean, even if it were somehow legal for the 'Blue' States to quit the country and become 'New France West' or the like, surely they understand how the dissolution of the union would impact them, economically as well as politically. I guess most Liberals don't realize that in such a secession, the NYSE would simply close up shop in NYC, and reform as something like the Omaha Stock Exchange, but then perhaps it is necessary to recall how poorly the Left does in Economics; anyone who can read Marx without laughing out loud at his blunders, is quite capable of believing in Utopia. To this day, there are those who would insist Lenin and Castro were right, even if those who believe them and follow their advice always seem to end up insolvent.

It's also worth looking at the question of just how 'blue' those blue states are, anyway. In California, for example, of its 55 counties, Bush won in 36, Kerry in only 19. So, if Cali wants to secede, less than half the counties are going, and a look at the map basically shows the new 'People's Republic of California' would pretty much claim only the coast, which gives them the beaches, the celebrities, and the barrios; the parts of California which are low-crime and prosperous would stay with the rest of the country. The same thing happens in New York, where Bush took 40 of its 62 counties. The rest of Kerry's territory is the same, or worse. And frankly, if these 'blue' states were to take a vote on seceding, it doesn't look like the votes would be there for the move.

It only goes to prove, even the blue states don't agree, all in all, with the claims made by their leadership. So long as they continue to wallow in denial, reasonable voters will find only the Republicans responsive to their issues and priorities.

The Next Front In The Revolution?

The Old Media is dead. Being ornery, they won't admit it. Now you know where the legend of 'zombies' started; the old town criers didn't like being replaced by the newspapers, and the old witch doctors didn't like finding out they were replaced by men and women who understood the patterns of weather and the cycles in nature. Long after they were useless, they brayed on. The new Media will include reporters and news networks, because the need for reliable sources for news will always be there. But the empires of opinion-makers and trend-setters have been shaken to their foundations by the rise of the new options and alternatives in Information Analysis, best illustrated by the exponential growth of Blogs. I would contend, however, that the Revolution in Information is now ready to show another front.

I first began to suspect this front years ago, long before I had read my first blog. Baylor University, where I earned my degree, was asking me for money. Again. In fact, the heavy majority of Baylor's mail to me has always been asking for money. Money for the Liberal Arts, Money for the Football team, Money for new Scholarships and Endowments. Now, don't misunderstand me; Baylor is a pretty good school, as universities go. But, when I was in a bad way eonomically, Baylor's response was to tell me that my family made too much money to qualify, even though we couldn't afford the three of us in school at that time. Grants which I qualified for, I was not told about, as well as Scholarships. On-campus employment was denied to me, largely because the people deciding the employments had no standards to satisfy; those in particular need or especially qualified were ignored; the epitome of "it's who you know".

I'm not trying to trash Baylor. Like I said, for a university, they're pretty good. But they're badly run and poorly organized. Worse, they won't admit it. And when you get right down to it, unless you decide for yourself what you're going to do with your pricey education, the Guidance Counselors at Baylor won't be much help preparing you for the Real World. Absolutely none of the classmates I knew ever got so much as a single interview from the Counselors, and I would have changed my major and planning at age 18 if I had received proper direction, instead of learning the hard way what does and does not work.

Fast forward to 1988. Having worked hard and received several promotions over 5 years with one Corporation, I opened a facility and hired a staff of sixty employees. While there were very specific skills I looked for and helped my team develop, the simple fact is that in many careers, while a formal degree can help you get a better position and pay, the quality of work you do is not tied to your classwork and grades. It's very important for managers and supervisors to know what skills and talents to look for in employees, but in many companies, the policy is strictly tied to formal education, and it's casually assumed that a degree means a certain level of competency. That myth is finally breaking apart, and the need for a better standard of competency must take its place.

If Bill Gates did nothing else, he helped to revolutionize the Workplace by creating a new class of employee; the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE). In companies using the Microsoft platforms, having an MCSE on staff became critical, and the IT guy would often be better-paid than some Senior VP's. It didn't matter if he hadn't spent a day in college, so long as Microsoft had certified him. Alternatives to the standard degree became obvious, even critical.

Now that Information Management has been recognized as a discipline and talent in its own right, corporations and major employers are re-evaluating the criteria they use in selecting employees. And as for college degrees? With the new technology available, remote classwork is possible, along with variable scheduling, so that a new wave of fully-accredited colleges have arrived for the full-time worker to gain the degree proving academic accomplishment. Universities are on notice: Reputations must be confirmed, not used for laurel beds.

When Dan Rather leaves the anchor desk at CBS News next March (and hopefully, sterner measures will preventing him from continuing to collect paychecks from that company), he may be joined by some of the more arrogant professors from elitist universities. Reality has a way of showing up unexpectedly.

And for the record, no, I will not be sending Baylor University any of my money. They haven't earned it.

Modern Technology

I used to wonder why people had it so bad in the days without Modern Technology. You know, like the people who founded Houston did it without Air Conditioning, and people couldn't travel more than maybe 20 or 30 miles in a day, because of the limitations of horse and road, etc. But I realize also, that we have some problems today, that are the direct result of Modern Technology.

I walked into the break room a few minutes ago, and saw "Divorce Court" on TV. What in the world would possess a couple going through a painful thing like divorce, to hang out their dirty laundry on national television? For that matter, why is there an audience for that kind of thing. I don't need or want to know about anyone's sex life or personal maturity crises or 4th wife, and that includes "Oprah", "Maury", "PrimeTime", or any of these shows which fixate on the bizarre and the depraved. I do not need to know about Paris Hilton's sex life, or whether Britney Spears thinks Ashley Simpson is a good singer. The fact is, easily 90% of TV's programs are useless, serving no purpose for the common good, and in a number of cases, quite the opposite.

"60 Minutes" tried to trash President Bush with forged papers. Numerous "news" reporters scurried around all year to keep us infomed on the latest Swift Boat or National Guard rumor, but precious few checked into the details of either candidate's plans for Immigration Reform or revisions to the Tax Code. Modern television and the movies are getting to be like letting your kid choose the menu; anything healthy gets rejected early on.

Ironically, the Internet is proving to be a refuge for information. But the Old Media is hard at work there, as well. Did you think it was a coincidence, that so many sites with information and details now expect you to register with them to read the articles? They want to know who's leaving, and why. And the bigger news sites are learning how to play "Pravda" with their mistakes and data they want to go away. For instance, Larry Bord made a few statements defending the unexcusable thuggery of Ron Artest, and sites started to note them. When Mr. Bird expressed his displeasure, these records were wiped clean; you can still find the reference in "Google", but when you click the link, it's been erased. 'All the news, except for the stuff we don't want you to see', seems to be the new motto. Fortunately, many bloggers (though sadly, not me) are savvy enough to snapshot such screens before the incriminating data goes bye-bye.

I also learned that Modern Technology, like Car Salesmen, promises far more than it delivers. Consider Monster.com, for example. The site would have you believe that it has revolutionized job and employee searching, and to a degree, it's good. But neither of the last 2 jobs I found, had anything to do with Monster. In fact, Monster never got me a single interview, and the resume format they use, frankly, is garbage, both from the job-hunter and employer point of view. I've been both, so I know. In the end, networking with people you know at church and from school remains the best way to find the interview and job offer.

Since I've touched on money and politics, the next logical step is sex. What is it with the media? Sure, I like sex, but c'mon! Nicollette Sheridan shows up on Monday Night Football in just a towel. Why? I go to MFN for football, OK, not to have the wife think I'm looking for smut. And speaking of smut, is there one single positive quality to 'Desperate Housewives'? For crying out loud, somebody please insert a plot, some dialogue, maybe just a hint of intelligence? Oh yes, I forgot, this is ABC TV, the guys who thought 'NYPD Blue' wasn't 'blue' enough, so we had to see Dennis Franz' naked butt. Just because someone hypothesized that an infinite number of monkeys would eventually write all the great works, doesn't mean that anything that comes out of a chimpanzee's typewriter should get a show. But I'm being mean; most TV 'celebrities' couldn't survive in the Real World.

Which brings up 'Reality TV'. As if. My idea of 'Reality TV', would be making some of these network execs try to make it as retail managers with direct contact by the public, or some college professors forced to work in a corporation, and learn first-hand that a false story from even a local TV station can and will hurt a company, and cost real people their jobs. I'd like to see Dan Rather have to prove his claims and show his work, at a station where they check the facts before they go on the air. I'd like to see 'models' who have same shape and condition as ordinary people, and never again be leactured on TV by a single actress with no kids, how she thinks I should raise my children. I'd like to see shows where normal people aren't ridiculed, where people who go to church are the good guys, where people who don't use foul language and don't disrepect other groups are the 'cool' crowd, and where community, courtesy, and self-discipline are recognized as not only worthy of praise, but essential.

Use technology then, but don't trust it.

A Large Unpaid Debt

Forty-one years ago today, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas. That much is agreed upon by almost everyone. Since the assassination of JFK, however, almost no one has been able to establish a stable consensus on just what happened there on that day.

Before I go too far into this article, let me be clear that I do not generally hold conspiracy theories to be viable. It’s simple when you think about it; a secret on this scale, kept for this long by any number of people, would have revealed something of itself by now. If you think Nixon’s White House tapes or the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was a big deal, killing a sitting President is much more significant, on a level which begs disbelief that all the major participants would keep their secrets all these years. So, the notions of a coup de etat do not sit well with me, nor do I believe that there is a ‘secret government’ controlling things.

But it’s also apparent, from what we know now, that the conventional wisdom is also wrong; all three versions of it. Let’s go through them one by one:

[1] Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy – There are literally dozens of books and films out which completely destroy this notion, yet a large segment of the public still holds on to this myth, including the Mainstream Media, and even more particularly those talking heads who vaulted their reputations and careers ahead of others by toeing the line when the Warren Commission put the heaviest coat of whitewash on the assassination. A detailed debunking can be had with a quick check of any library or comparison between the presented claims and the evidence, but here are some highlights:

* The rifle allegedly used was so poor, that FBI marksmen were unable to repeat the feat using the actual gun; the closest they could manage was to fire the weapon four times without aiming it in the 7.9 seconds allowed; aimed shots never came close to the necessary accuracy or speed. If they could not do it, how are we supposed to believe Oswald did?

* Oswald left no prints on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Although a palm print was produced later, this was produced after Oswald’s death, and witnesses saw agents take Oswald’s prints in his casket.

* The view from the alleged “sniper perch” on the 6th floor of the TSBD had only an obstructed view of the motorcade, blocked by several trees. While the Warren Commission claimed that the trees would have lost their leaves in November, films of the day show this was not true (nor uncommon in sunny Texas)

* Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor between 1 and 2 minutes after the assassination by his supervisor and a Dallas policeman. No one in the stairwells at that time saw Oswald, and the elevator was on the ground floor at this time. Therefore, there is no explanation for how Oswald is supposed to have moved from the 6th floor to the 2nd, without so much as breathing heavy.

* Oswald denied shooting anyone, an action clearly different from the pattern of political assassins, who have always boasted of their deed. No motive was ever established, as to why Oswald would have wanted Kennedy dead.

I could go on, but the blunt fact is, Oswald doesn’t fit. When you get to the ballistics and witness testimony, it only becomes more obvious. In 1978, giving in to the overwhelming witness testimony, film and acoustic evidence, the House sub-Committee on Assassinations ruled that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy. The official policy of the United States Government has been that a Conspiracy killed a sitting President, yet no action has been taken on that policy in 26 years.

[2] A Secret Government is running the nation, and has been ever since 1963. This is actually a favorite in some parts of Europe. Rather than accept that we really let the average American decide who leads the nation, the notion of a hidden Central government is held and embraced. It’s so strong, that when Viktor Belenko flew a MiG-25 to Japan and defected to the West, he was convinced that Washington D.C. was a façade only, that real decisions were made by some American version of the Politburo. This sort of thinking, which keeps LaRouche politically active and supplies an audience for Oliver Stone, misses the significance of the Watergate Scandal, the Middle East Peace Summit under Carter, the Reagan Revolution and the Victory over the Iron Curtain, the Clinton redirection of Welfare and Education policies, and the Bush Doctrine against Terrorism. It reminds me of the X-files episodes where we see secret committees, dark and nefarious, yet somehow unable to do anything but complain about things getting out of control. In a way, that part might be accurate; I can accept the notion of the Council on Foreign Relations muttering that Dubya is not taking their sage advice, the angry complaints of this U.N. committee or that, that the Americans are not being fair and submitting to the wise oversight of foreign nations, or the complaints by the heads of the Old Media Networks, that Americans are foolishly rejecting the commentary from Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings, in preference of making up their own minds. If a secret cabal killed Kennedy, I don’t think they knew what to do afterwards.

[3] The CIA did it. It always strikes me as strange, to believe how an agency too incompetent to kill Castro in 1961, was somehow able to pull off a much more complex operation against Kennedy. Also, the sieve-like nature of the CIA makes it impossible to believe that the details would not have been made public long ago. Also, the constant feuding between the FBI and CIA in the 1960s, makes it impossible to accept the claim that they would tolerate such a plot by the other, let alone work together.

So, what happened? I have my ideas, but the point here is that we owe it to the citizens of this nation, to fully investigate great crimes against the nation. Like the killing of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy, the assassination of John Kennedy is a major offense demanding answers, and the task is worthy of our full effort and candor. So long as something like this is simply ignored or put aside, the people of the United States will have little reason to believe their government is truly accountable to them.

Forcing the Decision

For all the noise, the fact remains that President George W. Bush won re-election, with over 60 million voters placing their votes in trust to him. The fact also remains, than more than 57 milion voters this year preferred John Kerry for the office. The sheer volume of these numbers is staggering, which may explain why no one yet has addressed the peculiar paradox of this election:

America remains sharply divided between the values of the Democratic and Republican parties, yet

President Bush's re-election this year was decisive in all respects.


A look at the demographics helps illustrate this peculiar condition. Younger voters tended to support Kerry, while older voters preferred Bush. Single voters supported Kerry, while married voters preferred Bush. Urban voters preferred Kerry, while Rural voters preferred Bush. And of course, the Coasts (as states) went for Kerry, while the Heartlands went for Bush.

On the other hand, when compared to his 2000 numbers, President Bush in 2004 improved his results in every major demographic sector. Also, Bush did well with Catholics and better in Massachusetts against Kerry than he did against Gore in 2000; additional evidence that Bush was gaining national support, even in his opponent's base.

I don't know, however, that I agree with the assumption that the United States is rejecting the Democrats as a major party. History shows that even an overwhelming win, which 2004 was most definitely not, or a series of wins, may not accurately foretell a dynastic dominance. On the other hand, it would be wise for Democrats to understand and accept that George W. Bush has now exceeded expectations in five consecutive high-profile elections. His two elections as Governor of Texas were upsets in their caliber; the first was a stunning victory of Ann Richards, whom the Democrats not only considered unbeatable in Texas but a rising star with national ambitions. His victory over then Vice President Al Gore in a time of peace and prosperity in 2000 was so unexpected, some Democrats today remain in denial about it. In 2002, Democrats were so sure they would gain in both the House and Senate's elections that they began to leak speculations about changes in Committee leadership, yet when the results were known, it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who had gained in both the House and Senate, and later examination revealed that it was personal campaigning by President Bush in key contests which made the difference. And of course, this year's campaign included the use of forged documents by CBS in a blatant smear attempt, a major motion picture was produced and distributed for the specific purpose of propaganda, a foreign billionaire personally vowed to try to buy the election out of spite, and Democrat '527' groups outspent Republican '527's by a factor of 12, yet when the votes were counted, George W. Bush withstood everything thrown at him, and won.

Again.

Another way to look at the present balance, is to consult America's Paternity source, the Declaration of Independence, specifically those Rights named from the beginning: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

To Democrats, values which some label as "Liberal" are very important, and one key disappointment many leading Democrats feel from Clinton's Presidency, is that they feel Bill Clinton was forced to water-down his programs and goals, and to compromise his politics to appease the Republican-controlled Congress. In many Democrats' minds, there has not been a truly Democratic Presidency in full power since Johnson. I don't agree with that, nor do all Democrats, but this sense of frustration is what is driving the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, especially that the lesson has been made again, that only a Moderate Democrat can win the White House in this climate.

As I just mentioned, there are essentially two wings to the Democratic Party, but they both hold the same values, if to differing degrees. The value of "Life" means that most Democrats oppose the Death Penalty or the unilateral use of Military Force. The meaning of "Liberty", to Democrats, means that Social Values outweight individual preferences, that freedom of the group is the essential, but also that special accomodations must be made for any and all declared minority groups, excepting traditional groups, who are presumed to enjoy privilege. The "Pursuit of Happiness" applies to protection of individual preferences, including minority beliefs and protection from the presumed oppression by the majority. Many aspects of these values have virtue in their own right, but it bears noting, that they are generally focused on the minority of every debate, which suggests a political cost.

Republicans, despite the foul imprecations by the Left, represent the heart of America, and have enjoyed a growing base since Reagan declared his candidacy for the 1980 Presidential campaign. Republicans are actually a 3-wing party, which is not understood by most of the Old Media and the Liberals of the Democratic Party.

Republicans are Conservatives, Moderates, and 'Big Tent' Republicans. Like the Democrats, Republicans tend to hold the same values, but again to different degrees. Republicans believe in "Life" in the most essential terms; so precious that a murderer should lose his life for taking one, and the innocent are so precious that their life is inviolate even before their first breath. "Liberty" means that the Rights enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights must be observed and protected without dilution or compromise. "The Pursuit of Happiness" means that using the powers of government to promote a 'social values' position or opinion is wrong, and does nothing but corrode the trust given by the public to those in office.

Democrats believe in using government to solve social problems; Republicans believe that government must act only where individuals and smaller governments cannot handle the task.

Democrats believe in limiting America's authority outside our borders; Republicans believe in establishing American authority worldwide in the protection of our national interests.

Only extremists hold only to the absolutes in these values, but there is a clear difference between the Left and Right in all of this. One benefit from this last election, is the clarity of position. Everyone is confirming or learning their position, and this will bear results in the coming elections.

The best course for everyone, in my opinion, is to consider your values carefully, and discuss them. You won't win over everyone, but there is a larger audience now, than ever before.