Harry Potter and the Seventh Book: A Guess or Two

*-*-*-*-*-*

Here at the start of this column, I should warn the reader that if you are that particular individual who is reading the “Harry Potter” series (or plans to), but have not gotten through Book 6 yet, this may be a little bit of a spoiler for you, so keep that in mind. As it happens, though, I read a number of “spoiler” essays and articles before I read even the first of the “Harry Potter” stories, and for me there was no disappointment. I’m writing this particular column, for those readers who believe their taste in literature and discussion is a bit like my own. As a result, I am amusing myself with a few guesses about what we will see happen in the last book of the “Harry Potter” saga.

There’s always a risk in predicting what will happen in a book that has yet to be written; it could even be, that if a certain thought becomes popular, Ms. Rowling might decide to avoid precisely that, simply because she wants a surprise or four in the last book. But I believe the claim that Ms. Rowling has already planned out the framework of her story, and there are certain basic presumptions which have been established in the first six books/years.

Obviously, a lot of readers are doing the same thing I am; looking at the story as it has come to its present position, and trying to chart the course to come. The reasons that I think my guess might be closer, is because of two points I have observed. First, Rowling is not perfect, not describing a real place with real events which can be corroborated. She has made some mistakes in consistency and veracity, as often happens when an author creates a complex world for a story, and must maintain it for a long time. This is, actually, to Rowling’s credit, as this is one of the qualities which makes her stories compelling. But it also provides a clue to Rowling’s own priorities, because Rowling will naturally have made sure to keep the story consistent on those points and details that she considers essential to the plot. The second point, is simply that sometimes people see what they expect to see, whether or not it’s really there. I will try to avoid that mistake here, but it’s important to recognize that this happens.

So, what are these priorities to Ms. Rowling? A look through the six books already done shows the following elements:

1. Harry is always in danger, but is never critically or permanently injured, although he does get hurt.
2. Voldemort is successful in his plots, except for any of them which involve Potter.
3. Voldemort trusts no one, and has no friends. In contrast, Harry has several close friends, is close to them and depends on them. Harry also considers his friends’ feelings, and is even open to considering the feelings of his enemies, at times even feeling pity for enemies like Snape and Malfoy.
4. The significant action always takes place at or in relation to Hogwarts.
5. Harry has done a number of actions which, Dumbledore has reminded Harry, create a kind of power for which Voldemort has no answer, such as mercy for Wormtail.
6. Voldemort is acting out of his own lust for power. Harry is acting as he feels he is required to do, and has no desire for personal glory or power (again, as Dumbledore reminded Harry when discussing the Sorceror’s Stone)
7. There are other players in this conflict, of whom Voldemort may well have no knowledge. The mysterious “R.A.B.” who appears in book 6, the question of whether the people killed by Voldemort might not come back in some form (remember in the duel between Voldemort and Potter, Voldemort’s victims come back to help Harry escape), and of course the question of what role people like Neville Longbottom, Ron Weasley, and of course Severus Snape may play. And I have a hunch we may see Fleur and Viktor come into play, as well.

So, let’s put this together and see what looks like the direction. First off, we will see Bill and Fleur’s wedding in the first part of the book. I notice that Rowling likes to mix happy and sad events in the early story of each book. Since Harry is not at all happy at the end of ‘Half-Blood Prince’, that tells me Rowling will try to brighten the mood a bit. I will honestly say that I cannot be sure that Hogwarts will open again that year; on the one hand, Hogwarts has always been a center of action and focus in the story, but with Dumbledore’s death (and Snape’s exit) it becomes a bit difficult to see who would be the face of Hogwarts. The fact that book 6 ends without a House Cup awarded suggests that major changes are happening.

I think I will ponder things a bit further before making the whole prediction, but two things strike me about the conflict between Voldemort and Potter, which actually bode well for Harry’s victory and survival. First is the fact that Voldemort fared rather badly the first time he and Harry crossed paths, and the tearing of his own soul into 7 parts seems representative that he can never be whole, itself an apparent reason to say Voldemort cannot win. Harry, in contrast, has been growing end developing, at the end of each year stronger in character and ability. Voldemort has enjoyed some successes, but always at a cost he has not truly seen in effect, while Harry is setting up a condition which indicates he is owed a moral debt by a great many people.

Then there is the simple fact, that Chapter 1 of the first book may have said it plainly: Harry Potter is described by Rowling herself as “The Boy Who Lived”. It would only be consistent that Harry also gets to live as a man.

Professor Snape, SIR

S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S$S

To begin with, anyone who wants a well-done analysis of Severus Snape, needs to go read Dave Kopel's essay, "Severus Snape: the Unlikely Hero of Harry Potter Book 7". It was this essay that convinced me to buy the series and read it, and I must confess it shaped my early thoughts.

Reading in so compact a fashion has a certain effect, and I have some definite ideas about what to expect for Book 7. Now, about Snape, one thing I think is obvious about Snape, is that he definitely is not 100% with Voldemoldy. Early in the book, he pretends to Narcissa, that he is privy to the plan involving Draco, yet later Draco's words make it clear that Severus did not know the plan. Also, there is the matter of his confrontation with Potter at the school. Despite his shout to the Death Eaters that Voldemort has commanded that Potter be left to him, there is no reason why they could not have attempted to capture or at least wound Potter - this is a strong indicator that Snape does not want Potter attacked. See also how Snape pulls his punches, not even using spells which could easily and quickly have frozen Potter and put him in immense pain. This is consistent with the whole 6-year history; Snape insulted and demeaned Potter, yet his specific actions were never personally attacking. Consider, for example, the difference between Snape's idea of detention (filling out index cards by hand) and that of Professor Umbridge, who tortured Harry by forcing him to write lines into his own hand, with his own blood, leaving scars visible a year later. And Snape never took advantage of many opportunities to interrogate Potter at length, or physically hurt him at all. I can only surmise that this means there was a force compelling Snape to not only not hurt Potter physically, but even to protect him. It is also obvious to me, that Snape despised this compulsion, whatever it is.

Before going further, it is important to also recognize that Severus Snape truly loathes Potter; it is not at all an act, especially since Snape mocks and belittles Potter at every chance, far more than would be necessary just to play the part of Volemoron's minion.So, it is very unlikely that Snape is totally on one side or the other.

So, with these opposing points in mind, what to make of Severus Snape? I would say, return to the constant elements of Snape, which are the following:

Jealousy,
Envy,
Inferiority, and
Revenge

We see these elements over and over again. It's not hard to see how Snape became a Death Eater in the first place. VoldeOopsy would have noted how Snape was an outsider, and played that to his advantage. It also bears noting, that Snape's early talents and interests were to the Dark Arts, plainly in hopes of exacting revenge on all the people who were better-looking and more popular than him, who always had friends and money at hand, and who looked at Snape as an object, not a person. I would go so far as to say MoldyWart trusted Snape a bit more than other Death Eaters, because he saw some of the same emotions in Snape that he had experienced when he was that age, and believed he would know if Snape changed his mind and heart.I take Dumbledore at his word, when he said (repeatedly) that he trusted Snape, and despite appearances, I believe there was a solid reason underneath it all, but Dumbledore never shared it with anyone, because he knew that the secret reason was what kept Snape alive; if Dumbledore told anyone why he knew he could trust Snape, that knowledge would eventually make its way back to the Dark Lord, and that would be the very gruesome end of Severus Snape.I think what happened, was that Snape's relationship with James and Lily Potter changed after school. Snape never came to like Potter, but as time passed his rage faded somewhat, and the effect of Lily on James was to change the man for the better, and soften Snape's mind, not to the point of forgiveness, but to the point of withholding deliberate harm. That was one of Snape's secrets, you see, he knew how to really hurt someone, even kill them, yet he never did so, always holding back his worst weapons so he could tell himself he did the noble thing, he the 'Half-Blood Prince'. But when he told VoMo the bit of the prophecy he heard, thinking to ingratiate himself with the Dark Lord, he unwittingly sent James and Lily Potter to their deaths, and in Snape's mind that created a debt, one which could only be repaid by protecting Harry. Also, Snape came to realize that VultureMortis had no intention of rewarding him for his loyalty, indeed that his half-breed lineage would forever keep him out of the inner circle, and that VoicedeMonkey would never allow anyone to share his power to any degree, that tore it; in Snape's mind VoMo had violated a point of honor, one which changed Snape's course forever.

So, I would suggest that in book 7, Snape will betray Voldemort, picking his time for the best opportunity. It will likely be near the end of the story, but will include protection for Harry, and likely even provide him a weapon of some sort to use against VoMo. Given Harry's mistrust of Snape, he will not realize the gift for some time after it's offered to him, which may likely cost Snape his life. It would be fair turnabout for Snape to give Harry a gift in repayment for letting his parents be killed, and Harry use it in repayment for Snape dying to get it to him.

Magic in the World of Harry Potter

[][][]

I believe in Magic.

Not the stuff we see on television, and certainly not as it's depicted in movies and most fiction, but it's real, and terribly tricky stuff. There's a lot of Magic in the Bible (and yes, I believe the Bible tells the truth), and it shows up in both good and bad hands. Yet Magic has gone away, for the most part, to be replaced by Technology. I would guess, if I had to, that there is a balnce of some sort, with Magic on one end and Technology on the other. Note that there are always people who seem to be able to use the tools available, and those people who are unable to use what's there.

I've been picking a bit on J.K. Rowling this week, and today is no exception. This is because her work is very good at times, which makes the flaws stand out a bit more. I understand it's tricky, but in the stories, it becomes very difficult to understand how Magic ability is developed. From age 11, young Harry Potter seems able to do amazing, by luck in some places, but by a process undefined in many others, as in his ability to create a Patronus. I find some of this a bit hard to accept; on the one hand, we're always hearing how much study and practice goes into working Magic, whether it's conjuring, drawing up a potion, or recognizing the tools available for a process. The stories make clear that Herry Potter does not study much more than any ordinary student, which (among other things) makes him the object of scorn from Professor Snape. Yet every so often - poof! - Potter is able to get or do what he needs or really wants, whether it's mastering broom flying well enough to play on the Gryffindor Quidditch team his first year, or discovering secrets about the school unknown to students in their last year, and even some of the teachers. How ... convenient. I don't like convenient in a story, when it pops up too often, and it certainly shows up too often in the 'Potter' stories.

Just because I have thought about it some (having played my share of D&D in the old days), I divide Magic into three sorts:

Magic which is contained in an object - and therefore can be used up or worn out, and only does a very limited number of things, and only to a certain degree

Magic which resides in a person - this can be developed, but only with practice, and only up to the limit of a person's ability to control the force and direct it

Magic granted by a patron - This showed up a lot in the Bible, God granting powers when He so desired, to His prophets and seers and leaders.


The more I think about the 'Potter' world, and see the special exceptions made to make Harry Potter succeed with less effort than other people, the more I understand Severus Snape.

'Fifty points from Gryffindor, I think, for playing about with the order of things.'

Snape would have made a fair literary critic, I think.

A Brief Critique of Harry Potter's World

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I am still thinking over the world created by Ms. Rowling for her “Harry Potter” series, and I have noticed a troubling aspect; Justice does not seem to play a prominent role in it.

Consider, as an example, poor Harry’s run-ins with the Ministry of Magic. In one of the books, Dobby the house-elf comes to visit Harry and levitates a plate of food, for which the Ministry blames Harry and issues a stern warning. In a later book, when Harry loses his temper and inflates a relative like a balloon, he is clearly in the wrong, but this time receives no punishment at all from the Minister of Magic, who personally smooths things over for Harry. Still later, Harry is forced to use magic in self-defense against Dementors (which were, he later learns, sent after him by an employee of the Ministry of Magic), and for that the Ministry attempts to expel him from Hogwarts and destroy his wand.

The same thing exists with the legal system. The Ministry acts with no sort of due process, only a sham ritual which allows for no serious chance at a defense. For instance, when Hagrid’s Hippogriff attacks a student who insults it (after being warned that such an attack would happen if provoked), the Ministry decides to kill the animal even before the appeal is heard. Similarly, we find that Sirius Black was sentenced to Azkaban Prison with little in the way of a trial, and no legal defense for him at all. And later, even though Harry is honest about what he has seen or heard, the Death Eaters sent to Azkaban are also sentenced with no province for their defense. It is chilling to consider the scope of a governmental power with no respect for any sort of dissent, even a fair review of its own actions.

Hogwarts is much the same. Teachers are allowed to give or take points to or from the Houses for any success or foul, or even on a whim, as they please. Accordingly, it is difficult to believe that the much-vaunted House Cup has any true value, as it depends a great deal more on whom the staff likes, than on what the actual students do. The same thing for detention, which may be applied with no restrictions or standards of any kind.

In the course of the book, Harry Potter and his friends do a great many things which may be described as reckless and irresponsible. It appears that the world in which they live would have it no other way.

Thoughts on the "Harry Potter" Stories

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

I am in the process of reading the Harry Potter series, and have finally found my way to book 6, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". I admit it took me a while to give J.K. Rowling a try, and I would say that I was both wrong and right in my initial reluctance.

I was right to some degree. Rowling introduces a lot of characters in her stories, and she has had a bit of trouble making all of them believable, or creating the sort of depth of character one likes to see in novels. A good example is Voldemort; for such an important character he's paper-thin in personal depth, and annoyingly predictable. It's also difficult to believe he is some kind of Mastermind, given how badly he seems to blunder a lot more than someone of his ability should suffer. His victories are always heard about only in passing, and never seem to rank up with his defeats. Rowling seems to have drawn up Voldemort only as a foil for Potter, and this is a distinct disappointment in the stories.

That said, Rowling has done an exceptional job with many of the other characters. Since she is an Inkblot, I would say that she did more with Dumbledore, than Tolkien did with Gandalf, and that's saying something. I especially liked the way that Harry Potter has developed, making mistakes and going through doubt and worry like any boy his age. I like the Weasley family, particularly the sibling rivalry between Ron and his brothers. I also thought it especially good, how Rowling not only makes some of the outcasts appealing, like Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom, but makes them integral to certain elements of the story. To that point, Rowling has a nice touch about telling the lesson of how things may come back around - Harry's basic decency to Dobby early on, pays a lot of dividends later, and the same thing shows up in other places. Everything counts, though you don't always see it on the surface.

And then there is Snape. Obviously, everyone interested in the story is trying to sort him out. I am beginning to suspect that Snape is one of those 'hiding in plain sight' guys, the kind who turns out to be rather like he appeared, but you lost him in all the talk and action. What I mean is, I think that in the end, Snape will turn out to be the sort of fellow who is driven by his emotions, even as he keeps them concealed. Snape hates Potter, but he hates the Dark Lord more. Why? Because if you think about it, the nemesis of Snape is not Harry Potter but James Potter, the arrogant powerful type who can do exactly as he pleases. Harry Potter looks enough liek Snape to set off Snape, but in the end, it's Voldemort whose character is the most like James Potter's cruel nature. So, in the end Snape will turn on his former Master, to Potter's benefit - but these two will never be friends. I like that; in real life there's many times you have to cooperate with someone you despise, yet need.

To those who think the 'Potter' series is somehow anti-Christian or supports witchcraft, let me set your mind at ease. There's a good deal of symbolism in the stories, and more than a few lessons one could apply to Bible Study (and I might do just that, if there is any interest). I do not, however, see anything that is designed to lead people away from Christ, or oppose Christian teaching. Yes, it's true that there are no obviously Christian symbols in the story, but then C.S. Lewis' 'Perelandra' and 'Narnia' series held none of that either, yet they are well-affirmed as Christian literature. Subtlety sometimes is the better way...

Most of all, the 'Potter' series is an engrossing tale, with a lot of good lessons and worthwhile characters. If you have not read the books, you might want to give them a try.

A Monday Break

...

Hard Day at Work.

Catching up on Harry Potter.

Post tomorrw, but not now.

Reason to the Wind

||||||

Back when I was certified as an official in several sports, I learned a lot about the games, and about human nature. An official has three basic responsibilities in any sport; Safety, consistent and objective application of the Rules, and to encourage Sportsmanship. Usually, the aspect of Sportsmanship was the easiest to enforce, because most school districts and sports associations also pursue this ideal with great energy. There were two occasions however, when Sportsmanship was tested and sometimes gave way to bitterness; on very close contests of importance, and when the game was a blow-out.

In fact, the worst offenses of poor sportsmanship happened in the blow-outs. In close contests, the comptetitors were aware that the penalty for a foul could be the deciding factor in the game, so there was a natural deterrent to avoid commiting a personal foul. When a game was clearly out of reach, however, the losing team often felt they had nothing to lose by "sending a message", even if that foul was serious enough to merit expulsion from the game and a heavy penalty on the team. That seems to be what is going on right now with the Democratic Party.

I have been trying to sort out the logic behind many of the words and actions taken by leading Democrats. It occurs to me now, that the Democrats consider the present race out of their control, and they have resorted to trying to get in any shot they can, even if it means living by the cheap shot.

Why Blogs Live, and Must Grow

[#][#]

“As a news anchor at the highest echelon, Jennings had a front-row seat at the biggest events and stories of the last quarter century and, as the special repeatedly showed, he made the most of it, always taking his journalistic obligations to heart.”

Reuters eulogy for Peter Jennings, August 12 2005

"He established a level of trust with the viewer that would be difficult for anyone else to match going forward."

Tom Bettag, CBS News executive producer, quoted in the New York Times continuing attempt to canonize Peter Jennings

“Veteran newsman Peter Jennings was remembered Monday as an outstanding journalist, a hard worker and a man of conscience and integrity.”

CNN obituary for Peter Jennings


“Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”

- The always-objective Peter Jennings' on-air national broadcast assessment of the 1994 midterm elections, when the first clear signs of the fall of Democratic Party from its control of the U.S. Congress

“Next week on ABC’s World News Tonight, a series of reports about our environment which will tell you precisely what the new Congress has in mind: the most frontal assault on the environment in 25 years.”

- DNC mascot Jennings’ unfounded indictment of the Republican-controlled Congress, 1995

“The President’s tax cut is beginning to show up. Will three extra dollars stimulate the national economy?”

- Economic expert Jennings sneers at the notion that Americans deserve to keep more of their own money, 2003.

“The Secretary of Defense said today that those people who are questioning the effectiveness of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan are too impatient, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said much the same thing. The Pentagon is being pressed harder to be specific about what it has accomplished so far. The bombing campaign against the Taliban is now entering its fourth week, and the Taliban are still standing.”

- Jennings, noted military strategist, sneers at the war in Afgahnistan, 2001.

“This week we were surprised to see several hundred artists and writers walking through the streets of Baghdad to say thank you to Saddam Hussein. He had just increased their monthly financial support. Cynical, you could argue with this particular time, but the state has always supported the arts, and some of the most creative people in the Arab world have always been Iraqis. And whatever they think about Saddam Hussein in the privacy of their homes, on this occasion they were praising his defense of the homeland in the face of American threats.”

- Social guru Jennings explains how Saddam was really the victim, 2003.


And of course, no review of the Peter Jennings saga would be complete without a glimpse at his conscience and objectivity:

“We all have baggage, but one of the good things about journalists is that they recognize bias and work hard to keep it out of their coverage.”

- Jennings defends against charges of media bias, 2002.

(Source for all Jennings quotes, and there’s much much more)



Look, I’m not one for bashing a guy when he’s just died, but if you really want to know why the MainPain Media is losing market share and a steadily growing number of alternative resources are being sought for analysis and an overview, like Talk Radio, Cable News, and blogs of course, just look over these statements, and consider that, in the opinion of the speakers, they’re not lying. They really believe that bilge, and they promote it because it’s what they themselves are made of, at their core.

God save the blogs.

John Zogby and the Return of the 10-Foot Poll

%#&$*!

In the interest of full disclosure, I will begin by saying that I neither like nor respect John Zogby. During the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election campaign, Mr. Zogby not only mixed his telephone respondent pool with his online respondent poll for a number of his opinion polls, he also voiced a clear advocacy for John Kerry’s campaign, most egregiously when he bluntly stated in June that Kerry would win the Presidential election. Within a month, Zogby was backing off the promise, but the evidence of his clear partiality was already plain, and for a professional pollster to make the statements Zogby did, betrays either an unconscionable bias, or such slipshod methodology as to make his conclusions worthless as a barometer of public opinion.

I received an e-mail from Mr. Zogby this week, one of those broadcast types we see form companies trying to sell a product while implying that they are sending you a personal message. My thoughts about Zogby’s practices having been published last summer and fall, I am under no illusion that Mr. Zogby is seeking out my opinion of his statements, but as I have received the e-mail, my response is forthcoming anyway.

Writing for a periodical identified only as “The Financial Times”, Mr. Zogby began his article so:

“I have received a flurry of calls from reporters in the past few days
asking me to clarify something difficult to understand. They suggested that George W. Bush, US president, had had a very good week and wondered why his cluster of successes had not been reflected in the national polls.”

Interesting statement. At first glance, once might be led to believe that Mr. Zogby is referring to the standard coterie of MSM reporters, but even they are not likely to Dubya as “George W. Bush, US President”. That odd formality smacks of the European mind, and the old continental style at that. It also explains the name of the periodical; in the U.S., political news is reported by political papers and political sections of magazines. The Europeans are quite unlikely to give even a rat’s hindquarters about the state of a President’s popularity, except where money is involved, and the condition of their own investments is quite likely to be driven by the U.S. Stock Market, which supposedly is affected by the popularity of the President.

Zogby goes on to cite the Gallup Poll, his own piece of work, CBS and Ipsos-Reid. He completely ignores all the other polls, which only reinforces my earlier opinion of his inability to see beyond his sneer, a common Liberal trait but a weakness in a professional. I note that Zogby has taken only one of Gallup’s indictors, instead of the more balanced array of questions that group employs, and as for CBS/Zogby/Ipsos, the clear anti-Bush bias in those polls has been documented and reported many times and long ago, by myself and others. I suppose the next step for Zogby, would have been to quote Carville, but as it would happen, the Democracy Corps poll’s most recent numbers for the President show him at 46 percent, which is actually higher than the point Zogby is trying to sell. It truly says something, when James Carville has more respect for the President than John Zogby can manage to observe. I guess John didn’t poll in all of the Red States. . .

Zogby made a weak effort to sound balanced, as he noted that specific pieces of legislation rarely excite the public, but being Zogby, he moved on to try to sell his schtick again, and as usual, got in trouble with the facts. Zogby wrote:

“most important, the US is still polarized [sic] over the war in Iraq and half the nation is still bitter over the 2004 election. Mr Bush's presidency is all about Iraq. This is fitting because it is what he and his team wanted from the time they took office.”

This is, for those of you not familiar with the Zogby style, a formation of claims known to many people plainly as a pack of lies. Most Americans support the War in Iraq, although everyone is grieved by the continuing violence. The overwhelming majority of people not named Moore, Dean, or Zogby have gotten past the election. Indeed, it’s difficult to find a rational person who even brings up the election results these days. Claiming that Bush’s Administration is all about Iraq is just a poor attempt to ignore the many successes of Dubya’s service so far, and to pretend that the President and his Administration wanted a war “from the time they took office”, is the kind of tripe one normally has to go to Daily Kos to suffer.

So, in the end, nothing is changed. John Zogby, like most other high-profile Liberals, has reached the end of reason, and then chose to dive off the deep end into full-blown hysteria.

Say ‘hello’ to Maureen Dowd, John.

What’s the word for ‘oops’ in Jihad? ‘Merde’?

()*()*()*()

I was watching ABC last night, as they gave effusive praise to Peter Jennings, who apparently is destined to be the first MSM Newscaster canonized by the Church of, well, the Church of the Secular Deceivers, I guess. ABC sure didn’t praise Reagan or Pope John Paul II this much.

Anyway, along the joyful praise being issued by the network, I caught an interesting comment from Peter Jennings about September 11th, to the effect that looking back, we see things much differently than we did on the day itself. As an MSM Anchor, Jennings focused on the confusion, fear, and mistakes he saw in American actions at the time, which doubtless was just what bin Laden and his cronies hoped and planned to create. But the lesson also reminded me to consider how differently things have come along, from what those murdering bastards thought ahead of the event.

In 1999, the United States appeared to be in retreat. During the Clinton years, the U.S. sent troops to many places, but they always left the existing governments in power. Haiti kept its dictator, so did China and North Korea, and of course Saddam kept his palaces and his bribe deals with the U.N. Afghanistan belonged to the Taliban, Syria controlled a bunch of territory outside its nominal borders, China was buying WMD technology, and - you get the idea. Small wonder Somekinda bin Addled figured that a hard shot to America’s pride would hurt us badly. Instead, bin Stupid discovered the difference between a hot flash and genuine Fury.

A lot of people get angry in a flash, and get over it just as quickly. Even nations do this, as the French are such obvious examples. But true Fury is something else entirely, and America is a nation with a history of Fury. Fury is when you not only kick out the oppressive overlords, but you set up a Constitution for an entirely new set of laws to prevent their kind from returning. Fury is when you are willing to destroy half your country, rather than allow the union to be dissolved. Fury is when you are willing to send hundreds of thousands of your young men around the world to fight an evil for years on end. The United States has fought wars not only for the normal selfish reasons, but to end injustice, remove oppressive regimes, and to instill Democracy around the world. New tactics, new weapons, and new laws have all been developed to carry on these fights, and only a complete fool could miss the lesson of that History. O-Ima big Thug is just such a fool.

I’ve said it before, but it’s still worth saying again. We are winning, and have already won a lot of major battles. If the MSM spent even a quarter as much time on the facts in the Middle East, as they do on praising their own overpaid talking hairpieces, this would be far better understood by the American public.

Cautery

XOXOXOXOXOX

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb which destroyed the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later on August 9, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the city of Nagasaki, Japan. In both cases, the cities targeted were utterly destroyed. It is salient to note that Japan refused to surrender, even after these attacks, until August 14. On that day, just hours after Ministers Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda argued that it was still possible for Japan to defeat the Allied forces, the Japanese government resolved to surrender, only and specifically because of the request made by Emperor Hirohito: “It is my desire that you, my Ministers of State, accede to my wishes and forthwith accept the Allied reply". In this way, the Second World War of the 20th century ended at last, making way for the Cold War already in progress.

The debate over the use of the atom bomb in World War 2 has been rashly cast over the years, with the U.S. most often portrayed as the aggressor. The stubborn refusal of the Japanese cabinet to surrender, even after the use of two atom bombs, clearly shows the need for extreme measures, especially given the clear cost of a conventional invasion. Also, the United States needed to send a clear message to the Soviet Union, to demonstrate a capacity which would deter the clear aggression planned by Stalin. And, to be frank, it worked.

The use of nuclear weapons is hardly trivial or a simple decision. But the decision was made for hard and valid reasons, and while whiners and the short-sighted attempt to rewrite History, the men who had the hard decisions, took it on themselves to make the choice. A painful cost now, may well be better than allowing a danger to spread. A lesson worth retelling.

Why The Blue Meanies Rage

[][][]

I was thinking last night, that many times people do not see greatness in its time.

Many of America's Founding Fathers were taunted and ridiculed. Abraham Lincoln was much maligned in the press during the Civil War, and what the British press had to say about Winston Churchill before World War 2 and shortly after its end was far from flattering. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were both mocked by the bluebloods of their day, and in their turn Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater were ridiculed as men who didn't know their business. And of course, there was Reagan, a man the press loved to vilify, calling him evil or foolish or both at every chance.

Now they are heroes all. Their detractors deny ever doubting their greatness, and once the evidence of their success was undeniable, all claim to have been believers from the start.

With that in mind, look at the accomplishments of George W. Bush. Aside from freeing a few dozen million people, creating a foothold for Democracy and Equal Rights in a region which has never broadly known these things before, his redirection of American Politics and the potential future with better security (economic as much as national) for all Americans suggests that Dubya will enjoy at least the reputation Reagan does now.

And as for the Screaming Blue Meanies of the Left? Well, who remembers who lost to Churchill, or who led the Democrats during the eighties? Small wonder they are so angry. Unable to keep the power their predecessors left them, they will receive only the oblivion their policies and tactics deserve.

A Sea Change, and A Return To Tradition

[]+[]+[]

A Russian mini-sub was successfully rescued this weekend by a British “Super-Scorpio” robot submarine. Seven crew members have been recovered off the coast of Kamchatka, but most of the details have been kept from the public so far.

The mission was a collaboration between Russia, Britain, and the United States. The present public story, is that the Russians provided the best known information about the mini-sub’s location to the Americans, who flew the Super-Scorpio into place to cut the submarine loose.

The choice of operational duties is telling, however. The United States Navy’s Deep Submergence Unit also has robot submarines capable of doing just what the Super-Scorpio performed. Also, earlier reports from Friday indicated that the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy already had rescue vessels in the immediate area. The reasons for choosing to move a specialized unit in this fashion is food for a great deal of speculation, but I think it was three-fold:

First, the history. In August of 2000, the Russian nuclear Submarine Kursk suffered an explosion and sank, killing all 118 crew members. The full explanation for why the Russian Government refused aid offered by other nations, including the United States and Britain, has never been presented and many never come out in public, but the Russians seem determined to avoid a similar blunder this time.

Second, geopolitics. Regarding the nature of the exercise, it is telling that Vladimir Putin is on better terms with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, than with most of his European counterparts. This is in many ways a return to form for the Russians. As far back as Catherine the Great, Russia has been interested in learning the tactics and stratagems of both British and American naval officers, and when the Soviet Navy came into its own influence under Admiral Gorshkov, he was strongly influenced by Mahan and Corbett, although he was also properly impressed by the more recent examples from Halsey and Nimitz. It is extremely likely that under the present conditions, Admiral Federov is determined to glean as much information as he can with the UK-US navies, and to build as much trust as he can. This is because of the basic fact of Sea Power; no nation can hold any sort of regional hegemony and intercontinental influence, without a substantial navy. The empires of the past fell in large part because they were one-dimensional in their military force. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, the Persians, even the ancient Chinese kingdoms all fell because they could not defend their flanks from an enemy. Alexander introduced the use of naval action independent of land movements, which created a new level of mobility and power projection. The Romans carried this to the next level, and in the bargain gained a means to control trade shipping as well. Britain, as is now understood, perfected the use of Sea Power, building a far-flung empire by providing itself a means to reach virtually any nation on the globe with military force. The Japanese Navy introduced the next level of power projection through its development of a Carrier fleet, which notion the United States itself perfected, destroying the Japanese fleet in the same process. By 1945, the United States was the world’s clear military leader, in large part because of the multiple dimensions of attack available to its choice. Since that time, the gap between the United States and everyone else has simply grown to a chasm, then become a canyon, and is not likely to be caught in the foreseeable future. But the British are no slackers. While the United States has built its capital ships principally for power projection and nuclear deterrence and reconnaissance, the United Kingdom has built its forces to serve its needs. The 1982 Falklands War is seen by many people as an essential draw, but this is not the case; leaving aside the question of the terms of cease-fire, the United Kingdom proved that it was quite capable to sending a military force of whatever size was need, anywhere it is needed. The British habit of understatement has hidden the many successes in the field produced by their troops, but it’s worth noting that a regiment of SAS is to be prized or feared (depending on whether you are with them or against them) more than virtually any other group its size on the Earth. When military men want to improve themselves, they visit Quantico and Sandhurst if they can.

The final reason is obvious, by simply reading the news and noting a globe. The fall of the old Soviet Union hit the Russians hard, but especially their Navy. There are few resources for training and maintenance, which are critical elements for a functional navy. John Keegan sagely observed that a large piece of Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar, came from the keen edge of training the British sailors had. The Russians know this lesson well, but are ill-suited to scrape up the means to keep the Russian navy ready. And this provides a strategic threat that needs a look.

In the years leading up to World War 2, the intention of Japan to control Asia was plain, and the United States took action to prevent this through the imposition of stiff tariffs and a blockade. The invasion of China was planned by Japan, to provide it with key resources necessary for the war, but Japan failed to gain the necessary metals and oil to keep its industry functioning. China has studied this lesson for more than a half century, because of the same ambition, and like Japan, with a wary eye on American actions.

Siberia is a largely undeveloped portion of the world, largely due to its remote location and inhospitable climate. However, recent discoveries of certain exotic metals greatly increases the attractiveness of Siberia to a nation planning to greatly increase its manufacturing capabilities, especially in heavy industry, as China does. Also, China has made a number of claims over the past decade to oil fields located in the waters between the Philippines and Vietnam, and in the China Sea; there have even been attempts by Chinese naval forces to secure some of the disputed fields by chasing away civilian vessels with threats of personal capture or seizure of their vessels.

Russia has a strategic interest in preventing China from gaining such control of resources, and doubtless Putin has reminded Bush and Blair, that they also need to watch out for China’s intentions. There is no better signal for Russia to send, in the event of a naval incident like this, than to show the Chinese that the Americans and the British consider Russia a friend.

Finally, the rescue of the Russian mini-sub shows a welcome return to an old imperative, one worthy of recognition but lost long ago. As recently as World War 1, if a ship was sunk, all ships in the vicinity were expected to lend assistance in recovering survivors, even from an enemy vessel. In fact, failure to lend assistance was considered an inexcusable negligence, and could cost a captain his command and career. When German submarines sank ships without attempting to assist in rescue efforts (for which they were never designed, anyway), the British played up the incidents as evidence of barbarism. By World War 2, the chivalry to rescuing enemy combatants was long gone, and the Cold War saw no improvement in the practice.

The cooperation in the rescue effort this past weekend is a small but significant step, therefore, in the restoration in the Brotherhood of the Sea, and sets a precedent that will, if carried ahead, set a course to the advantage of every nation concerned.

Hot Time

.!.!.!.!.

Whew, it's hot. Too hot for the normal topics, so courtesy of Bob Byers, a list of ways you know you're in Texas during Summer:

[] The trees are whistling for the dogs to come on over

[] The birds have to use potholders to pull worms out of the ground

[] The best parking space is determined by shade instead of distance

[] Hot water now comes out of both taps

[] You learn that a sealt-belt buckle makes a pretty good branding iron

[] If the temperature drops below 95, you feel like you need to go put a sweater on

[] You discover it only takes 2 fingers to steer the steering wheel

[] You notice that asphalt has a liquid state.

Tax Talk

$$$$$$$$

Steve Forbes was on the radio again last week, pushing his ‘Flat Tax ' proposal, which had the benefit of sparking debate on reforming the IRS and Income Tax, but had the distinct weakness of tossing out an old half-considered plan in the guise of a complete product. What Mr. Forbes fails to realize now is precisely what he has failed to see before; the Flat Tax, at least he describes it, is a non-starter.

I certainly agree that the Internal Revenue Service needs a refit, and the entire Tax Code must be replaced with something that most people will agree is acceptable. Not fair, not perfect, not some impractical nirvana where nothing is ever bad for anyone, but at least an acceptable system where the average taxpayer has reason to believe he is being treated with a modicum of respect and a general attempt at objective balance has at least been made. But there are a number of ways to get there, and part of the matter begins with accepting that with hundreds of millions of taxpayers, there is a minimum level of complexity which must exist. That complexity has three legs on which any plan stands; organization, income, and audit.

Without going overboard into the somnorific qualities of tax codes, there are three basic contenders for tax reform; a Flat Tax, like the 17% rate proposed by Forces, a tax on Consumption, like the proposed National Sales Tax, and a reformed Progressive-Rate Income Tax. All have their advantages and disadvantages. And all are based on the need to develop a functional system which pays for the government without crating a general resentment of itself. This is why the most principal quality of a tax code is proper organization. You will need a means to collect revenue, a means to report it and file the necessary paperwork, and you need a means to enforce your code. The present organization suffers, because the system of collecting revenue is punitive towards the average wage-earner, while it allows corporations and the wealthy to believe they can play with the works. Not many do, but the impression is enough to cause a great deal of trouble. The Flat Tax and the Progressive-Rate Tax both suffer from this condition, while the Consumption Tax is better-suited to acquire the revenue smoothly and with an appearance of balance.

The second leg is Income. The United States 2006 Federal Budget is an estimated $2.6 Trillion , against an expected $2.2 Trillion in revenue, representing an outlay of 19.9% of the GDP. Obviously that’s a lot of pork, but for here it is important to note that it explains the effective average paid of $17,368 per taxpayer. And yes, that’s just for your federal taxes. Whatever system you use, it has to produce approximately $334 a week in federal tax revenue from each and every taxpayer. This is the problem for the Consumption Tax; you’d have to calculate accurately just how much to charge, and whether or not to exempt staples besides the existing basics. And the bottom line, is that unless and until the Federal Government gets really serious about taking a chainsaw to spending, there’s not really going to be such a thing as a serious tax cut; a large chunk of the voting public is not going to like whatever system is chosen, and the Congress will take a hit from the unhappy voters, but in a way that by definition cannot be predicted. Just in case you were wondering why so many Congressmen are happy to say the Tax Code needs reform, but most refuse to go into specifics about what plan they support.

Next, no matter what sort of plan is implemented, taxpayers will need audits. For one thing, there are people who will try to cheat no matter how fair a system is, and also, there will be many people who will not like the new system, whatever is chosen. Also, despite the complex nature of modern life, there are an amazing number of people able to miss basic facts of life, and doing your taxes properly is generally considered an aberration, and will be viewed with prejudice no matter how simple a method of reporting is designed. The notion of ‘doing your taxes on a postcard’, or not having to file at all, is as naïve as the initial claim that an Income Tax would never claim more than four or five percent of a taxpayer’s income. Obviously, any system which allows for deductions means paperwork and mistakes and cheating to some degree, but so does a system which bases revenue on the merchants turning in the money – a merchant can increase his profit margin by cheating on what he pays to the government, so the Consumption Tax would also need a close eye. And as for the Fair Tax? Without deductions, it would come down to people honestly reporting income. It would drive a new resentment of class, because the lower-middle class lives pretty much on paychecks, while the lowest classes and professional classes are able to work “off the books”; the poorest because their employer wants to avoid government checks on his conditions, the professional because he can arrange such terms. This cannot be anything but a problem in convincing the average taxpayer to accept radical change.

Also, there needs to be considered the most likely effect of each system. For example, I used to be a referee in high school sports, which was difficult, took long hours and was expensive. The only thing which made it workable, was that I could file Schedule C on the officiating fees I received, balancing the money I got against the costs of my equipment and my travel to clinics, scrimmages, and games. If a tax system which allowed deductions was to be replaced with something else, the sports official would either be penalized for his income without a chance to claim his necessary expenses, or else buying the materials needed to do the job would increase in cost through the Consumption tax. In either case, no official would be willing to work at the same rates as before; the change in tax conditions would require a few increase. Or, to put it another way, no matter what system is put into place, some of the workforce will suffer under it and demand compensation, while those who gain from the new system will demand to keep their gains as a right. Any new system will necessarily be inflationary and also damage consumer confidence in the short term. In many ways, reforming the Tax Code will be a bit like adopting several teenagers into your family; expensive, noisy, full of surprises and things that wreck your plans.

After all this, I am not saying that a Consumption Tax or a Flat Tax cannot work, simply that their proponents have not thought things through even half so far as they need, and until that happens, the only changes we may expect will be timid, incremental, and politically rewarding for their sponsor.

New York Propaganda Review

[][]////[][]\\\\[][]

Well, the New York Times is at it again. Courtesy of Real Clear Politics, the NYT has published an editorial attacking “Congressional China bashers”, for their decision not to hand over a strategic prize to Red China. The problem in doing an autopsy on anything from the Times, is deciding where to begin. The ubiquitous abandonment of facts is a given, but the way in which rational analysis is savaged and ripped from the piece by the various editors makes it difficult to identify the victim. Which provides the first point of reference, actually: I noticed as I began to look at the corpse, that the Times has not bothered to sign a name to their work. As an aside, it occurs to me that one reason blogs carry at least a minimal level of credibility, is that the blog author has his/her name attached to the work; none of this anonymous presentation of a piece which everyone can claim they had no connection with, should it bomb in public opinion. Weasel Journalism, that.

Next is the title: “No Way to Treat a Dragon”. My, what a choice. First off, dragons are mythical, which is to say fictitious, creatures – they are not real. Rather like China’s long-term capability of making and keeping business contracts. There is not, for example, a single privately-owned business of a billion dollars’ worth or greater which has done business with China to its profit for even one decade yet. That is a big red flag, if you’ll pardon the imagery, to any investor capable of comprehending a financial statement, which admittedly is a skill beyond the abilities of the NYT editors.

But just that title creates the air that the United States somehow owes the People’s Republic of China deference, in the manner of a humble man addressing the majesty of a celestial creature. Leaving aside other comparisons between the United States and China, to imply (as the Times does here) that the USA’s business climate and conditions are such that we are obliged to treat China as an equal, let alone a superior financial power, is to display an appalling ignorance of how finance, trade, and strategic resources operate.

Here’s how the Times summarized the attempt by China to take over Unocal: “Facing crippling delays imposed by Congress, Cnooc, a state-controlled Chinese oil company, has now withdrawn its $18.5 billion bid for Unocal, conceding the prize to Chevron”. That is, having found the foreign offer unsuitable, the United States Congress acted responsibly, and took actions which worked in favor of the American-held oil company remaining in the control and ownership of Americans. The technical terms for keeping a strategic interest out of foreign hands would include “wise”, “sound”, even “smart”. To the Times, however, it was “a loss for the United States' global interests, and it sets a dangerous precedent of dealing with China by demonizing the Chinese”. Sorry, but that doesn’t come close to being accurate. Serious and competent businessmen do not throw a tantrum, just because they do not get what they want, and denying a strategic resource to a nation likely to use it to America’s disadvantage does not 'demonize' China, anymore than anyone who voted for Bush last year was automatically questioning Kerry’s patriotism.

But it gets even sillier. The Times then goes on to opine that keeping strategic resources in American hands “risks turning China, an emerging Superpower, into an aggressive opponent rather than simply a global competitor.” Bull patties. First off, in no substantive way is China a “superpower”; they enjoy regional hegemony in certain areas, but for their size surprisingly small influence or real power. Second, until China allows for a true Free Market, there is no way that real businessmen can trust their statements, which amount to allowing the Chinese government to audit itself, and present the numbers with nothing remotely like due diligence. You wouldn’t buy a used car for five thousand without expecting an independent confirmation of its condition; only a complete moron would suggest a multi-billion dollar deal with a nation which refuses to allow independent audits.

Ever the self-convinced, the Times pushes on: “So the way has been paved for tit-for-tat retaliation. That could be a precursor to escalation, which, in turn, could be the catalyst for a serious economic clash. Congress has already spent the summer considering half a dozen proposals for across-the-board tariffs against Chinese imports. The Bush administration is also trying to forcibly stem the flow of Chinese textiles into the United States.” In English, that simply means that the United States, a true First-World nation, is being very careful to make sure it is not bound by unreasonable requirements from China, a Second-World nation. I’m sure the Chinese government would like more contracts on the level as they received from LORAL during the Clinton Administration, but Dubya is the kind of man to check the door before he opens it, much less let you date his family. Keeping an eye on companies and capacities the U.S. cannot afford to lose, is not “tit-for-tat retaliation”, it’s good sense. But then, good sense has been missing from the Times for quite a while.

The Law of Ko

[]X[]X[]X[]

There's an old saying; What comes around, goes around. For some reason, it never seems to occur to people, that this applies to politics as well.

The Republicans sat on their hands during the 1920s, and so they lost power for a generation.

Eisenhower did nothing about the USSR, and so JFK came into the White House.

Richard Nixon abused his power, and so we had to endure 2 terms of Bubba.

But the other way works, too...

FDR changed the government to his liking, and now W gets his chance to set things right, especially in the courts.

Harry Truman fired a general for not putting politics ahead of the war, and wver since then Democrats have had trouble supporting troops, who for their part have had no trouble supporting Republicans.

Lyndon Johnson proved a single President could undermine a nation, so now Dubya is proving a single President can help new nations stand on their own.

We still have yet to see the rebound from 40 years of Socialist domination in Academia and Congress, but it will come, it will come.

Ko.

Barbarians Judging The Faithful

~~~~~~~

On his radio show, host and author Hugh Hewitt (who has also applied to become the next President of the University of Colorado, along with an assortment of fancies and whimsical posts) often likes to match wits with various guests and opponents. Sometimes with respect, sometimes otherwise.

A little while back, Tom Tancredo opined that the United States should make known a simple policy, in the event a nuclear weapon is discharged in the territorial United States; if a nuke goes off anywhere in the U.S., the United States would destroy Mecca with a nuclear strike. Tancredo believes that such a warning/threat/malicious fantasy would act as a deterrent against a nuclear attack on the United States, while Hewitt believes it would only set off a new recruiting drive by the terrorists, as if they would lay low and play nice if we only said good things about their faith. I find serious problems with both contentions.

First, to Mr. Tancredo. Imagine an enemy of the United States, which wanted very badly for the U.S. to get caught up in a prolonged and bitter war, with no reasonable chance of a constructive result, which would allow this enemy to make significant gains in influence and power around the world, while the U.S. declined in money, power, and credibility. All that enemy would need to do in the Tancredo Scenario, is to arrange to set off a nuclear device inside the United States. When the U.S. destroyed Mecca in retaliation, the ensuing worldwide campaign against the United States by enraged Muslims would dwarf anything seen as a religious conflict before. The United States would be very unlikely to lose such a war because of its resources and caliber of military, but it would be even less likely to conclude that war in anything less than a generation, and the lasting hatred of America for such an act would do permanent damage to relations worldwide. In essence, if the United States used nuclear weapons on a religious center known to be free of any sort of strategic weapons, on anything less than complete and compelling forensic and empirical proof of direct involvement by leaders in that city, such an action would be to permanently abdicate any right to leadership in any moral or idealist sense. And who would be capable of such a provocation? China, India, even Pakistan or Iran under certain circumstances, are all capable and inclined to put just such a strategy to work if they knew the U.S. would strike Mecca instead of them. This alone completely discredits Tancredo’s suggestion, not that there is any situation where I would automatically advocate the use of nuclear weapons as the first and immediate course of action. Even the old Soviet Union understood that the cost of Nuclear Weapons outweighed their positive value, except in the case of Internal Security. Simply put, nations kept Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent against a foreign first strike, but this was on the assumption that such a strike would be massive and obvious in origin. The use of a nuclear device by a terrorist cell of uncertain origin would be another matter entirely, and the assumption that only one potential enemy must be at fault, and that a non-aggressor should be struck in retaliation, is simply not an acceptable course of action.

As for Mr. Hewitt, the problem of Muslim complicity in the Wahabist Jihad cannot be overlooked. The problem can be summed up by examining the numbers. Perhaps fifty to one hundred thousand Muslims are active participants in the militant Jihad of Fasict Islam, a small number indeed compared to the estimated 1.4 Billion Muslims in the world. Yet a far smaller portion of Muslims have spoken out against the Fascists, implying their consent and approval through their silence. This is especially true in the United States, where Muslims are well aware of the value and effectiveness of public statements, yet vicious attacks against Americans and Democracy go unchallenged by the so-called moderates. Muslims cannot claim to deserve respect for their faith, if they will not separate themselves from the monsters using the name of Allah as an excuse to murder innocent people. Islam must be considered part of the problem, unless and until it takes active steps to address its own cancer. We have to take the Mullahs and Imams to task, even here in the U.S., and make it clear they cannot evade their responsibility.

The Hillary Effect

().().().

A few columnists have been trying to sound out the question of “Can Hillary Win?”, which to me is on the par with “Will Howard Dean Make Inappropriate Noises?”, or “Will Michael Moore Fib On Camera?”, but if you’re a Democrat, I guess you have to kick all the tires and look under the hood, even when you’re visiting the neighbors.

Anyway, take a look back at the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. Do either Al Gore or John Kerry look at all, like the kind of leadership America needs and wants? Yet each of them pulled in tens of millions of votes, and more than 47% of the Popular vote, no matter how you figure it. This means that the Democrats could (and to my mind already have) nominated an undead ghoul, and he would still collect enough votes to win under certain circumstances. Therefore, the Republicans not only have to be careful to stay unified in their support for the party nominee, the Democrats know that any kind of capable Democrat can be genuinely significant.

It may seem ironic, but the best opportunity to knock Hillary from the race will likely come in the Primaries. This happened, I believe, in 2000 and in 2004, as qualified and thoughtful Democrats failed to gain the respect and attention from the more rabid Democrats, and by the time the race was serious, only the clowns were left to run in it. This trait of self-annihilation explains why the Democrats cannot mount an effective policy campaign, nor present an effective candidate for the White House. They rally around the nominee, sure, but by that time the best-qualified talent has been chased away by character thugs and the votes of the most rabid activists. One does not employ reason with Jackals, especially when the Jackals run the political party. Republicans may worry about the possible effectiveness of a Hillary Administration, but leading Democrats resent the potential she carries even more, and so redouble their efforts to keep her locked out, at any cost.

It’s always dangerous to project an outcome so far in advance, but if I had to do so now, HilClin08 has honed her tools well, with lots of money, a lot of lawyers on board already, and a PR team to give the impression she can raise the dead (Nationalized Healthcare) and walk on water (raise taxes, but only on “them"). The primaries will be a bloodbath, and HilClin08 seems hungry for the fight. The downside to this, is that it will be very difficult afterwards to recreate the image of the thoughtful, gentle leader. If we are going to pick music to represent the candidates, at a time when most Republicans will try to be like Toby Keith, HilClin08 will sound like Ludacris. With similar imagery. The Democratic primaries will set her image, and America will be very likely to see HilClin08 in a new light by summer, one with power and conviction, but not likely to be quite the picture she planned.

I have made it no secret, that the best Republican candidate for 2008 is the present Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. No stranger to tough opposition and cheap shots, or to racism and sexism used against her, Rice will be, I think, impossible for HilClin08 to defeat, in large part because of the damage done early by HC’s in-party rivals. If it happens that another Republican wins the nomination, it will come down to National Security credentials. Nothing else will be as important in the success of the next President as that issue with Rice in the race, though the election will be influenced, as always, by the Economy. If another Democrat than HC wins the nomination, then the general election will revert more or less to normal conditions of mixing security and the economy for the vote, because without HC or Rice in the mix, the two most formidable forces on each side will have been removed and the voters will know this. The nominees will have to energize the voters, and at this time I simply do not see a candidate with the requisite qualities to do so, save HC and Rice. Political parties have made incredibly stupid mistakes before, so there is no reason to believe they cannot fumble again here.

Hillary Clinton will, absolutely, run for President in 2008. She is not, to any standard, qualified for the job. But she has the money and organization to be the early poll leader and is in position to win the early primaries, key to any Democrat’s run. If the Democrats are smart, they will recognize this now, and polish her image collectively and prepare for the hard questions to come, but party history shows this is extremely unlikely. If the Republicans are smart, they will recognize the limitations of any of the narcissist Senators or other high-maintenance hairspray types out there, and get serious about preparing a candidate for the real work to be done. Sadly, again there is little reason to believe they will do the responsible thing. Fortunately, on the whole the Democrats play dirtier than the Republicans, and by the time the parties hold their conventions, the Left will have more damage control and cleanup to do than the Right.

Hillary Clinton: The Heat-Seeking Candidate. And that could make all the difference.

Dubya's Choice

[]/\[]/\[]

George W. Bush should decide who best is qualified to serve as his successor in the White House, and should make his opinion known to that candidate and in due course, provide his full and unwavering support for the campaign.

Democrats would be outraged by such a bold decision on the part of the President, even though it has a long and valid presidential precedent. They would claim it plays with the political process, when in fact it would not harm the process one bit, except making clear to Americans how to continue the programs and policies of George W. Bush. And that, in my opinion, would be a serious blow to any Democrat’s hope to grabbing the White House.

The first President, George Washington, made clear that he considered James Monroe something of his protege. It in no way subverted the electoral process, and in these days of popular votes, for Dubya to note whom he likes is no threat to the voice of the people. Also, throughout pesidential history, many Chief Executives have played their preferences or supported the Party’s choice. Dubya’s father enjoyed a healthy margin of victory in 1988, in large part because Ronald Reagan supported him, so that GHWB appeared to be Ronnie’s pick. Before that, in 1964 LBJ enjoyed a landslide victory, in large part because he appeared to JFK’s right-hand man. It’s worth noting that because Reagan did not make his personal preference known ahead of the campaign, he was more or less stuck with the party choice, whom he backed loyally. And because Kennedy never anticipated his demise, he did not make public the choice to kick LBJ off the boat, and so America was misled about what Jack Kennedy wanted.

Ordinarily, there would be small value to pressing to have a President name his personal choice to follow him, but the stakes are extremely high for 2008. The Global War on Terror will be continuing, and in a different aspect. Just as the majority of Americans in 2004 understood that no issue was as important as the War on Terror, they will be looking for the right leadership and direction in 2008 on that same issue. by 2007 it will be necessary, even critical, for Bush to name an individual who is best-qualified to meet that challenge. Personally, I do not doubt for an instant that the best candidate is not the one who knows the Economy best, or the Abortion or even the Court issues best, would ideally be a candidate known for handling pressure and complex issues, someone with direct experience in National Security, and someone who has worked in addressing our relations with other countries in the context of the threat from Global Terrorism. The sole candidate so qualified is Secretary of State (and former National Security Advisor) Condoleeza Rice. If President Bush has someone else in mind, it would be important to know his preference, but this is absolutely an instance where America should know the mind of George W. Bush.