CAUTION: Watching Out For Error In the Ruffini Straw Poll

||||||||||||||

I have said several times that I found the Presidential Candidate poll being run by Patrick Ruffini to be invalid. There are a number of reasons for this, and now that Mr. Ruffini has begun to announce “results” , it’s important to go into the matter in order to avoid mistakes.

People like polls. It’s the combination of hinting at the future, and giving people a say in the call. The media picked up on these points a long time ago, and that’s paid a lot of paychecks for Polling Groups. I have done autopsies on a number of polls since last year’s campaign, showing elements of concern about methodology, weighting, and the ubiquitous bias gremlin. It’s a serious issue for even the most professional pollster. I like Patrick Ruffini and find his thinking generally sound, but he’s allowed his enthusiasm for his own poll to overlook some mistakes, and I must warn the reader that those mistakes can invalidate a lot of the conclusions reached.

The first mistake is the biggest one. Ruffini calls his poll for Giuliani, but Rudy, as much as I like him, only pulls 30.0%. That’s not a win, folks. John Kerry cleared more than 30% last year, and Al Gore cleared over 30% of the Electoral Vote. While certain Aluminati may claim otherwise, neither “Magic Hat” John nor Mr. Internet has signed any bills into law. Giuliani took the most votes in an informal, non-binding, non-scientific poll, with no ramifications beyond providing points for discussion.

The poll itself should not be confused in the slightest with any sort of election or primary contest. The people who took part in the poll, for instance, did not have to register, nor show up at a polling place, and there were fewer security measures taken to prevent repeat votes than in downtown Chicago. Also, the slate of candidates in this poll were selected by a committee of one - Patrick Ruffini. None of the conditions unique to the early primary states was applied to establish a more realistic venue. In that light, Mr. Ruffini’s attempts to project how the slate would do in a real primary seems specious to me. For instance, the early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire have a much larger slate of candidates than the later ones, but they do not generally serve well as indicators of the eventual winner. As for the later polls, candidates drop out for financial and political reasons, and the winner of these primaries generally has a much more focused message, and voters have a clearer choice among fewer (and distinct) options.

Patrick called his poll “statistically valid", simply because he got a lot of participation. Sorry Patrick, but that just isn’t so. For one thing, as I observed before, you did not consider the likelihood of multiple votes, or the poll’s inabiliy to catch cheaters. As an example, I could have voted from my home computer, or any of several computers at work, and you’d have no way of knowing it, much less correcting for it. And I am hardly unique in that capability.

But more to the point, Ruffini’s poll was not weighted. In polling history, one of the most famous blown calls was the 1936 Presidential Election, in which the Literary Digest, a prominent national magazine, called the race for Alf Landon in a blowout. With more than two million people taking part in the LD poll, it seemed like a strong indicator. In the actual election, however, FDR rolled along with ease. The mistakes made by the editors at LD came from failing to understand the demographic balance and address it. And Ruffini makes the same mistake. His poll made no attempt to compensate, for example, for gender or race. Also, there was no weighting for geographic location, a crucial error given the fact that people in different parts of the country naturally find different candidates and different qualities which appeal to them. Taken as a scientific poll, this doesn’t meet even minimal standards.

I also take issue with a trick played by Ruffini in the poll. Ruffini chose not to include several qualified candidates in the poll as main choices, but threw them up as “fantasy” candidates. This is significantly invalid as a polling practice, as it simultaneously denies those individuals an equal place on the ballot, but also draws a connection between the “serious” candidates and the “fantasy” candidates on no more than the whim of Mr. Ruffini. It shows a basic lack of understanding of poll method, and basely insults the candidates demoted to second-class status. Count them on the SAME ballot, Mr. Ruffini, and let the voters decide.

At best, this poll was meaningless, because of the myriad errors in its development. At worst, it was a cheap shot at qualified candidates. That’s too bad, because the poll could have been run to some good effect. If, for example, Ruffini had paid less attention to meaningless statistics, but asked his voters to detail what made their candidate qualified, he could have helped draw out what voters are looking for in the next President. By asking them to specify what worried them about candidates they didn’t choose, Ruffini could have helped these candidates address those concerns early on. It’s just too bad that Ruffini chose a poll which has no effective meaning for the campaigns ahead, and that a false image was created this early. After all, at one time when people didn’t look too deep, a lot of people thought Howard Dean looked Presidential.

Evangelizing

[+][+][+]

Over on Beliefnet, I was involved in a discussion about evangelizing, and telling about the Gospel. I thought it might be worth posting here, what I wrote there:

There was a time when I was rigid and frankly hostile to challenges, especially from non-Christians. And yes, I will agree that some people do like to ridicule our faith and the people who profess it. However, in the main people are often skeptical of a faith which makes the outrageous claims that Christ did, and what’s more, some of the people who carried the name had none of Christ’s love in their deeds, so that many more people have been hurt by Christians, and so have strong reason to mistrust the claims of someone else telling them they must embrace what for them was a cruel enemy.

Now then, I have been through many things in my life, and one thing which has always struck me as important, is that every person is different. Consider Christ’s example. Did He speak to the temple merchants the same way He did to Matthew? Did He treat Caiaphas the way He did Joseph of Arimathea? This difference is not at all to say that Jesus was unfair or prejudiced, but that He recognized the different natures of different people, and treated them according to their heart. Unfortunately, we cannot use the same perfect discernment as our Lord, but we do well to keep in mind the different characters of the people we meet. In time and with experience, we learn what each person is about, and how they think. For better or worse, most people here have a pretty good idea of what I am about in mind and person.

So, how to tell the Gospel? I won’t pretend that I have all the answers, but it really does seem obvious to me, that the Gospel is Good News, and should be delivered in a way which carries the joy and hope God intends for us to receive. There have been many fine evangelists over the years, but also many who have chased people away by their manner and aggressive tactics. It helps, I think, to remember that we are only instruments, and not the force which makes any difference. If someone chooses Christ, it will be because of the Holy Spirit, not because I ‘sold’ the Gospel well. So, I choose to be a witness by making sure, first, that I am living as well as I can the love of Christ. If I am not loving, then I am an hypocrite, have far more serious things to address than whether I am increasing the church membership. But if I live by love, then I may hope to share what I know with anyone interested in receiving it. It is never right to force my beliefs on others, or to demand they agree that I am right. Jesus Himself did not do so, and I am in no way his equal by right. It may seem to be defeatist to not press on in preaching the Gospel after a rejection, but we cannot know the path another person may walk, or what they may choose later on. In any case, Grace is not a thing which may be compelled, so if it is not accepted, then we receive our peace back to ourselves. Anything else comes of the self and bitterness, and would spoil the fruit.

Further, there are those Christians who treat the Gospel as if it were a product to be merchandised, and conversions a goal to be scored. I have no way of knowing, honestly, whether the people I speak with have truly accepted Christ, nor would I wish to know. I have been told that I have helped some to see Christ in a loving way, and if so that would be good, but it is not right that I should presume that I hold any right to pride or a claim to accomplishment; at my best I am only pointing out to someone a great gift which I myself received freely, and if I take airs of importance to myself, it would lead me to sin and hurt the very people I believed I was helping. One member, made a point earlier that she does not keep track of the good things she does, and I applaud that spirit. If you do not dwell on the good or evil in the past, you are free to do good and receive joy in the future. If you focus on the love and hope granted to us by God, rather than on the petty measures we humans so often fall prey to, you can more easily share that love and hope with other people. Consider the Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable. By doctrine, the Samaritans do not understand the true LORD, but are mistaken in their beliefs. For all of that however, when the man was robbed and left for dead in the road, it was not the Priest or the Pharisee who was his neighbor, but the Samaritan who stopped and gave the aid he needed. And the Samaritan, though he gave freely of his time, effort, and money, did not speak a word of dogma to the man he helped; his focus was on the love for his neighbor in need. Shall we then, when we see a need, focus on a point of religion and doctrine, or shall we help with no thought beyond doing what is needed?

Consider also the thief on the cross. If there was ever a man I’d like to have lunch and a long conversation with, it would be this man. In all His life, Jesus was never at true need but once. For all His poverty, Jesus never complained of want. For all the humiliation of preaching the true Gospel directly to people, as Immanuel and Messiah Himself, only to be rejected by men unwilling to part with their pettiness and self-sold bitterness, Jesus never condemned the towns and cities which laughed at Him. Even Jerusalem, when they cried out for His blood, He did not curse, but mourned for. But there came a time, when (having taken the whole world’s sin throughout all time on Himself), it was required that the perfect Father reject His own Son on the cross, and Jesus cried out in despair. In that instant, Satan had his cruelest opportunity, but this thief simply asked Jesus to remember him ,when Christ came into His kingdom. It was the one moment when God in the flesh had need of something from Man, and this one time a man delivered, speaking in faith words so simple they are often missed, yet in consequence they carried the same faith and hope which Christ Himself had so often offered to all men. A lifetime of hearing only ridicule and rejection was made good in one sentence in faith. If our Lord could bear that, we should be careful to take whatever we receive in good grace.

It falls to each believer to carry his/her burden as it is appointed to them, but it seems to me that sharing the Gospel is a happy thing, not a chore but a pleasurable privilege. It also seems to me that we ought to consider how it delivered. Many years ago in school, I was being taunted by a group of thugs at school, and I told them that I would pray for them. That earned me a nasty beating, as it gave them the accurate impression that I considered myself to be their better, and their reaction was the predictable anger one sees in a person who considers themselves to have been deliberately provoked. On other occasions, I missed opportunities to share the Gospel, instead choosing to talk down to the person I was addressing, conveying contempt for their person instead of truly trying to meet their needs. After all, when Jesus met people, He often began the conversation on surprisingly mundane things. He did not require people to become His disciple in order to help or heal them, but gave His service freely. Remember when Jesus healed ten lepers, and only one came back to thank Him? Jesus did not then curse the other nine, nor did He deny His help wherever He was able. We are charged then, not to fling the Gospel in the face of someone who is not a Christian, but to seek people out and help as we can, and only offer the Gospel if and when the person is open to receiving it. When the person is clearly not interested, it will accomplish no good to press.

Now, here at Beliefnet it is reasonable to believe that people are open to exchanging perspectives and opinions, especially here at the Debate boards. It is normal practice here for opinions to be presented but also challenged, for perspectives to be considered but also sometimes missed. In five years, precious few have changed their beliefs on a major level (though it does happen), but many have re-examined their beliefs because of an experience with someone. I am happy to say that quite a few people have reconsidered old assumptions about what a fundamentalist Christian is, because of some enlightening conversations we have shared with each other. But a large part of that comes from understanding that I also respect other people’s beliefs. I will never be a Pagan or a Muslim, but that does not prevent me from accepting the truths such believers have learned from God, nor from respecting the person for their heart and mind. I have encountered the love of God in many people who do not call themselves Christian, and it reminds me that I do not know all His ways. What does not make sense to me now, I trust to His care and direction. I tell of my faith and why I hold it, and do my best to speak with reason and respect. You will do as you think best, of course, but I hope these thoughts will be of some value.

Harry Potter and the Center for National Threat Response

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

As you will know from reading the earlier articles, I have been enjoying the Harry Potter stories immensely. One theme that runs through all the stories is one we all should recognize, and many call our own – Harry doesn’t really want to be famous or powerful, he just wants to live his life without someone trying to kill him, or, almost as bad, expecting him to do some heroic deed that will make everything all right. But life being what it is (and poor Harry suffering as the protagonist in the merciless clutches of the novelist), Harry does what he has to do, and it generally works out for the best, though not without cost. There is a parallel in that to the role the United States is continually expected to play. The U.S. is cursed and reviled for its power and resources, yet it is the Americans who are called on first to meet the crises of our time; the bigger the crisis the more absolute it is that the Americans must take it on.

I have been reading through some old papers on the Soviet threat during the 1980s (the Reagan years), and with those dark days in mind, I find it ludicrous in the extreme that the MainPain Media and the Paranoid cry out in such cowardice when a few thuggish brutes are able to kill a number of others as they snuff out their own existence. That does not mean that I am insensitive to the pain of the victims; we must end terrorism as a common practice in the world. This does not mean that I am cavalier about the dead soldiers in Iraq; a soldier to me is a higher form of personage, and the loss of such men is grievous. But the plain fact is, these monsters cannot win by their method. A coward may flee them, and the morally weak may give in to them, but our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, are nothing like the losses we accepted while winning World War 2, nor are we propping up a corrupt government as we did in Vietnam. So long as men of steadfast heart and mind make the decisions, we will prevail, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have already seen the spread of excitement for Democracy sweep through the region, chasing Syrian occupiers from Lebanon, and forcing Libya to renounce the WMD it was building (funny, how those people who would love to taunt W on the claim that there were no WMD in Iraq, not only ignore the evidence of those programs, but turn their backs on real anti-proliferation progress made in Libya, Syria, and even Iran, specifically because of the American presence). The American presence is having a good effect in everything it touches, and this not only degrades the threats to U.S. National Security on a number of levels, but also builds the foundation for positive relationships with many nations.

We are winning, and that is good news, not only for many millions now, but for their children to come.

China: The Present Threat

&&&&&&&

China will not use nuclear weapons on the United States. That, by itself, displays a major difference between the Cold War conflict between the USA and the USSR, and the present rivalry between the U.S. and the P.R.C. As I observed in yesterday’s article, Communist China walked a different road to get here than the one involving Lenin, Stalin, and the KGB. That’s hardly to say that the Ministry of State Security (MSS) is a kind and understanding establishment, but the threat is of a different order.

First, the military plane. If the Soviet Union was a Rottweiler, the Red Army of China is a bad-tempered Shih Tzu. The Chinese defense forces are formidable, so it’s not a case of insulting their structure and planning, but there is, by modern American standards, essentially no offensive capability. The PRC can invade a second-tier country, which gives them ambitions towards Taiwan if the U.S. could be persuaded to ignore the rape of that island, but in a major conflict against U.S. forces, China has no hope of mounting a successful offensive. They have no long-range bombers, no deep-water navy beyond a few missile cruisers, certainly no operational aircraft carriers (though China has been trying to acquire some of the old Russian STOL carriers, and even contracted to refit a conventional-wing carrier). They have relatively few nuclear missiles, certainly not enough for a functional first-strike. But most of all, China has never been in a multi-theater conflict, as an all-out war with the United States would be (because the Russians and other Pacific nations would join in, if for no reason beyond their self-interest to prevent a Chinese hegemony). Fortunately, the Chinese Politburo understand this basic fact very well.

This, among other things, is a factor in the Politburo’s concern about dissidence. While many people are aware of the 1989 uprising which led to the brutal response at Tienamen Square, most do not reaize that it was preceded by uprisings to various degrees in 1976, 1979, and 1986. In each case, Chinese citizens simply demanded rights and reforms; there was no demand to overthrow the government, but to improve it. The repression came from the simple need by the Politburo to assert control. That Chairman Deng pursued many of the requested reforms later, in the guise of his own initiative, is a move which should not be misunderstood. The Politburo will do things on its own terms, no matter what.

The Chinese do not understand the United States. This is hardly surprising, given the fluid nature of American culture, but the Chinese also make the mistake that many nations do, of assuming that what makes sense to them will be what we do. As a result, the American rebuilding of Japan was originally seen as a military strategy by China, and the NATO/SEATO alliances were seen as posturing for a future conquest. The Gulf War in 1990-1991 and the present War in Afghanistan and Iraq, are generally considered by China to be reasonable attempts to secure control of the distribution of oil from the Middle East; the notion that we are there for moral reasons is laughed at by the Chinese, and so the success enjoyed in most of the ventures has stunned the Chinese. The Chinese Politburo for the most part believes that George W. Bush has concealed his motives and intentions well. The Chinese have no idea at all, what Dubya plans next.

The United States has had considerable difficulty penetrating the Chinese structure for intelligence purposes, but the Chinese are in a worse position. This is, in large part, due to the fact that not only are far more Chinese coming to the United States as immigrants than there are Americans going to China, the Chinese often assimilate, to such degree that Chinese Intelligence agents are deliberately misled by Chinese living in the United States.

An area where China has enjoyed far greater success, is in espionage. This is partly due to poor decisions regarding sensitive metals and technology during the Clinton Administration, allowing China to make gains their own research would have taken decades to claim. But also, China has been able to take advantage of cover companies, to glean knowledge from American companies, especially communications and aeronautic firms. As a result, while Chinese fighter jets are no match for American fighter jets, Chinese industry is rapidly closing in cellular technology, automotive and commercial aircraft production. The Chinese are even learning 3rd-Wave inventory tactics, allowing start-up firms to compete immediately in international commerce.

Fortunately, the best efforts of China to compete as a peer in business and technology also work to make Communism less appealing than market forces. The special conditions allowed to the Autonomous regions in Hong Kong and Macau demonstrate the need China has discovered, to copy Western practices where there is no Communist equivalent. However, in the end the contrast between Communism and Success will force the modern Chinese citizen to think about the course of his nation, and the force of History suggests that while the new world in Asia will not be American in flavor, it may well be American in character.

Focus on China

[[]][[]][[]]

A lot of people look at Communist China, and see the Soviet Union, only with worse clothes and better cuisine. In actual fact, there are substantial differences between the two flavors of Communism, and as the 21st Century unfolds, it is vital to understand the character and ambitions of America’s chief rival for the Pacific.

Communism, as we know, began as the ill-considered musings of Karl Marx, a self-possessed man far greater in pretension than ability. The bastard child of Utopian fantasy and bloody-handed revolution found a father in Vladimir Lenin, who used his organizational and propagandist talents to usurp a new republic with the totalitarian Communists. The series of skirmishes and counter-revolution during the next decade insured that the Soviet Union’s foundation would be based on fear. The rise of Josef Stalin was to be expected, as was the evolution of the cruel but disorganized Cheka into the much more lethal NKVD, and the largest and cruelest secret police agency known to history, the KGB.

In contrast, the road of China to Communism, though it also led from Empire through a brief republic into Communism, did so with a good deal more popular support. By the end of the Second World War, the Communists had made a name for themselves by attacking the Japanese through rebellion, while the Kuomintang was often accused of collaborating with the Occupying forces in China. Like Lenin, Mao was crafty with propaganda, as there is now significant evidence that the Communists were cooperating with the same Triads and gangs that the Kuomintang was, but without any appearance of collaboration with Japan. Also, Mao correctly surmised that following the long war, most Chinese were disinclined to pursue a long fight, and since the Communists appeared stronger and better-organized by the Kuomintang by 1948, Mao was able to suggest that a Communist victory would be a shorter conflict. Worse for the Kuomintang, their connection to the American and European governments made them appear to be dealing with outsiders, which played into an extant xenophobia in China.

After Nixon’s breakthrough trip to China in 1972, a counterforce was put into play in China, as Politburo members who wished to cultivate a relationship with the U.S. saw their stock rise, especially as the Soviet Union became less willing to treat with China as an equal partner.

The terrible atrocities committed during the “Great Leap Forward”, the brutal invasion of Tibet, and the Tienamen Square massacre may appear, at first glance, to match the brutality of the Soviet regime, but they were actually reactions, almost in panic, to demands for reform. In some respects the Chinese regime is more stable than the Soviet one, since it is based on a more responsive structure to public demand, but in other ways the Chinese Politburo is less durable than the Kremlin; if a significant movement to replace the Communists takes hold, it may well overthrow the regime. This is not necessarily a good thing; CIA assessments since 2000 have observed that the replacement regime is likely to be weaker against criminal and reactionary elements.

All of this is not meant as an apology for the Communist government of China, but to note the distinctions which may well affect their decisions politically, militarily, and in economic decisions. The acquisition of Macau and Hong Kong were primarily economic measures, and the decisions made regarding those new territories has been with a clear interest in financial stability and gain. The cooperation between the United States and China since the 2001 incident where a Chinese fighter jet collided with an American P-3 reconnaissance aircraft over International waters, is subtle but distinct, as is the character of Chinese maneuvers regarding Taiwan. One would be a fool to believe the mainland has given up the chase for Taiwan, but the nature and tone of the relationship has certainly evolved; not enough to be naïve but enough to encourage China to take further steps towards regional leadership.

South Border Thoughts

[]-[]-[]-[]-[]

A couple days ago, I opened a discussion on the question of Border Security in the United States. I actually should have put up a different title, as the discussion, even with my own thoughts, reflected only the issues dealing with the border along Mexico’s frontier, and with the problems concerning illegal residency by Latins in the United States. The fact there have been verified attempts by terrorists to enter by Canada over the past few years is worth noting, indeed deserves its own post in the general question of border security apart from illegal residency.

There have been, as of noon Monday, 129 responses to the thread, but not much in the way of direct answers to my specific questions. To continue this important discussion then, I am presenting the questions again, along with the specific answers received, some comments on the issue worth considering and my own thoughts on these questions:

Question 1: Employers have faced increasingly strict measures for knowingly hiring illegals. However, the Congress has refused to pass some laws which would have put real teeth into the prevention of hiring illegal aliens. Why, do you think, has this been the case?

Knightowl77 said “I think it is because Business interests actually run the country. Not we the voters. Politicians of both parties including the president are more interested in what is good for business instead of what is good for the country”

Terrye suggests “I would say do a better job at the border and require ID here so that it will be harder to pass. And try to force them to become legal, so that if they come here they do it the right way”

Oak Leaf suggests “I would propose that every employer, right down to the family that wants a nanny, should be required to pay an annual “undocumented worker tax” in the amount of $10,000.00. For every worker that is “documented” this tax would not apply”


FreeKeys suggests: “Guest worker permits for 2 years; 3 years max. Every permit says: no welfare, no non-emergency health care, no food stamps, no schooling, no tuition, NO VOTING. At the end of the term: escort to the border.”

JINX suggested “Why shouldn’t the law enforcement agency that finds an illegal alien in the employ of someone not be entitled to the proceeds, a bit like the parking fine system. That would provide the most compelling public sector motivation known to man - easily earned and assesed public fines. Maybe this idea could even be pepped up, like in saying, that any asset used in the activity of employing undocumented workers could be seized/confiscated by the law enforcement agency that apprends the undocumented worker in question, where said asset would become the property of the apprehending agency, not unlike the procedure already in place for assets used in the commission of drug related crime. agency That would certainy sharpen the appetite of our without any doubt most idealistic officers of the law, and induce a vertiable frency of enforcement activity in this field of endeavour.”

Dtlc had a 3-part response: “(A) free markets : (i)
— Mexicans or (others) can travel to the USA and perform work (agricultural, construction, babysitting, etc);
—- Some Americans will lose their jobs. However, overall, this will cut down the costs of business and increase the standard of living for the majority.
(ii) abolishing the welfare state, OR
(iii) The illegal immigrants cannot get
— free education, whether elementary, secondary, college, etc. (i.e. taxpayer funded)
— free health care (i.e. taxpayer funded);
— free subsidies (through mortgages, which are insured through FDIC and our taxes)
(B) open, but regulated, borders :
— there is no need to sneak into the USA. Anyone can enter through checkpoints. However, anyone crossing the border illegally gets shot (or arrested and next time they can’t enter the country anymore);
—- the immigrants must pass a thorough background checks. For example, anyone who has criminal history or mental illness or some contagious disease does not come in. Anyone who is even suspected of having a terrorist link is turned away or is arrested. Anyone who does not cooperate, is sent back. Yes, yes, this creates logistical difficulties, but it could be worked out.
—- a security wall is build across the border (just like Israel is doing)
© Citizenship Must Be Earned
—– there is no automatic citizenship for illegal immigrants just because you were lucky enough to be born on this side of the border.
—- you live in the USA for 15 years and if say 5 or 10 neighbors and co-workers vouch for you, then you (and your family) become US resident (Green card) and after another 5 years you become a citizens
(I believe Switzerland does that)."


All interesting answers. I would suggest this for my own answer:

The Congress of the United States is more fragmented than the public mood, which is one large reason the Congress doesn’t often do what the public demands. Besides the divide between Republicans and Democrats, there is also the fact that the Senate continues to demand it be treated differently (which is to say, with greater deference) than the House of Representatives. Then there is the regional nature of the body, with each of the five major coasts (Gulf, South, Northeast, Northwest and West) and the three heartlands (Bread Belt, Rust Belt, and the ‘Midwest’) all voting by a regional consensus more than anything else. Add to that the unfortunate fact that Job One for anyone in Congress is to get re-elected, and it becomes apparent that unless and until Illegal Residency is a national priority, Congress is not going to do anything at all except vaguely promise some action in the future. You may recall that the top questions in the poll I sent to every member of Congress in January/February included the following:

“1. Should photo ID cards be required in order to vote?
2. What will you do to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and/or terrorists?”

I would suggest we turn the heat up and keep it up, especially whenever a related event shows the danger.

Question 2: Mexico is not cooperating with the United States. Instead, they have taken such actions as to provide Consular Identification Cards for Mexican nationals in the U.S., without verifying that they are here legally. Also, there are indications that Mexico’s own borders are very porous, especially to anyone heading North into the U.S. What actions could the United States take to change this condition, bearing in mind that Mexico is a sovereign state, and in some years past hostility between the U.S. and Mexican governments over the border issue has led to additional conflict?

Gs suggested “One solution is a high level of legal immigration. Bring ‘em in, assimilate them as Americans (not as grievance-nursing multicultural victims), encourage their upward mobility, and let the future unfold”

Russ noticed “Yet there is something called, sanctuary cities which I’m guessing is most run by liberals”

I would suggest, for my answer, that the United States tie specific and significant incentives and penalties to border enforcement. I would further create a series of consular conferences between the United States and Mexico to discuss the welfare of Mexican nationals in the United States, as well as planned joint initiatives to curb border-running. This should include joint law enforcement exercises and missions of high visibility and value to the Mexican government. And the United States must have statements given by State Department employees in Spanish; the value of this action cannot be over-estimated.


Question 3: The greatest danger of illegal entry into the United States, is that someone practiced in border-running, often known as a “coyote”, will bring in terrorists. The law at present is relatively light against border-runners. What definition, legally, should be established to create a legal class for professional border-runners, and what legal actions should be taken against repeated border-runners to discourage the profession?

Repeated border-running must be made a felony, with mandatory sentences of 10+ years. The offense must be classed as a national security risk, which will allow for prisons to be created specifically for this class of offender. The cases must be highly publicized, and the practice made unappealing as a money-making scheme. Individuals might be pardoned as a means to improve diplomatic relations, but especially severe sentences must be handed down to anyone who transports a wanted felon or fugitive across a border.

The seizure of a business which has more than 5% undocumented workers would be a good start for improving attention to the simple need for valid I-9 forms, which any business manager can fill out and maintain. As for national ID’s, I would say we are not at that point, for the reason that the public still reacts poorly to the notion, but a national minimum standard for Driver’s Licenses and/or State Identification cards is long overdue. Also, there can be no question but that the Green Card system must be overhauled to class people into various categories, with a computerized warning for the last known location of anyone about to expire, and a Federal Law prohibiting anyone remaining at large whose residency has expired or been revoked.

That would be a good starting point for the needed reforms. That, and a lot of noise to let Congress know this is not going away, or a small issue.

Spooks on Demand

||||||||||||||||||||||||

In his latest novel, author Michael Crichton has a major character who flashes a badge whenever he needs legal authority. The office he works for? The "National Security Intelligence Agency".

So far as I know, the NSIA does not exist as a government entity; Crichton appears to have created the agency purely for his story. But that does not mean there are not more than a dozen agencies, which are largely unknown to the population.

There are fifteen official government agencies which are classed as intelligence agencies. Many more perform intelligence-gathering tasks or analysis, but are not considered intelligence agencies by nature. Then there are the "black" agencies, which are never publically recognized. And that does not go into the private groups, created to perform tasks for foundations and corporations, and also for those tasks the government does not wish to have connections revealed.

Sometime in the next week, I will examine this phenomenon in greater detail.

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.