. pew .
The Liberal Glitterati, which is to say Hollywood, is all a-twitter over the Golden Globe nominations for the gay cowboy film “Brokeback Mountain”. And as required in Liberal World bylaws, anyone who is not automatically impressed with a gay film/artwork/business/whatever must ergo be a Neocon fascist. Whatever.
It is true that I have not seen “Brokeback Mountain”, nor do I plan to, but it’s not because the film is about two cowboys who happen to be homosexual. It’s because the film is presented as a gay experience, in essence. It is not so much a story told on-screen, but more a lecture on how we should appreciate gays, an agenda on film, which is to say the director and producer have no idea what the audience wants, or worse, they presume to demand that we abandon entertainment for the purpose of the lesson. I never saw “Showgirls” for the same reason I am giving “Brokeback Mountain” a miss – I want a movie, not an insult to my intelligence. I want a plot, some action, or at the very least a reason to think I will enjoy the film.
Remember Ellen Degeneres? Leave off some of her statements for a minute, and focus on two points, please. The “Ellen” show, her sit-com on television, was funny for a while, enjoyable. Then someone decided it was time for Ellen’s character to “come out” on her show, and suddenly, the show became a critique on the producer’s perception of normative American values. Leaving aside the gross inability of the writers to understand the complexities inherent in a cosmopolitan nation of over three hundred million people, the show stopped being funny. And guess what? When a comedy stops being funny, people stop watching. After “Ellen” became 'Gay Ellen’, it tanked, and naturally the producers blamed conservatives and closed-minded Americans. It never once occurred to them, that we don’t watch sitcoms for social commentary or to be told what to think, we watch sitcoms to laugh. I don’t want to hear a comedian lecture me as if I were uneducated or intolerant, any more than I want that from my deli counter guy when I order a sandwich, or my mechanic when I need to get the brakes fixed. Just do your job, OK?
Well, when I go to the movies, I generally don’t care about politics or the moral outrage of this actor or that director. I want to see romance, comedy, action, whatever I feel is worth my money. I don’t agree much with Ellen Degeneres’ lifestyle choices, but you know what? I liked the job she did in “Finding Nemo”. George Clooney is a raving moron when he tries to lecture people on things he obviously knows nothing about, but I will admit he’s OK in some of his films. I have made an exception for Sean Penn – he’s a great actor, but he’s become so totally demented that I cannot in good conscience spend money which might encourage the man. So no, thank you, I do not feel the need to pay the money I worked for, just to be lectured instead of entertained. The only lectures I feel like paying for, come from academic professionals who really know what they’re talking about, and sorry Mr. McMurtry, you do not meet that standard. I will be happy to pay for a movie which actually offers me an intriguing plot and characters which act more in composition with each other, and who do not seem to be trying to insult the audience. But “Brokeback Mountain” does not meet that standard, and I do not owe you a penny of my money or a moment of my time for something you have not begun to earn.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Generation Geezer And Business School
(x-y)(n/x)
I admit it; I made a mistake by not pursuing a Business degree at Baylor. But I was turned off by the attitude of so many of the B-School students. Nothing was good enough for them, unless it reflected money. For this attitude to be so prevalent at a Baptist University, was something I found more than slightly annoying.
Now, a couple decades later and here I am, trying to get in the door of a respectable Business School for my MBA. Of course, I could claim that I am not doing this so much for the money, or at least not out of any impulse of greed. It seems so much more palatable to remind myself that my intention is to acquire the tools and knowledge to do my job, to make myself attractive for the positions I should already be in line to receive, and yes, to provide for my family’s material needs in the most effective way possible. Still, I also want to avoid arrogance and foolhardy decisions.
I am going to make the people at the University of Phoenix unhappy with me, but there’s no avoiding that now. By this point in my school search, I have discovered that UoP carries a distinctly bad reputation in business circles, and while this may be unfair to the school, I cannot ignore that factor in choosing a school. In fact, while the for-profit schools boast valid accreditation, at least regionally, and their actual coursework may be everything they claim, there is a real stigma attached to the for-profit schools at the executive level. Anyone with a degree from a for-profit school is going to be labeled as having had to “settle” for a mass-production degree. At my age and with my commitments, that is a liability I cannot accept.
So where to go, then? Fortunately, there are a large number of “traditional” schools which offer an Online MBA, with little or no actual residency requirement, and some of them are even AACSB accredited. Also, there are a number of “traditional” schools in the Houston area, which offer a part-time MBA with schedules I might be able to keep.
I want to stop here and explain why I am writing this article, as well as the ones to come. There are many useful and interesting sites about how to pursue post-graduate education, but most of them are either too biased in favor of one school or type, while many other sites seem to cater to the very young, top-stratosphere students who want to be CEOs before they turn 30. As I am already forty-five years old, with some success in my career but not what the Strato class would call an impressive ‘portfolio’, I have not found much to suggest that people in my position have a great deal of support or even notice. We will fail or succeed on our own, unless we look after each other. These other sites are very useful in terms of information, so I am by no means slamming them, but I think it could be useful to present my experience for other people like me – Generation Geezer, if you will. I cannot help but believe there are other people like myself out there, and if I can succeed, I want to share what I learn with anyone interested.
At this point, I am studying for the GMAT, the requisite test which score will largely decide what schools I can think about for my degree. I also need to seriously decide whether I want to pursue my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, Finance, or whether I should pursue an Executive MBA.
More to come...
I admit it; I made a mistake by not pursuing a Business degree at Baylor. But I was turned off by the attitude of so many of the B-School students. Nothing was good enough for them, unless it reflected money. For this attitude to be so prevalent at a Baptist University, was something I found more than slightly annoying.
Now, a couple decades later and here I am, trying to get in the door of a respectable Business School for my MBA. Of course, I could claim that I am not doing this so much for the money, or at least not out of any impulse of greed. It seems so much more palatable to remind myself that my intention is to acquire the tools and knowledge to do my job, to make myself attractive for the positions I should already be in line to receive, and yes, to provide for my family’s material needs in the most effective way possible. Still, I also want to avoid arrogance and foolhardy decisions.
I am going to make the people at the University of Phoenix unhappy with me, but there’s no avoiding that now. By this point in my school search, I have discovered that UoP carries a distinctly bad reputation in business circles, and while this may be unfair to the school, I cannot ignore that factor in choosing a school. In fact, while the for-profit schools boast valid accreditation, at least regionally, and their actual coursework may be everything they claim, there is a real stigma attached to the for-profit schools at the executive level. Anyone with a degree from a for-profit school is going to be labeled as having had to “settle” for a mass-production degree. At my age and with my commitments, that is a liability I cannot accept.
So where to go, then? Fortunately, there are a large number of “traditional” schools which offer an Online MBA, with little or no actual residency requirement, and some of them are even AACSB accredited. Also, there are a number of “traditional” schools in the Houston area, which offer a part-time MBA with schedules I might be able to keep.
I want to stop here and explain why I am writing this article, as well as the ones to come. There are many useful and interesting sites about how to pursue post-graduate education, but most of them are either too biased in favor of one school or type, while many other sites seem to cater to the very young, top-stratosphere students who want to be CEOs before they turn 30. As I am already forty-five years old, with some success in my career but not what the Strato class would call an impressive ‘portfolio’, I have not found much to suggest that people in my position have a great deal of support or even notice. We will fail or succeed on our own, unless we look after each other. These other sites are very useful in terms of information, so I am by no means slamming them, but I think it could be useful to present my experience for other people like me – Generation Geezer, if you will. I cannot help but believe there are other people like myself out there, and if I can succeed, I want to share what I learn with anyone interested.
At this point, I am studying for the GMAT, the requisite test which score will largely decide what schools I can think about for my degree. I also need to seriously decide whether I want to pursue my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, Finance, or whether I should pursue an Executive MBA.
More to come...
Thursday, December 15, 2005
WARNING: Blogger May Be Less Sane Than He Appears
* ^ *
I am, and this sure feels more and more like a risky venture, finally going after my MBA starting in 2006, and I've gotten a lot of good intellectual information, and more than a few intimidating lessons in how far behind the cut I am likely to be, unless I can plan my course very carefully.
I have been to GMATClub.com, where I have discovered that being 45 years old with a Liberal Arts degree and a less-than-sparkling GPA, is a distinct liability.
** sigh **
Of course, those guys are all trying to get into the "Elite" schools, while I'm just trying to find the balance between one I can get into and afford, but which degree will be worth everything I will be putting into its attainment.
Lets see. First off, no scholarship. Those are mostly for full-time students, which is not an option for me. I'm going to be either part-time or Online.
Next up, why I'm going for a degree. Like most males, I spent a part of my life making stupid decisions, and three of mine were doozies:
Bad Idea #1: My dad was an engineer, so I had a vague idea at 18, that I would be one too. I figured I would get my B.S. in Chemistry from Baylor, snag a Fellowship and get my M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M. That plan fell apart when, as an "Honors" student, I took advanced courses in both Calculus and Chemistry, and failed both of them. Twice each, too.
Bad Idea #2: When it dawned on me that my only way to get through school with any kind of degree was to get away from the Chemistry major (after a 0.4 first-semester GPA, Baylor took care of me and the whole 'Honors Program' thing as any chance of a distraction, and put me instead into another program they called "Academic Probation"), I made a horrible mistake and listened to my Guidance Counselor, who assured me that an English degree was the way to go. It never occurred to me, that someone who had never been in the actual workforce could not speak for actual priorities and conditions in the workforce. As a result, my total number of job interviews my Senior year at Baylor, was zero.
Bad Idea #3: They say when you find yourself in a hole, job one is to stop digging. I did not manage to find a position with a major corporation until 2000, so that while I can honestly say that I have succeeded in my positions, the companies I have worked for are unlikely to open any eyes, much less any doors.
So here I am, having done fairly well for someone with a Liberal Arts BA, but to move up in my present company, or to seriously contend for a position with significantly better career prospects, I need the MBA. I've actually already done the work, I just need to prove the academic documentation.
The University of Phoenix has been relentless in pursuing me, but to be honest I worry about the reputation of a school which does not seem to measure the chance of success before accepting students; they don't even want a GMAT score, for example!
And the people I spoke with at GMATClub.com left no doubt that they consider getting an MBA from one of the for-profit schools to be like wearing a duck costume to an interview; sure you can do it, and theoretically it's not supposed to hurt your chances, but they are convinced in reality it won't get me where I need to be. Of course, these are the same people who fully expect to be working for six-figure salaries right after they get their MBA's, so I really need to hear from real-world people.
So here I am, sorting out which schools to apply to, how to pay for the thing, and to make sure I don't get in over my head (or is it too late already?).
I am, and this sure feels more and more like a risky venture, finally going after my MBA starting in 2006, and I've gotten a lot of good intellectual information, and more than a few intimidating lessons in how far behind the cut I am likely to be, unless I can plan my course very carefully.
I have been to GMATClub.com, where I have discovered that being 45 years old with a Liberal Arts degree and a less-than-sparkling GPA, is a distinct liability.
** sigh **
Of course, those guys are all trying to get into the "Elite" schools, while I'm just trying to find the balance between one I can get into and afford, but which degree will be worth everything I will be putting into its attainment.
Lets see. First off, no scholarship. Those are mostly for full-time students, which is not an option for me. I'm going to be either part-time or Online.
Next up, why I'm going for a degree. Like most males, I spent a part of my life making stupid decisions, and three of mine were doozies:
Bad Idea #1: My dad was an engineer, so I had a vague idea at 18, that I would be one too. I figured I would get my B.S. in Chemistry from Baylor, snag a Fellowship and get my M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M. That plan fell apart when, as an "Honors" student, I took advanced courses in both Calculus and Chemistry, and failed both of them. Twice each, too.
Bad Idea #2: When it dawned on me that my only way to get through school with any kind of degree was to get away from the Chemistry major (after a 0.4 first-semester GPA, Baylor took care of me and the whole 'Honors Program' thing as any chance of a distraction, and put me instead into another program they called "Academic Probation"), I made a horrible mistake and listened to my Guidance Counselor, who assured me that an English degree was the way to go. It never occurred to me, that someone who had never been in the actual workforce could not speak for actual priorities and conditions in the workforce. As a result, my total number of job interviews my Senior year at Baylor, was zero.
Bad Idea #3: They say when you find yourself in a hole, job one is to stop digging. I did not manage to find a position with a major corporation until 2000, so that while I can honestly say that I have succeeded in my positions, the companies I have worked for are unlikely to open any eyes, much less any doors.
So here I am, having done fairly well for someone with a Liberal Arts BA, but to move up in my present company, or to seriously contend for a position with significantly better career prospects, I need the MBA. I've actually already done the work, I just need to prove the academic documentation.
The University of Phoenix has been relentless in pursuing me, but to be honest I worry about the reputation of a school which does not seem to measure the chance of success before accepting students; they don't even want a GMAT score, for example!
And the people I spoke with at GMATClub.com left no doubt that they consider getting an MBA from one of the for-profit schools to be like wearing a duck costume to an interview; sure you can do it, and theoretically it's not supposed to hurt your chances, but they are convinced in reality it won't get me where I need to be. Of course, these are the same people who fully expect to be working for six-figure salaries right after they get their MBA's, so I really need to hear from real-world people.
So here I am, sorting out which schools to apply to, how to pay for the thing, and to make sure I don't get in over my head (or is it too late already?).
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Lunch With Lyndon
***
I was sitting at my desk late this morning, trying to decide when to take lunch, when an unexpected visitor sat down and peered at me with a look of consternation.
“May I help you?” I asked him. He leaned forward and extended a long arm to shake my hand.
“Johnson,” he said. “Lyndon Baines Johnson.”
“Well, your parents must have had a different sense of humor,” I began, then I stopped. Johnson was staring back at me with a perfectly straight face. A very familiar face…
“Hey, you look just like him.” I muttered, less than brilliantly.
“Ah ought to” muttered the man, “even after being dead for a few years.”
“Yeah”, was all I could think to say at first. “So, why are you here?”
“Lunch, mostly”, replied LBJ, “and to set the record straight on you lambasting mah poor party like you are. And any chance to come back to Texas is as close to Heaven as a poor bastard like me is like to see.
“By the way, you got some purple ink all over your finger there. You might want to wash up before we eat.”
“Oh, that’s to celebrate the Iraqi voter and show solidarity,” I explained. “And your “poor party” is doing itself no favors, I’m sure you know.”
“Huh,” snorted Johnson, “In mah day we didn’t go painting ourselves up to show we’d voted, we picked our man and made sure we got him elected. Ah must’ve voted five, six times myself in some elections.
“But yeah, that Dean fella is some kind of freak, yah got me there. And his crowd is no better. Harry S. says he’s got some choice words waiting for them.”
“Harry Truman’s in hell?” I asked.
“Naw, but he comes by to visit us time and again. Also, he likes to make sure Tojo is getting the full trip he earned.
“But enough gab for now, let’s go eat!”
So we set out for Luther’s to get some barbeque.
After we’d eaten a fair portion of flank steak and sausage, I asked LBJ what he was doing, walking around topside.
“Well,” he shrugged, “to be honest Ah’ve been roasting in hell, but they let me out every so often for a number of reasons. First off and mainly, Ah’m good to dogs –“
“Wait a minute,” I interrupted, “I remember you used to pull your old hound up by her ears-“
“Yes, and she liked it,” retorted Johnson. “Now stop interrupting me, it’s not polite.”
“Sorry,” I said, and LBJ continued.
“Ah also had to get out of there for a little bit, because Tookie’s arriving today, and all the gang-bangers are going absolutely crazy. The Crips and the Al Qaeda are having a big cookout to celebrate.”
“Say, that reminds me.” I said. “You seen Osama bin Laden down there? Folks up here would like to know if he’s dead yet.”
“Sorry,” replied Johnson. “Ah’m not supposed to let you know things you haven’t already figured out for yourself, but Ah will say that it is not wise to hide in caves when the Yew-Essay has bombs that collapse caverns.
“But listen heah,” continued Johnson, as he stuffed more beef and sauce into his mouth, “Ah’m a reasonable man and I know ya’ll gots to have your hobbies, but what do ya’ll blahggers mean by tearing up my beloved Democratic Party?”
“Well, we didn’t start it,” I explained. “You ever hear of Dan Rather?”
“Fine man, fine man,” nodded Johnson.
“Debatable claim,” I retorted, “You may have heard that Rather and CBS tried to sway the last Presidential election? We caught them, and proved they were liars and frauds.”
“You ever heah of Waltah Cronkite?” countered Johnson. “Damn, we were winning in Viet Nam, until Unka Waltah said we couldn’t win. No way I could win re-election after that.”
“Uhhh, and Senator McCarthy?” I ventured.
“Shaddup” muttered LBJ.
We ate in silence for a little while, then Johnson spoke again.
“Ya’ll know you have it easy with your boy Dubya in the Oval Office. Ah’d be careful about assuming it will be that easy later on.”
“I agree we’ll have a harder time with someone else after Bush,” I agreed, “but you have to admit the Left has not cooperated with him at all.”
Johnson chuckled.
“Take a look at History son, and you’ll see the Left wasn’t all too kind to me, or the Rehpublicans either. Ah’ll tell yah son, it’s a breeze being a Righty President with a Righty Congress, not near the same thing being a Democrat President with a so-called Democrat Congress.”
Curious, I asked LBJ to elaborate.
“Well hell son, I took a landslide into 1965, got damn near everyone in Congress to sign onto the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and by 1967 I still couldn’t get those bastards to keep their word. At least over on the Right, you have a few straight shooters you can trust.”
“And the 'Great Society'?” I asked.
Johnson stopped, and put down his fork.
“Look son, I screwed up there, I know that now. But I was trying to do the right thing, and don’t yew doubt for a minute it was an easy job.
“By the way, I’ve been watching your little blogging articles, and Ah’ve read what yew think of me as President. Screw yew! Until yew’ve been in mah shoes for a month, yew don’t have the first idea what kind of slahmballs and con artists you have to get past to make anything happen. It was a different time, and if Ah have to speak on mah own behalf, Ah will insist on pointing out Ah didn’t make any deals with Communists or Preverts.”
“Except Hoover”, I couldn’t resist adding.
Johnson made a face.
“Ah swear I nevah knew he was into that stuff!”
Just then, a tall man in a FUBU sweatsuit, with a familiar face and an unruly pile of hair stepped in, looked around, and approached us.
“Lyndon? It’s time to go back,” he said, ignoring me. Johnson stared at the man with clear disdain.
“Andy, where in the hell did you get the idea this was a good look for you?” demanded Johnson. The face clicked in my mind.
“Andrew Jackson?” I asked the tall man standing by us.
“Fer Shizzle” quipped President Jackson. Johnson groaned.
I was sitting at my desk late this morning, trying to decide when to take lunch, when an unexpected visitor sat down and peered at me with a look of consternation.
“May I help you?” I asked him. He leaned forward and extended a long arm to shake my hand.
“Johnson,” he said. “Lyndon Baines Johnson.”
“Well, your parents must have had a different sense of humor,” I began, then I stopped. Johnson was staring back at me with a perfectly straight face. A very familiar face…
“Hey, you look just like him.” I muttered, less than brilliantly.
“Ah ought to” muttered the man, “even after being dead for a few years.”
“Yeah”, was all I could think to say at first. “So, why are you here?”
“Lunch, mostly”, replied LBJ, “and to set the record straight on you lambasting mah poor party like you are. And any chance to come back to Texas is as close to Heaven as a poor bastard like me is like to see.
“By the way, you got some purple ink all over your finger there. You might want to wash up before we eat.”
“Oh, that’s to celebrate the Iraqi voter and show solidarity,” I explained. “And your “poor party” is doing itself no favors, I’m sure you know.”
“Huh,” snorted Johnson, “In mah day we didn’t go painting ourselves up to show we’d voted, we picked our man and made sure we got him elected. Ah must’ve voted five, six times myself in some elections.
“But yeah, that Dean fella is some kind of freak, yah got me there. And his crowd is no better. Harry S. says he’s got some choice words waiting for them.”
“Harry Truman’s in hell?” I asked.
“Naw, but he comes by to visit us time and again. Also, he likes to make sure Tojo is getting the full trip he earned.
“But enough gab for now, let’s go eat!”
So we set out for Luther’s to get some barbeque.
After we’d eaten a fair portion of flank steak and sausage, I asked LBJ what he was doing, walking around topside.
“Well,” he shrugged, “to be honest Ah’ve been roasting in hell, but they let me out every so often for a number of reasons. First off and mainly, Ah’m good to dogs –“
“Wait a minute,” I interrupted, “I remember you used to pull your old hound up by her ears-“
“Yes, and she liked it,” retorted Johnson. “Now stop interrupting me, it’s not polite.”
“Sorry,” I said, and LBJ continued.
“Ah also had to get out of there for a little bit, because Tookie’s arriving today, and all the gang-bangers are going absolutely crazy. The Crips and the Al Qaeda are having a big cookout to celebrate.”
“Say, that reminds me.” I said. “You seen Osama bin Laden down there? Folks up here would like to know if he’s dead yet.”
“Sorry,” replied Johnson. “Ah’m not supposed to let you know things you haven’t already figured out for yourself, but Ah will say that it is not wise to hide in caves when the Yew-Essay has bombs that collapse caverns.
“But listen heah,” continued Johnson, as he stuffed more beef and sauce into his mouth, “Ah’m a reasonable man and I know ya’ll gots to have your hobbies, but what do ya’ll blahggers mean by tearing up my beloved Democratic Party?”
“Well, we didn’t start it,” I explained. “You ever hear of Dan Rather?”
“Fine man, fine man,” nodded Johnson.
“Debatable claim,” I retorted, “You may have heard that Rather and CBS tried to sway the last Presidential election? We caught them, and proved they were liars and frauds.”
“You ever heah of Waltah Cronkite?” countered Johnson. “Damn, we were winning in Viet Nam, until Unka Waltah said we couldn’t win. No way I could win re-election after that.”
“Uhhh, and Senator McCarthy?” I ventured.
“Shaddup” muttered LBJ.
We ate in silence for a little while, then Johnson spoke again.
“Ya’ll know you have it easy with your boy Dubya in the Oval Office. Ah’d be careful about assuming it will be that easy later on.”
“I agree we’ll have a harder time with someone else after Bush,” I agreed, “but you have to admit the Left has not cooperated with him at all.”
Johnson chuckled.
“Take a look at History son, and you’ll see the Left wasn’t all too kind to me, or the Rehpublicans either. Ah’ll tell yah son, it’s a breeze being a Righty President with a Righty Congress, not near the same thing being a Democrat President with a so-called Democrat Congress.”
Curious, I asked LBJ to elaborate.
“Well hell son, I took a landslide into 1965, got damn near everyone in Congress to sign onto the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and by 1967 I still couldn’t get those bastards to keep their word. At least over on the Right, you have a few straight shooters you can trust.”
“And the 'Great Society'?” I asked.
Johnson stopped, and put down his fork.
“Look son, I screwed up there, I know that now. But I was trying to do the right thing, and don’t yew doubt for a minute it was an easy job.
“By the way, I’ve been watching your little blogging articles, and Ah’ve read what yew think of me as President. Screw yew! Until yew’ve been in mah shoes for a month, yew don’t have the first idea what kind of slahmballs and con artists you have to get past to make anything happen. It was a different time, and if Ah have to speak on mah own behalf, Ah will insist on pointing out Ah didn’t make any deals with Communists or Preverts.”
“Except Hoover”, I couldn’t resist adding.
Johnson made a face.
“Ah swear I nevah knew he was into that stuff!”
Just then, a tall man in a FUBU sweatsuit, with a familiar face and an unruly pile of hair stepped in, looked around, and approached us.
“Lyndon? It’s time to go back,” he said, ignoring me. Johnson stared at the man with clear disdain.
“Andy, where in the hell did you get the idea this was a good look for you?” demanded Johnson. The face clicked in my mind.
“Andrew Jackson?” I asked the tall man standing by us.
“Fer Shizzle” quipped President Jackson. Johnson groaned.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Big Dog
** wuf **
Some people just don’t like big dogs. There have been new mini-breeds of yap-yap dogs created to suit those for whom serious size is just too much. Some folks are plain intimidated by big dogs, no matter how well-trained or behaved they are; simply being big, as in powerful and capable, is enough. And that brings me to the United States.
A few days ago, I compared a few select people to various breeds of dog. And disqualified certain other people from claiming any right to be a dog at all. But that comparison is even more obvious, when we apply the measurement to militaries. The Russians still have a respectable military, and Japan does well for its size and budget. Nobody comes in and messes with the Israeli Defense Force on equal terms. And China has imposing numbers for size and growth of capability. But make no mistake, the US is still the biggest freaking dog on the planet, big enough to eat any other dog out there, and big enough to make a joke out of the yap-yap military outfits currently on parade in Europe, Britain excepted.
In 1991, a somber Chairman Gorbachev showed a classified presentation to the Politburo, of US forces in action during the Gulf War. After the end of the film, Gorbachev solemnly informed the stunned room that “we cannot possibly defeat a force such as this”. At about the same time, whatever the Mandarin equivalent of “oh crap” was making the rounds in Beijing, as so many of the cutting-edge weapons Saddam bought from China failed to even slow down American tanks and infantry. In 2003, just to reinforce the message, even newer Chinese weapons proved equally ineffective in combat conditions against the US. It’s not just that American material is still superior, but that US battle doctrine and training was immeasurably superior to anything even guessed at in other countries. Other countries grow and improve, but US doctrine and training leaps. This is in part due to the all-volunteer character of American military, but also the career perspective many US soldiers take towards their work, and the commitment by the majority of one major political party to supply, train, and prepare for necessary actions.
The military is not everything, of course, which brings me to American business. Left for dead by so many in the MSM, American business has re-created its success over and over again in many places and ways. A key example is the loss of VCR technology to Japan in the 1980s; while the Japanese celebrated their victory in cornering the market of VCR players, which hold they eventually lost to competition from South Korea and other rising contenders, the US continued to dominate in the far more lucrative domain of videotape recordings. Even today, the United States is the majority shareholder of the Video and DVD market, especially in profits. Almost every major city on the planet has several chains of American fast-food and franchise merchandise; you can get a pair of GAP jeans in Shanghai or Dubai as easily as you can in Big Sky, after all.
And then there is that little matter of the Purple Finger. Kerry’s Purple Hearts, however he got them, are no match for free elections, especially for millions of women who voted for the first time, not just in their lives, but women voting for the first time in their country, ever. That counts as a big bark, folks.
So let the French have their poodles, let Germany have little dogs to match their little wieners, let the Left whine and yap about the big bad Army, big bad Business, big bad “Ownership Society”. In the end, everyone knows who is the Big Dog, and who is just bitching about it.
Some people just don’t like big dogs. There have been new mini-breeds of yap-yap dogs created to suit those for whom serious size is just too much. Some folks are plain intimidated by big dogs, no matter how well-trained or behaved they are; simply being big, as in powerful and capable, is enough. And that brings me to the United States.
A few days ago, I compared a few select people to various breeds of dog. And disqualified certain other people from claiming any right to be a dog at all. But that comparison is even more obvious, when we apply the measurement to militaries. The Russians still have a respectable military, and Japan does well for its size and budget. Nobody comes in and messes with the Israeli Defense Force on equal terms. And China has imposing numbers for size and growth of capability. But make no mistake, the US is still the biggest freaking dog on the planet, big enough to eat any other dog out there, and big enough to make a joke out of the yap-yap military outfits currently on parade in Europe, Britain excepted.
In 1991, a somber Chairman Gorbachev showed a classified presentation to the Politburo, of US forces in action during the Gulf War. After the end of the film, Gorbachev solemnly informed the stunned room that “we cannot possibly defeat a force such as this”. At about the same time, whatever the Mandarin equivalent of “oh crap” was making the rounds in Beijing, as so many of the cutting-edge weapons Saddam bought from China failed to even slow down American tanks and infantry. In 2003, just to reinforce the message, even newer Chinese weapons proved equally ineffective in combat conditions against the US. It’s not just that American material is still superior, but that US battle doctrine and training was immeasurably superior to anything even guessed at in other countries. Other countries grow and improve, but US doctrine and training leaps. This is in part due to the all-volunteer character of American military, but also the career perspective many US soldiers take towards their work, and the commitment by the majority of one major political party to supply, train, and prepare for necessary actions.
The military is not everything, of course, which brings me to American business. Left for dead by so many in the MSM, American business has re-created its success over and over again in many places and ways. A key example is the loss of VCR technology to Japan in the 1980s; while the Japanese celebrated their victory in cornering the market of VCR players, which hold they eventually lost to competition from South Korea and other rising contenders, the US continued to dominate in the far more lucrative domain of videotape recordings. Even today, the United States is the majority shareholder of the Video and DVD market, especially in profits. Almost every major city on the planet has several chains of American fast-food and franchise merchandise; you can get a pair of GAP jeans in Shanghai or Dubai as easily as you can in Big Sky, after all.
And then there is that little matter of the Purple Finger. Kerry’s Purple Hearts, however he got them, are no match for free elections, especially for millions of women who voted for the first time, not just in their lives, but women voting for the first time in their country, ever. That counts as a big bark, folks.
So let the French have their poodles, let Germany have little dogs to match their little wieners, let the Left whine and yap about the big bad Army, big bad Business, big bad “Ownership Society”. In the end, everyone knows who is the Big Dog, and who is just bitching about it.
Monday, December 12, 2005
History In Context
MMV
Morton Keller wrote an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. What I found particularly interesting, is that while he and I agree in the general theme that Presidents are often blamed for making the hard calls in military decisions, in at least one major case he and I differ on the evidence and what it meant.
Historian John Toland, whom Keller dismisses as “eccentric”, wrote a book in 1982 entitled "Infamy", which detailed the evidence concerning whether President Roosevelt knew about Japan’s plans to attack Pearl Harbor in advance of the raid, and whether he meant to use the attack as the flashpoint to bring the United States into the Second World War. Keller dismissed, unfairly I think, a great deal of testimony and evidence which indicated there was intelligence indicating that Japan was on its way to attack Pearl Harbor, especially the “Winds” intercept as testified by Laurence Safford, a naval officer of quite literally unimpeachable character and veracity. The reason I find this rejection unreasonable, is not because I believe that FDR or his Administration did indeed comprehend that an attack by Japan was imminent, but that the nature of the command structure, the political discussions between the United States and Japan, the communication process of the day, and other salient factors which influenced the decisions and statements made by the Roosevelt Administration in late 1941. People who are familiar with the documents and testimony were therefore left even further convinced of FDR’s complicity, because historians like Keller rejected them without proper inspection, and historians like Toland applied them without considering the appropriate context. As an example, Toland also noted the creation and demise of the “modus vivendi” which could have completely prevented a Japan-America war, or at least delayed its inception by a year or more, which demonstrates that the Roosevelt Administration, while hopeful of finding a reason for the United States to enter the war against Germany, was not inclined to seek a reason to also fight Japan. Indeed, the allocation of resources and planning is sufficient to indicate that Rosoevelt did not seriously anticipate war with Japan, and so could not fairly be accused of trying to bring it about.
The relevance between Toland’s contentions and evidence, Keller’s article, and my opinion as regards the Iraq War, is that same crucial need to understand context. As of 2002, It was well-known that Saddam Hussein had not only developed Weapons of Mass Destruction, but had used them, both in war and against his own citizens. The discovery in 1991 of further-than-anticipated progress in WMD research further alarmed Coalition nations, and the Cease-Fire included specific mandatory requirements as a condition to prevent resumption of hostilities. The fact that Hussein’s Baath government had, by 1998, fired on Coalition aircraft, attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and had not only obstructed but physically threatened them, all constituted violations of the Cease-Fire, which led to the 1998 Act of Congress declaring Regime Change in Iraq the official policy of the United States government, which President Bill Clinton signed into law. The 2002 votes in Congress gave clear authorization for the war, based on information which both the President and leaders in both major political parties saw and evaluated. These are the facts which formed the context and consensus of the 2002 decision to go to war.
The reason Conservatives find the Democrats’ wailing on Iraq hypocritical, is because the Democrats saw the same information, in the same context, as the Administration, and their own statements bear out that they reached the same conclusions as to the threat posed by Saddam and the Baath regime in Iraq. But now that they perceive a possible political benefit to lying, the leadership of the Democratic Party sees no problem in putting a trick ahead of the national interest. If the Mainstream Media were not complicit, this could not work for the Democrats, but the sort of people willing to try to sway a Presidential election with forged documents are hardly going to object on moral grounds to lying about the facts of a major military decision. Fortunately, in the age of Information the facts are retrievable, and prove the matter in both point and context. The decision to invade Iraq was the most legitimate and fully-informed decision made by the Congress and President in cooperation in the last 60 years, and nothing the Democrats claim now can change that.
Morton Keller wrote an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. What I found particularly interesting, is that while he and I agree in the general theme that Presidents are often blamed for making the hard calls in military decisions, in at least one major case he and I differ on the evidence and what it meant.
Historian John Toland, whom Keller dismisses as “eccentric”, wrote a book in 1982 entitled "Infamy", which detailed the evidence concerning whether President Roosevelt knew about Japan’s plans to attack Pearl Harbor in advance of the raid, and whether he meant to use the attack as the flashpoint to bring the United States into the Second World War. Keller dismissed, unfairly I think, a great deal of testimony and evidence which indicated there was intelligence indicating that Japan was on its way to attack Pearl Harbor, especially the “Winds” intercept as testified by Laurence Safford, a naval officer of quite literally unimpeachable character and veracity. The reason I find this rejection unreasonable, is not because I believe that FDR or his Administration did indeed comprehend that an attack by Japan was imminent, but that the nature of the command structure, the political discussions between the United States and Japan, the communication process of the day, and other salient factors which influenced the decisions and statements made by the Roosevelt Administration in late 1941. People who are familiar with the documents and testimony were therefore left even further convinced of FDR’s complicity, because historians like Keller rejected them without proper inspection, and historians like Toland applied them without considering the appropriate context. As an example, Toland also noted the creation and demise of the “modus vivendi” which could have completely prevented a Japan-America war, or at least delayed its inception by a year or more, which demonstrates that the Roosevelt Administration, while hopeful of finding a reason for the United States to enter the war against Germany, was not inclined to seek a reason to also fight Japan. Indeed, the allocation of resources and planning is sufficient to indicate that Rosoevelt did not seriously anticipate war with Japan, and so could not fairly be accused of trying to bring it about.
The relevance between Toland’s contentions and evidence, Keller’s article, and my opinion as regards the Iraq War, is that same crucial need to understand context. As of 2002, It was well-known that Saddam Hussein had not only developed Weapons of Mass Destruction, but had used them, both in war and against his own citizens. The discovery in 1991 of further-than-anticipated progress in WMD research further alarmed Coalition nations, and the Cease-Fire included specific mandatory requirements as a condition to prevent resumption of hostilities. The fact that Hussein’s Baath government had, by 1998, fired on Coalition aircraft, attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and had not only obstructed but physically threatened them, all constituted violations of the Cease-Fire, which led to the 1998 Act of Congress declaring Regime Change in Iraq the official policy of the United States government, which President Bill Clinton signed into law. The 2002 votes in Congress gave clear authorization for the war, based on information which both the President and leaders in both major political parties saw and evaluated. These are the facts which formed the context and consensus of the 2002 decision to go to war.
The reason Conservatives find the Democrats’ wailing on Iraq hypocritical, is because the Democrats saw the same information, in the same context, as the Administration, and their own statements bear out that they reached the same conclusions as to the threat posed by Saddam and the Baath regime in Iraq. But now that they perceive a possible political benefit to lying, the leadership of the Democratic Party sees no problem in putting a trick ahead of the national interest. If the Mainstream Media were not complicit, this could not work for the Democrats, but the sort of people willing to try to sway a Presidential election with forged documents are hardly going to object on moral grounds to lying about the facts of a major military decision. Fortunately, in the age of Information the facts are retrievable, and prove the matter in both point and context. The decision to invade Iraq was the most legitimate and fully-informed decision made by the Congress and President in cooperation in the last 60 years, and nothing the Democrats claim now can change that.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
PFL Week Fourteen
* grunt *
Week Fourteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0), idle
Teddy Roosevelt (14-0) 43, JQ Adams (7-6) 3
Washington (14-0) 28, Monroe (10-3) 20
George W. Bush (13-0) 72, W Harrison (2-11) 0
Reagan (13-0) 70, Harding (2-11) 6
Jefferson (12-2) 36, Cleveland (7-6) 6
FDR (12-2) 43, LBJ (1-12) 9
Grant (11-2) 52, Clinton (0-13) 7
JFK (10-3), idle
Polk (10-3), idle
Truman (10-30), idle
Lincoln (9-5) 30, John Adams (7-6) 15
Taft (8-5) 37, Pierce (2-11) 6
Madison (7-6), idle
McKinley (7-6) 22, Wilson (7-7) 15
Nixon (7-6) 28, Hoover (2-12) 18
Carter (4-10) 24, Taylor (6-7) 12
Arthur (7-7) 21, Tyler (4-9) 12
GHW Bush (7-7) 30, Coolidge (3-10) 3
Jackson (6-7), idle
Hayes (6-7) 38, Buchanan (0-13) 6
Ford (6-8) 24, Fillmore (2-11) 9
B Harrison (5-9) 21, Garfield (2-11) 15
Van Buren (4-9) 46, A Johnson (0-13) 9
Division A
[02] Washington (14-0) division clinched
[10] Monroe (10-3)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[04] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (12-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (13-0) division clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (12-2)
[09] JFK (10-3)
Division E
[01] T Roosevelt (14-0) division tie clinched
[08] Grant (11-2)
Division F
[03] George W Bush (13-0) division tie clinched
[12] Truman (10-3)
Week Fourteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0), idle
Teddy Roosevelt (14-0) 43, JQ Adams (7-6) 3
Washington (14-0) 28, Monroe (10-3) 20
George W. Bush (13-0) 72, W Harrison (2-11) 0
Reagan (13-0) 70, Harding (2-11) 6
Jefferson (12-2) 36, Cleveland (7-6) 6
FDR (12-2) 43, LBJ (1-12) 9
Grant (11-2) 52, Clinton (0-13) 7
JFK (10-3), idle
Polk (10-3), idle
Truman (10-30), idle
Lincoln (9-5) 30, John Adams (7-6) 15
Taft (8-5) 37, Pierce (2-11) 6
Madison (7-6), idle
McKinley (7-6) 22, Wilson (7-7) 15
Nixon (7-6) 28, Hoover (2-12) 18
Carter (4-10) 24, Taylor (6-7) 12
Arthur (7-7) 21, Tyler (4-9) 12
GHW Bush (7-7) 30, Coolidge (3-10) 3
Jackson (6-7), idle
Hayes (6-7) 38, Buchanan (0-13) 6
Ford (6-8) 24, Fillmore (2-11) 9
B Harrison (5-9) 21, Garfield (2-11) 15
Van Buren (4-9) 46, A Johnson (0-13) 9
Division A
[02] Washington (14-0) division clinched
[10] Monroe (10-3)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[04] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (12-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (13-0) division clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (12-2)
[09] JFK (10-3)
Division E
[01] T Roosevelt (14-0) division tie clinched
[08] Grant (11-2)
Division F
[03] George W Bush (13-0) division tie clinched
[12] Truman (10-3)
Saturday, December 10, 2005
War Planning
*******
America fights wars differently from other countries. This essential fact is missed by many people, especially since this comes from both a unique national character and perspective, but also a different mind-set in planning for war. To understand how we got where we are now, and to prepare for upcoming conflicts, it is important to study the base assumptions and adjustments made in U.S. War Planning.
A 1996 research paper presented to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force examined the most likely scenarios for the coming three decades. The paper, titled “Alternate Futures for 2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise”, defined the “drivers” of American worldview, technical means, and world dispensation of power, and from that combination derived future conditions and conflict causality.
This was an indicator of interest in forecasting likely needs and threats, in a JCS project dubbed “Joint Vision 2020”. This combined the planning in 1999 for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard for the next two decades. The different services made projections to different degrees, the Air Force projecting as far as 2025, while the U.S. Army projection was only forecast to 2010.
The different services took different approaches to the task of planning and preparation. The Air Force paper took the widest approach and addressed issues in broad terms. The Army paper was the most specific in doctrine advances and material commitments. The Marines Corps produced an eye-catching PDF presentation in full color, which addressed readiness and doctrinal policy only in a general sense, but emphasized a scalable USMC, from Marine Expeditionary Forces for major operations all the way down in size to specialized units tagged 'SPMAGTF's, or “Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces”, for anything from Rescue to Incident Response missions. As for the Coast Guard, their brochure was weak on specifics but essentially anticipated no change of priorities or mission from the job they have done since the end of World War II.
Some specific papers shed light on the direction military theories were heading in the days of Clinton. Michael Renner published a disappointing paper in 2000 for the U.S. Navy, titled “ALTERNATIVE FUTURES IN WAR AND CONFLICT”. The paper gave far too much credence to unproven claims of environmental impact and further presumed that planning should depend more on the United Nations, although he admitted “the international community would do well to build some redundancy into the conflict-prevention apparatus”, which amounts to an admission that the UN has a poor record in preventing or addressing conflicts. Renner endorsed the Clinton Doctrine of sending in small, essentially token forces, to many places, to send a political signal of U.S. interest, in the hopes that this would influence regional actors to refrain from violence. Renner included no case studies from actual events, in all likelihood because the actual situations would demonstrate the fallacies of his assumptions, as in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq, where U.S. presence inspired gunfire rather than negotiations, and the small size and lack of support created conditions of high risk against poor opportunity for the men on the ground.
A similarly poor set of assumptions was made by Dr. Peter Dombrowski, whose 2000 paper titled “Alternative Futures in War and Conflict; Implications for U.S. National Security in the Next Century” essentially played the ‘focus group' game with war planning, so that “Participants felt that conflict between major powers was increasingly unlikely but that wars between lesser powers would continue”, and also that “In strategic terms the United States might simply “muddle through”—an approach which some participants favored or at least did not object to given America’s preponderance of power in the international system for the foreseeable future.”. This sort of thinking helps to explain why key warnings about Al Qaeda were not examined when they could have prevented the growth of the terrorist group into a major threat. Dombrowski’s study is useful, however, in that it displays the variety of threats to consider, and also displays a window into the mind of the National Intelligence Council, who advise the President through the PDB documents of threats and concerns. Dombrowski’s group, for example, went so far as to suggest that “the U.S. Marines could play more of a constabulary function” instead of preparing for war as they have always done. Such an essential blunder by men so close to the top of the decision chain reflects a serious problem in the Academic circles, even when studying warfare.
Also of interest was the late-20th Century self-appraisal of the Intelligence Community. The 1996 document titled “Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence”, noted that the Intelligence agencies for the United States need to work more closely with the people they serve, especially policy makers and those who need specific information for action decisions. The paper also correctly feared that “administrative barriers often prevent or impede cooperation between agencies”, and that the Intelligence Community needs cooperation and interaction with Law Enforcement agencies.
To their credit, the writers of these reports and their agencies have not tried to hide away these embarrassing documents, but left them unclassified and available for review and study, which I recommend to students of History and Military operations. It is interesting, however, to notice the radical changes in military doctrine under the Administration of George W. Bush, which may help to explain the broad support “Dubya” enjoys from the military demographic, to the continued bafflement of the Left. That is to say, where President Clinton seems to have bought into the advice of the focus group advisors, Bush trusted men with actual battle experience and a clear plan for victory. And Bush knows his history.
A cursory overview of American military history should, if nothing else, show an important lesson in American Psychology: Americans go “all in” when they fight a war. Nothing but victory is acceptable. Also, Americans do not begin wars with a desire to pick a fight, but once committed to the action the resolve is sure and strong. This must be emphasized, when confronting some of the more pernicious myths presented by the Left. When the American colonies broke with England, the initial intent was to bring about honest negotiations and reform of the arrangement between Crown and Colony. Only when this was clearly impossible, did open revolt and revolution come into action, and the United States born of necessity. Before the War of 1812, it was the sincere desire of the United States to negotiate issues with England to avoid conflict. Once this was impossible, the United States resolved to demonstrate that they could not be invaded with impunity. Before the debates over Slavery and States’ Rights finally boiled over into violence, the South would have done well to study the then-short history of our country, and so understand that the conflict would be forcefully resolved – either the South would completely overwhelm the North and so reshape the structure of the country, or else the North would overwhelm the South and impose a stern control, as came to pass. The Southern hope to force a partitioned existence dividing the United States into a Federal Union to the North and the Confederate States to the South was one which the nation refused to accept, at any cost. In the Spanish-American War, the decision to fight Spain led to a complete campaign to bar the Old Hemisphere from building any more colonies in the West, which also reshaped control of territories in the Pacific Ocean . As for the wars of the 20th Century, many observers have failed to note that public support has actually been strong for American objectives, and unforgiving of half-measures. The borders of the United States were never threatened during the Century, by Germany under either the Kaiser or even Hitler, by Japan under Tojo or Italy under Mussolini, or by North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung, or Saddam Hussein. But we went into war in all those places, and we either won or should have. And where the political will was too weak to finish the job, the people reacted and demanded a price. Truman lost his chance to run again in 1952, because he was seen as the man who gave up on Korea. LBJ could hardly have handled Vietnam any worse, and GHW Bush will always be remembered as the man who didn’t “finish the job” in Iraq. And returning to Vietnam for a moment, this was a war we could and should have won. The opinion of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid notwithstanding, the American people supported the war when we were serious about it, as when Nixon finally bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, and looked like he meant to invade. We only lost because the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to keep its agreements, and essentially invited the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army to roll into Saigon. The American people do not like losses, and there is a segment of the population which opposes even the most just and necessary of wars, but the people in general are not about to give up on our troops. Our whole history is one where the people appreciate the troops, and our troops do a magnificent job, and a complete one.
The threat of Global Terrorism is not a police matter. And very few people who study the problem are fooled into thinking that terrorist groups do not receive training, support, and protection from countries which find their tactics useful for their own agenda. It is in the most basic interest of the United States’ National Security, to wipe out any base of operations which is used by a significant terrorist organization, or which is likely to become one. Al Qaeda has run a number of operations which have earned them attention from the U.S. Military, including the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders. The Taliban in Afghanistan sheltered and supplied the terrorist group, which is all the justification needed to invade Afghanistan and establish a nascent democracy, which is precisely what has happened there. Intelligence showed that Iraq’s support for terrorist groups made them a likely next stop for Al Qaeda, which created a functional need to take action; the justification was already established by chronic breaches of the terms of the1991 Cease-fire to the First Gulf War. The additional offenses of firing at Coalition observation aircraft, as well as the attempted assassination of a former United States President, certainly meet the standard as acts of war themselves. Strategically, invading Iraq was an obvious choice as well. Besides the elimination of a rogue regime as mandated in 1998 by Congress, the invasion of Iraq made the Middle East the theater of operations against the most formidable networks of terrorists, far superior to waiting for them to build forces and attack U.S. installations and personnel. And this point requires a necessary stop, to examine the nature of Global Terrorism.
In the new era of post-Cold War stature, the United States has moved beyond “Superpower” to an effectively supreme position in any venture to which it acts militarily. As a consequence, nations which once felt secure in defying American intentions, either because of alliance with the Soviet bloc, Another cartel or group capable of standing against available US forces, or the belief that the US would be stretched too thin to take them on, are now uncomfortably aware that the United States may chose to act as it pleases. Where comparable force is no longer an option therefore, asymmetrical warfare gains in attraction, and for some nations, the use of terrorism offers a relatively effective and inexpensive means for fighting the United States. This is because of responses by leaders like the Clinton Administration, giving the image that the United States has no stomach for a prolonged or messy conflict, but also enjoys popularity because their supporters have long believed they could use terrorists without discovery, or at least without proof. The invasion of Iraq not only destabilized the Middle East base of many terrorist bases, networks, supply lines and communications, but also proved the lie of supporting terrorism without cost. A clear message has been sent throughout the Middle East, not only that the United States intends to pursue the dissolution of any significant force acting against Americans and our allies, but also that we will work to destabilize those regimes, by supporting popular revolt against oppression; it has not gone unnoticed in the United States, that most nations which have been willing to support terrorist groups are repressive against civil rights in their own countries. A new reciprocity is in effect; attempt to attack the United States’ citizens or our infrastructure, and we will make war against your regime, with the use of truth and a demand for justice. It is not commonly publicized, but dissident leaders in a number of key countries receive indirect help from the United States – not overtly, for a number of reasons, but the effect is still improved by the action.
It would be unreasonable to claim that the United States intends to make “clone states” in the Middle East – even were such a thing possible, the nature of any true democratic republic is such that it molds itself to meet the needs and demands of its own people. This is what happened in Germany and in Japan, and ideally will also take place in the Middle East – a network of nations which are genuinely committed to the rights and welfare of their own citizens, and for whom the rule of law will be established by a just constitution and equal access to the courts. The best way to prevent future wars is to eliminate the causes of such nations as would choose to make war against us.
America fights wars differently from other countries. This essential fact is missed by many people, especially since this comes from both a unique national character and perspective, but also a different mind-set in planning for war. To understand how we got where we are now, and to prepare for upcoming conflicts, it is important to study the base assumptions and adjustments made in U.S. War Planning.
A 1996 research paper presented to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force examined the most likely scenarios for the coming three decades. The paper, titled “Alternate Futures for 2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise”, defined the “drivers” of American worldview, technical means, and world dispensation of power, and from that combination derived future conditions and conflict causality.
This was an indicator of interest in forecasting likely needs and threats, in a JCS project dubbed “Joint Vision 2020”. This combined the planning in 1999 for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard for the next two decades. The different services made projections to different degrees, the Air Force projecting as far as 2025, while the U.S. Army projection was only forecast to 2010.
The different services took different approaches to the task of planning and preparation. The Air Force paper took the widest approach and addressed issues in broad terms. The Army paper was the most specific in doctrine advances and material commitments. The Marines Corps produced an eye-catching PDF presentation in full color, which addressed readiness and doctrinal policy only in a general sense, but emphasized a scalable USMC, from Marine Expeditionary Forces for major operations all the way down in size to specialized units tagged 'SPMAGTF's, or “Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces”, for anything from Rescue to Incident Response missions. As for the Coast Guard, their brochure was weak on specifics but essentially anticipated no change of priorities or mission from the job they have done since the end of World War II.
Some specific papers shed light on the direction military theories were heading in the days of Clinton. Michael Renner published a disappointing paper in 2000 for the U.S. Navy, titled “ALTERNATIVE FUTURES IN WAR AND CONFLICT”. The paper gave far too much credence to unproven claims of environmental impact and further presumed that planning should depend more on the United Nations, although he admitted “the international community would do well to build some redundancy into the conflict-prevention apparatus”, which amounts to an admission that the UN has a poor record in preventing or addressing conflicts. Renner endorsed the Clinton Doctrine of sending in small, essentially token forces, to many places, to send a political signal of U.S. interest, in the hopes that this would influence regional actors to refrain from violence. Renner included no case studies from actual events, in all likelihood because the actual situations would demonstrate the fallacies of his assumptions, as in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq, where U.S. presence inspired gunfire rather than negotiations, and the small size and lack of support created conditions of high risk against poor opportunity for the men on the ground.
A similarly poor set of assumptions was made by Dr. Peter Dombrowski, whose 2000 paper titled “Alternative Futures in War and Conflict; Implications for U.S. National Security in the Next Century” essentially played the ‘focus group' game with war planning, so that “Participants felt that conflict between major powers was increasingly unlikely but that wars between lesser powers would continue”, and also that “In strategic terms the United States might simply “muddle through”—an approach which some participants favored or at least did not object to given America’s preponderance of power in the international system for the foreseeable future.”. This sort of thinking helps to explain why key warnings about Al Qaeda were not examined when they could have prevented the growth of the terrorist group into a major threat. Dombrowski’s study is useful, however, in that it displays the variety of threats to consider, and also displays a window into the mind of the National Intelligence Council, who advise the President through the PDB documents of threats and concerns. Dombrowski’s group, for example, went so far as to suggest that “the U.S. Marines could play more of a constabulary function” instead of preparing for war as they have always done. Such an essential blunder by men so close to the top of the decision chain reflects a serious problem in the Academic circles, even when studying warfare.
Also of interest was the late-20th Century self-appraisal of the Intelligence Community. The 1996 document titled “Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence”, noted that the Intelligence agencies for the United States need to work more closely with the people they serve, especially policy makers and those who need specific information for action decisions. The paper also correctly feared that “administrative barriers often prevent or impede cooperation between agencies”, and that the Intelligence Community needs cooperation and interaction with Law Enforcement agencies.
To their credit, the writers of these reports and their agencies have not tried to hide away these embarrassing documents, but left them unclassified and available for review and study, which I recommend to students of History and Military operations. It is interesting, however, to notice the radical changes in military doctrine under the Administration of George W. Bush, which may help to explain the broad support “Dubya” enjoys from the military demographic, to the continued bafflement of the Left. That is to say, where President Clinton seems to have bought into the advice of the focus group advisors, Bush trusted men with actual battle experience and a clear plan for victory. And Bush knows his history.
A cursory overview of American military history should, if nothing else, show an important lesson in American Psychology: Americans go “all in” when they fight a war. Nothing but victory is acceptable. Also, Americans do not begin wars with a desire to pick a fight, but once committed to the action the resolve is sure and strong. This must be emphasized, when confronting some of the more pernicious myths presented by the Left. When the American colonies broke with England, the initial intent was to bring about honest negotiations and reform of the arrangement between Crown and Colony. Only when this was clearly impossible, did open revolt and revolution come into action, and the United States born of necessity. Before the War of 1812, it was the sincere desire of the United States to negotiate issues with England to avoid conflict. Once this was impossible, the United States resolved to demonstrate that they could not be invaded with impunity. Before the debates over Slavery and States’ Rights finally boiled over into violence, the South would have done well to study the then-short history of our country, and so understand that the conflict would be forcefully resolved – either the South would completely overwhelm the North and so reshape the structure of the country, or else the North would overwhelm the South and impose a stern control, as came to pass. The Southern hope to force a partitioned existence dividing the United States into a Federal Union to the North and the Confederate States to the South was one which the nation refused to accept, at any cost. In the Spanish-American War, the decision to fight Spain led to a complete campaign to bar the Old Hemisphere from building any more colonies in the West, which also reshaped control of territories in the Pacific Ocean . As for the wars of the 20th Century, many observers have failed to note that public support has actually been strong for American objectives, and unforgiving of half-measures. The borders of the United States were never threatened during the Century, by Germany under either the Kaiser or even Hitler, by Japan under Tojo or Italy under Mussolini, or by North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung, or Saddam Hussein. But we went into war in all those places, and we either won or should have. And where the political will was too weak to finish the job, the people reacted and demanded a price. Truman lost his chance to run again in 1952, because he was seen as the man who gave up on Korea. LBJ could hardly have handled Vietnam any worse, and GHW Bush will always be remembered as the man who didn’t “finish the job” in Iraq. And returning to Vietnam for a moment, this was a war we could and should have won. The opinion of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid notwithstanding, the American people supported the war when we were serious about it, as when Nixon finally bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, and looked like he meant to invade. We only lost because the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to keep its agreements, and essentially invited the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army to roll into Saigon. The American people do not like losses, and there is a segment of the population which opposes even the most just and necessary of wars, but the people in general are not about to give up on our troops. Our whole history is one where the people appreciate the troops, and our troops do a magnificent job, and a complete one.
The threat of Global Terrorism is not a police matter. And very few people who study the problem are fooled into thinking that terrorist groups do not receive training, support, and protection from countries which find their tactics useful for their own agenda. It is in the most basic interest of the United States’ National Security, to wipe out any base of operations which is used by a significant terrorist organization, or which is likely to become one. Al Qaeda has run a number of operations which have earned them attention from the U.S. Military, including the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders. The Taliban in Afghanistan sheltered and supplied the terrorist group, which is all the justification needed to invade Afghanistan and establish a nascent democracy, which is precisely what has happened there. Intelligence showed that Iraq’s support for terrorist groups made them a likely next stop for Al Qaeda, which created a functional need to take action; the justification was already established by chronic breaches of the terms of the1991 Cease-fire to the First Gulf War. The additional offenses of firing at Coalition observation aircraft, as well as the attempted assassination of a former United States President, certainly meet the standard as acts of war themselves. Strategically, invading Iraq was an obvious choice as well. Besides the elimination of a rogue regime as mandated in 1998 by Congress, the invasion of Iraq made the Middle East the theater of operations against the most formidable networks of terrorists, far superior to waiting for them to build forces and attack U.S. installations and personnel. And this point requires a necessary stop, to examine the nature of Global Terrorism.
In the new era of post-Cold War stature, the United States has moved beyond “Superpower” to an effectively supreme position in any venture to which it acts militarily. As a consequence, nations which once felt secure in defying American intentions, either because of alliance with the Soviet bloc, Another cartel or group capable of standing against available US forces, or the belief that the US would be stretched too thin to take them on, are now uncomfortably aware that the United States may chose to act as it pleases. Where comparable force is no longer an option therefore, asymmetrical warfare gains in attraction, and for some nations, the use of terrorism offers a relatively effective and inexpensive means for fighting the United States. This is because of responses by leaders like the Clinton Administration, giving the image that the United States has no stomach for a prolonged or messy conflict, but also enjoys popularity because their supporters have long believed they could use terrorists without discovery, or at least without proof. The invasion of Iraq not only destabilized the Middle East base of many terrorist bases, networks, supply lines and communications, but also proved the lie of supporting terrorism without cost. A clear message has been sent throughout the Middle East, not only that the United States intends to pursue the dissolution of any significant force acting against Americans and our allies, but also that we will work to destabilize those regimes, by supporting popular revolt against oppression; it has not gone unnoticed in the United States, that most nations which have been willing to support terrorist groups are repressive against civil rights in their own countries. A new reciprocity is in effect; attempt to attack the United States’ citizens or our infrastructure, and we will make war against your regime, with the use of truth and a demand for justice. It is not commonly publicized, but dissident leaders in a number of key countries receive indirect help from the United States – not overtly, for a number of reasons, but the effect is still improved by the action.
It would be unreasonable to claim that the United States intends to make “clone states” in the Middle East – even were such a thing possible, the nature of any true democratic republic is such that it molds itself to meet the needs and demands of its own people. This is what happened in Germany and in Japan, and ideally will also take place in the Middle East – a network of nations which are genuinely committed to the rights and welfare of their own citizens, and for whom the rule of law will be established by a just constitution and equal access to the courts. The best way to prevent future wars is to eliminate the causes of such nations as would choose to make war against us.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Racist Gang Founder Changes Tune Now That It Is His Turn
XXZ
Governor Schwarzenegger of California is deliberating the possibility of commuting the sentence of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who was convcted of murdering four people in cold blood, and who helped to found the notorious and disgusting "Crips" gang nationwide, thereby escalating a serious law enforcement crisis. The same man who laughed at watching helpless victims die in their own blood, now is reportedly crying at the possibility that the sentence he earned will finally be carried out. I wrote on this issue a few days ago, but because of the present focus, am revisiting it again.
"Of course I want to live" says Williams, which makes me wonder if he ever considered that his victims just wanted the same thing. Certainly, the available evidence demonstrates that he didn't care about what they wanted. Williams' victims were the wrong place at the wrong time, and they were the wrong color. Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang, and Yee-Chen Lin were unarmed and compliant, they were potential witnesses - and they weren't black.
Witnesses to the murders reported that Williams referred to the Asians he murdered as "Buddaheads", and laughed about murdering Albert Owens, saying "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams has never apologized to the Owens or Yang or Lin families, nor expressed a single word of remorse for the murders. Williams has also consistently refused to assist police in any investigation involving the "Crips" gang he helped to found. The full extent of Williams' 1997 "apology", was only that Williams was sorry that blacks killed other blacks, an indication that Williams' hatred and racism has in no way changed.
Think, Governor Schwarzenegger. Do you want to represent the people of California, who overwhelmingly support the Death Penalty for monsters like Williams, or do you agree with murder by a racist thug? It really comes down to that.
Governor Schwarzenegger of California is deliberating the possibility of commuting the sentence of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who was convcted of murdering four people in cold blood, and who helped to found the notorious and disgusting "Crips" gang nationwide, thereby escalating a serious law enforcement crisis. The same man who laughed at watching helpless victims die in their own blood, now is reportedly crying at the possibility that the sentence he earned will finally be carried out. I wrote on this issue a few days ago, but because of the present focus, am revisiting it again.
"Of course I want to live" says Williams, which makes me wonder if he ever considered that his victims just wanted the same thing. Certainly, the available evidence demonstrates that he didn't care about what they wanted. Williams' victims were the wrong place at the wrong time, and they were the wrong color. Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang, and Yee-Chen Lin were unarmed and compliant, they were potential witnesses - and they weren't black.
Witnesses to the murders reported that Williams referred to the Asians he murdered as "Buddaheads", and laughed about murdering Albert Owens, saying "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams has never apologized to the Owens or Yang or Lin families, nor expressed a single word of remorse for the murders. Williams has also consistently refused to assist police in any investigation involving the "Crips" gang he helped to found. The full extent of Williams' 1997 "apology", was only that Williams was sorry that blacks killed other blacks, an indication that Williams' hatred and racism has in no way changed.
Think, Governor Schwarzenegger. Do you want to represent the people of California, who overwhelmingly support the Death Penalty for monsters like Williams, or do you agree with murder by a racist thug? It really comes down to that.
The PATRIOT Act
...
Well, as the week nears its end and the minds of Congress turn from camera time to tee times, the GOP has spared some attention to consideration of extending the PATRIOT Act.
Apparently, the Republicans have agreed amongst themselves that, at least for the next four years, it would be a good thing to continue to give Intelligence and Security agencies the same tools we use to catch mob bosses and child kidnappers, and to allow wiretaps to follow the suspects if they switch phones. It would also be nice to lock the bank accounts of people who fund terrorists, and to provide protection for the victims of terrorism in the United States, all of which is addressed in the Act. The de riguer hysteria from the Democrats is, no doubt, being scheduled as we speak.
For those curious as to what the PATRIOT Act really says, read this.
Well, as the week nears its end and the minds of Congress turn from camera time to tee times, the GOP has spared some attention to consideration of extending the PATRIOT Act.
Apparently, the Republicans have agreed amongst themselves that, at least for the next four years, it would be a good thing to continue to give Intelligence and Security agencies the same tools we use to catch mob bosses and child kidnappers, and to allow wiretaps to follow the suspects if they switch phones. It would also be nice to lock the bank accounts of people who fund terrorists, and to provide protection for the victims of terrorism in the United States, all of which is addressed in the Act. The de riguer hysteria from the Democrats is, no doubt, being scheduled as we speak.
For those curious as to what the PATRIOT Act really says, read this.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
We’re Number One. Some Folks Think That’s A Bad Thing
::
Fred Kaplan at Slate thought it was time, back in January, for a “brave” politician to step up and declare that America is a “declining power”. It seems Kaplan believes the United States is on its way out, to be replaced by a “multi-polar” world where the U.S. is just one player among several.
Kaplan says that this is a fact, because of an early-2005 report from the CIA. In Kaplan’s mind, the CIA has no political agenda, and therefore must be taken as unvarnished truth. Apparently then, in Kaplan’s mind Joe Wilson is a dedicated public servant who had no axe to grind, and Valerie Plame was truly a deep-cover secret agent, whose life was put in danger by evil political forces, and not by her press releases and photo ops, her CIA parking sticker or her suggestion that hubby Joe should be sent on a classified mission then talk to everybody on the planet about it afterwards. No politics at the CIA here, just ignore the weasels with the Washington Post number scribbled on sticky notes next to their work stations.
The favorite section of the report cited by Kaplan reads:
“The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.”
In this age of global strategy, it’s important to keep out focus on the challenges and stakes. We are number one, and for a very good reason. Sure, China and India, and for that matter Brazil and Venezuela and Indonesia too, will be chasing after us and looking for ways to get ahead, but we saw that from Japan, from Russia, from the European Union back when you could say “EU” with a straight face. We saw that from OPEC and many of our fair-weather allies, and of course, regularly from the United Nations and the World Court. But we won anyway, time and time again, despite setbacks and outright collaboration by other nations.
We have won militarily, economically, and socially. The United States is able to fight anyone, anywhere that becomes necessary. The dollar, whatever its ups and downs, is readily accepted worldwide and is the most-favored means of currency, especially as security; even Cuba and China hold U.S. dollars and bonds for reserves. And even a short trip outside the United States reveals the impact of American media, films, music, and social icons. Sure, the French hate us for it and Anarchists everywhere see it as a broad conspiracy, but closer examination reveals that besides its seductive side, the American Dream holds tremendous appeal on the universal level. Who wouldn’t want to own their own home, to choose their career and elect leaders who feel responsible to the population? Who wouldn’t want to be free to practice whatever religion they believe in, or none at all? Who wouldn’t want to be able to trust that the electricity, water, police, fire, and medical services are truly public servants, and not wholly based on the ability to bribe your way ahead in a long line? The people who think America is trying to make clones of the rest of the world have it backwards – while everyone wants to protect and revere their own heritage and culture, many billions of people want what Americans have, and see no reason why they should not rise to that level.
We’re winning, and not everyone can deal with that fact. In many ways, the whole problem with the Left comes down to that essential point.
Fred Kaplan at Slate thought it was time, back in January, for a “brave” politician to step up and declare that America is a “declining power”. It seems Kaplan believes the United States is on its way out, to be replaced by a “multi-polar” world where the U.S. is just one player among several.
Kaplan says that this is a fact, because of an early-2005 report from the CIA. In Kaplan’s mind, the CIA has no political agenda, and therefore must be taken as unvarnished truth. Apparently then, in Kaplan’s mind Joe Wilson is a dedicated public servant who had no axe to grind, and Valerie Plame was truly a deep-cover secret agent, whose life was put in danger by evil political forces, and not by her press releases and photo ops, her CIA parking sticker or her suggestion that hubby Joe should be sent on a classified mission then talk to everybody on the planet about it afterwards. No politics at the CIA here, just ignore the weasels with the Washington Post number scribbled on sticky notes next to their work stations.
The favorite section of the report cited by Kaplan reads:
“The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.”
In this age of global strategy, it’s important to keep out focus on the challenges and stakes. We are number one, and for a very good reason. Sure, China and India, and for that matter Brazil and Venezuela and Indonesia too, will be chasing after us and looking for ways to get ahead, but we saw that from Japan, from Russia, from the European Union back when you could say “EU” with a straight face. We saw that from OPEC and many of our fair-weather allies, and of course, regularly from the United Nations and the World Court. But we won anyway, time and time again, despite setbacks and outright collaboration by other nations.
We have won militarily, economically, and socially. The United States is able to fight anyone, anywhere that becomes necessary. The dollar, whatever its ups and downs, is readily accepted worldwide and is the most-favored means of currency, especially as security; even Cuba and China hold U.S. dollars and bonds for reserves. And even a short trip outside the United States reveals the impact of American media, films, music, and social icons. Sure, the French hate us for it and Anarchists everywhere see it as a broad conspiracy, but closer examination reveals that besides its seductive side, the American Dream holds tremendous appeal on the universal level. Who wouldn’t want to own their own home, to choose their career and elect leaders who feel responsible to the population? Who wouldn’t want to be free to practice whatever religion they believe in, or none at all? Who wouldn’t want to be able to trust that the electricity, water, police, fire, and medical services are truly public servants, and not wholly based on the ability to bribe your way ahead in a long line? The people who think America is trying to make clones of the rest of the world have it backwards – while everyone wants to protect and revere their own heritage and culture, many billions of people want what Americans have, and see no reason why they should not rise to that level.
We’re winning, and not everyone can deal with that fact. In many ways, the whole problem with the Left comes down to that essential point.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Regimes and Change
-- yuan --
Now that I am back in the good old USA, I feel free to note a few things about the government presently in custody of Hong Kong. Not that my opinions won’t be thoroughly predictable, but it is important for people to understand why, while is indeed the Pacific Centuryt, it bodes better for America than China in that regard.
Hong Kong has a less than perfect birth story. In short order, when the British Empire found it difficult to import Opium into China in exchange for the goods it desired, because of opposition from the Celestial Court, the Crown set up the island of Hong Kong as a port city under its firm control. The Chinese Emperor was unable to dislocate the island fortress, and summarily a treaty was drawn up, which made Hong Kong a British protectorate until 1997, when it reverted to China. It should be understood, however, that there essentially was no such city as Hong Kong before the British built it up, and this has everything to do with the character of the island.
China wanted Hong Kong back for two main reasons; pride and profit. Pride, because a foreign foothold on Chinese soil was perceived as an insult, and profit because Hong Kong was a shining diamond among Asian cities for commerce, banking, commodities, and all manner of investment. Even the Politburo in Beijing understood the value in holding Hong Kong, which is why Hong Kong is an “autonomous” region, which in practical terms just means that Beijing still runs things, but differently than other areas.
The first five years back under Chinese rule were abysmal. The mainland government very nearly killed the golden goose, with heavy restrictions on business and even heavier taxes. It is no surprise that many businesses moved the bulk of their capital into Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand, where the governments were more welcoming and better eductated in business priorities. But China gradually came around. Using Shanghai as an economic laboratory of sorts, lessons were learned and the Beijing government set up offices to approach targeted businesses directly, trying to lure strategic industries and investors to the city which once represented the pinnacle of business in Asia.
But the Midas touch has a problem for the Communists. You cannot handle large amounts of money at close hand without considering what it can do, and money has always bought a sort of perspective which clashes with the sort found in the Little Red Book. Beijing has discovered it is all but impossible to give people access to computers, faxes. and satellite reception on a wide scale, and still expect to control the flow of information and communication. The next Tienemen Square will not take place in a stone plaza, but across a network of chat rooms, and there is no way to get a division of tanks there.
Now that I am back in the good old USA, I feel free to note a few things about the government presently in custody of Hong Kong. Not that my opinions won’t be thoroughly predictable, but it is important for people to understand why, while is indeed the Pacific Centuryt, it bodes better for America than China in that regard.
Hong Kong has a less than perfect birth story. In short order, when the British Empire found it difficult to import Opium into China in exchange for the goods it desired, because of opposition from the Celestial Court, the Crown set up the island of Hong Kong as a port city under its firm control. The Chinese Emperor was unable to dislocate the island fortress, and summarily a treaty was drawn up, which made Hong Kong a British protectorate until 1997, when it reverted to China. It should be understood, however, that there essentially was no such city as Hong Kong before the British built it up, and this has everything to do with the character of the island.
China wanted Hong Kong back for two main reasons; pride and profit. Pride, because a foreign foothold on Chinese soil was perceived as an insult, and profit because Hong Kong was a shining diamond among Asian cities for commerce, banking, commodities, and all manner of investment. Even the Politburo in Beijing understood the value in holding Hong Kong, which is why Hong Kong is an “autonomous” region, which in practical terms just means that Beijing still runs things, but differently than other areas.
The first five years back under Chinese rule were abysmal. The mainland government very nearly killed the golden goose, with heavy restrictions on business and even heavier taxes. It is no surprise that many businesses moved the bulk of their capital into Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand, where the governments were more welcoming and better eductated in business priorities. But China gradually came around. Using Shanghai as an economic laboratory of sorts, lessons were learned and the Beijing government set up offices to approach targeted businesses directly, trying to lure strategic industries and investors to the city which once represented the pinnacle of business in Asia.
But the Midas touch has a problem for the Communists. You cannot handle large amounts of money at close hand without considering what it can do, and money has always bought a sort of perspective which clashes with the sort found in the Little Red Book. Beijing has discovered it is all but impossible to give people access to computers, faxes. and satellite reception on a wide scale, and still expect to control the flow of information and communication. The next Tienemen Square will not take place in a stone plaza, but across a network of chat rooms, and there is no way to get a division of tanks there.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Sister Cities and Jet Lag
## zzzz ##
Well, I’m back home in Houston again, which means, besides the jet lag and the future shock of credit card bills, I can sit at my desk, and in between attempts to regain control of my e-mail and deadlines, reflect on the similarities between Houston and Hong Kong.
Houston and Hong Kong could be sister cities, if they had the mind to make the connection. First off, there is the fact that many Hong Kongese now live here in H-town, and there are more than a couple Houstonians who have taken up residence in the Big Lychee. Also, there are other obvious similarities which make the cities very much like each other; friendly people, all kinds of cultures represented in the town, many malls and businesses, some top-rate medical and scientific facilities, and a lot of truly excellent restaurants. Two things Cantonese cooking and Texas cuisine have in common is a rich and wide use of sauces, as well as large portions. It’s also worth noting that Hong Kong is part of the South portion of Asia, Canton province which has always maintained a special identity within China, and Houston is located in Texas, which is, well, Texas.
The weather is even the same, slightly humid but generally warm, with rain coming in from the coast. There is a lot of fishing, for business and sport, in both towns. And just as there are many people in Houston who speak Cantonese, there are many in Hong Kong who speak perfect English, which allows to them to generally understand Americans.
There are also differences, of course. Hong Kong’s public transportation actually works, includes a subway, and unlike Houston’s Light Rail is on-time, under-budget and generally does not hit passenger vehicles. Personal firearms are generally unknown to the civilian population in Hong Kong, as is gangsta rap. On the other hand, Hong Kong has a lot of Gambling businesses, and in places looks a lot like Atlantic City. Hong Kong also has parts of town which are basically controlled by Organized Crime; the OCTB stays much more busy than HPD’s Gang Unit, and hopefully Houston can keep it that way. And of course, trying to use Hong Kong dollars in Houston is a futile effort, but American dollars are readily accepted in many Hong Kong businesses. And finally, Hong Kong pays little attention to sports, unless there is gambling involved, while in Houston it is generally foolish to bet on the local team these days.
Did I mention how long it takes to get back on a regular sleep cycle after spending time in Hong Kong? The sun is up, but I’m dead tired. If you see snoring in the text later this week, you’ll know I’m still not all the way back.
San Tan Far Luck!
Well, I’m back home in Houston again, which means, besides the jet lag and the future shock of credit card bills, I can sit at my desk, and in between attempts to regain control of my e-mail and deadlines, reflect on the similarities between Houston and Hong Kong.
Houston and Hong Kong could be sister cities, if they had the mind to make the connection. First off, there is the fact that many Hong Kongese now live here in H-town, and there are more than a couple Houstonians who have taken up residence in the Big Lychee. Also, there are other obvious similarities which make the cities very much like each other; friendly people, all kinds of cultures represented in the town, many malls and businesses, some top-rate medical and scientific facilities, and a lot of truly excellent restaurants. Two things Cantonese cooking and Texas cuisine have in common is a rich and wide use of sauces, as well as large portions. It’s also worth noting that Hong Kong is part of the South portion of Asia, Canton province which has always maintained a special identity within China, and Houston is located in Texas, which is, well, Texas.
The weather is even the same, slightly humid but generally warm, with rain coming in from the coast. There is a lot of fishing, for business and sport, in both towns. And just as there are many people in Houston who speak Cantonese, there are many in Hong Kong who speak perfect English, which allows to them to generally understand Americans.
There are also differences, of course. Hong Kong’s public transportation actually works, includes a subway, and unlike Houston’s Light Rail is on-time, under-budget and generally does not hit passenger vehicles. Personal firearms are generally unknown to the civilian population in Hong Kong, as is gangsta rap. On the other hand, Hong Kong has a lot of Gambling businesses, and in places looks a lot like Atlantic City. Hong Kong also has parts of town which are basically controlled by Organized Crime; the OCTB stays much more busy than HPD’s Gang Unit, and hopefully Houston can keep it that way. And of course, trying to use Hong Kong dollars in Houston is a futile effort, but American dollars are readily accepted in many Hong Kong businesses. And finally, Hong Kong pays little attention to sports, unless there is gambling involved, while in Houston it is generally foolish to bet on the local team these days.
Did I mention how long it takes to get back on a regular sleep cycle after spending time in Hong Kong? The sun is up, but I’m dead tired. If you see snoring in the text later this week, you’ll know I’m still not all the way back.
San Tan Far Luck!
Sunday, December 04, 2005
An Open Response to Tom Tancredo
[]<>[]
The Immigration and Borders debate is finally starting to get going. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to get people to engage in debate. Rather, far too many people like to shoot down positive suggestions with real merit, simply because they are not perfect. And because the President, while clearly superior in many elements of his job, is something less than eloquent when he explains his programs and ideas, so I am doing what I can here to eludicidate.
Tom Tancredo, a strong proponent of Immigration but unfortunately not known for giving Dubya any credit for his initiatives, once again failed to see the purpose and value in Bush’s ideas, and essentially played the Democrat’s lackey by shooting at the program before its Congressional debate. While Mr. Tancredo is free to exprses his opinions, I must comment that it is he, and not the President, who has things “exactly backward”.
I will start with the obvious, Mr, Tancredo may be well-educated in many aspects of Immigration, but he gets an ‘F’ in perceiving the difference between a desire for perfection, and a plan that works in the real world. If there is one glaring error Tancredo makes, over and over agin, it is that he disparages President Bush in terms that suggest Bush is unaware of the nature and magnitude of illegal entry into the United States. Given that Bush is a former Governor of Texas, I would contend that his knowledge and experience are actually far superior to Mr. Tancredo’s. This must be considered when weighing why Bush supports one action over another alternative.
Mr. Tancredo makes a series of false statements in his article, which I feel demand a proper response. The statements are here, along with my response:
“But until we have actually demonstrated that we have achieved border security and enforcement of our laws, it is dishonest to propose another amnesty as a solution“
Find a dictionary, Mr. Tancredo. An “amnesty” forgives wrongful and criminal acts of whatever nature and frequency. That is not what the President has suggested. What Bush wants is to separate people who are already here into two groups - those who show they are willing to begin the legitimate process, and those who are not. This reduces the stress on the enforcement measures, and stages the actions to address themost serious threats first. You and your side have yet to propose a functional plan in detail, instead demanding “perfection now”.
“What proponents of true border security have proposed in several bills now before Congress is a comprehensive system of border security that will include a fence, added sensors and cameras, airborne surveillance, and a doubling of Border Patrol manpower. These proposals also include new resources for interior enforcement beyond the border region, including vigorous enforcement of our labor laws.”
If you had bothered to pay attention to the President, Mr. Tancredo, you would have observed that the President’s plan does almost all of those things alreasy, and beyond that establishes liason between law enforcement and the Intelligence Community to address border concerns directly.
“If we follow the president's plan and authorize a new amnesty for another 10 million people who came across our borders illegally, it will only encourage the next wave of illegal aliens on the hope and expectation that they, too, will eventually be granted amnesty. That has been the sorry history of the last 30 years, and it is time to call a halt to that nonsense.”
That sir, is a lie. In the first place, no one is suggesting we simply let in “another 10 million people” illegally, and I should also note that the “last 30 years”, while problematic, has hardly been a showcase of Congress or the President trying to protect the illegals, but unfortunately necessary corrections have failed, because various groups and high-profile names have refused to support anything that was not both a perfect answer, and their own proposal. I contend, Mister Tancredo, that attitudes such as yours are not only adding nothing to the solution, you are distinctly prolonging and worsening the problem, because no one is ever good enough by your lights.
“The president's temporary worker proposal is also lacking in realism. He asks Americans to believe that after six years on a temporary worker visa, these workers will go home voluntarily. Who believes that? Citizens in Europe can tell you that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker.”
More evidence that you have not paid attention to how this will actually work. Rather than, say, the French method of issuing a residency card and forgetting about the alien, hoping for the best, this plan registers individuals with a series of identification measures designed to make their location and (if necessary) capture more feasible. Bearing in mind these are people who are already in the country and would have to come forward of their own volition, this does not increase illegal entry by even a single person, but identifies a key demographic within the community - individuals who are willing to become legitimate, given the chance. This is critically important for two reasons - first off, every person already in the country who demonstrates a desire to begin abiding by the law must be encouraged to do so. Providing a way for someone to work here temporarily then leave or begin the formal application for permanent residency or citizenship, is always going to be better than reinforcing the status quo of unknown numbers in unknown places, with no incentive for cooperation. Also, the worst illegals, the career criminals, the coyotes who traffic in smuggling of humans, drugs, and various contraband, and potential cells for terrorists, are known to hide in communities of illegal aliens. If even one person in that community begins to cooperate with law enforcement, that community is denied the criminal element, and it becomes easier to find and intercept that element. I have never yet heard how you intend for DHS to capture illegal alien criminals already in the United States, Mister Tancredo, so in my book you are out of line for trashing a feasible plan for addressing the greatest threat, when you have none of your own.
“Another red herring is that the only alternative to amnesty is to have a mass deportation of 10 million people. That is nonsense. All we have to do is to begin enforcing our laws and establish genuine border security. When the jobs slowly disappear because employers prefer to raise wages and attract legal workers instead of going to jail, most illegal workers will go home voluntarily. That strategy is called "enforcement first," and it is better than amnesty.”
Ever hear of Prohibition, Mister Tancredo? If a law is not supported by the people, it will fail. While everyone is concerned about violent criminals coming across the border, and people generally support the notion of enforcing immigration laws, it’s a different thing entirely when you suggest we can solve basic problems without addressing the cause. The problem with illegal immigration, you are correct, is that many laws are not enforced, but that reflects a social version of laissez faire for people who are willing to live and work peacefully. There is no public support for higher prices without a clear benefit, or for more punitive laws without a clear explanation for why this is necessary, and why it is consistent with our Constitution to treat people differently on the basis of their appearance and culture, as will be necessary in actual practice to enforce the laws. That is not to say such actions are not necessary, but to remind you that neither the President nor the Congress has any power to change these perceptions, but it must begin at the local and county level. Your harangues against the President are doing nothing to address this grassroots issue, which suggests to me that you are more about the image of a fighter, than a true general seeking victory in a crisis. The President is working on the base problem, by separating the gentle immigrant, legal or not, from the violent one, and the one willing to begin obeying the law now, from the one who has no such intentions. With proper support, Bush’s plan will make it simpler and easier and more popular to pursue the worst of those crossing our borders, which should be everyone’s first objective.
“An honest debate on immigration reform must start with that fact, and only people who don't really want to stop illegal border traffic can propose such amnesty with a straight face.”
I agree we need an honest debate. I would therefore like to see you put away your false claims, support the good ideas Bush has presented, and work to propose specific and realistic solutions for the future.
The Immigration and Borders debate is finally starting to get going. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to get people to engage in debate. Rather, far too many people like to shoot down positive suggestions with real merit, simply because they are not perfect. And because the President, while clearly superior in many elements of his job, is something less than eloquent when he explains his programs and ideas, so I am doing what I can here to eludicidate.
Tom Tancredo, a strong proponent of Immigration but unfortunately not known for giving Dubya any credit for his initiatives, once again failed to see the purpose and value in Bush’s ideas, and essentially played the Democrat’s lackey by shooting at the program before its Congressional debate. While Mr. Tancredo is free to exprses his opinions, I must comment that it is he, and not the President, who has things “exactly backward”.
I will start with the obvious, Mr, Tancredo may be well-educated in many aspects of Immigration, but he gets an ‘F’ in perceiving the difference between a desire for perfection, and a plan that works in the real world. If there is one glaring error Tancredo makes, over and over agin, it is that he disparages President Bush in terms that suggest Bush is unaware of the nature and magnitude of illegal entry into the United States. Given that Bush is a former Governor of Texas, I would contend that his knowledge and experience are actually far superior to Mr. Tancredo’s. This must be considered when weighing why Bush supports one action over another alternative.
Mr. Tancredo makes a series of false statements in his article, which I feel demand a proper response. The statements are here, along with my response:
“But until we have actually demonstrated that we have achieved border security and enforcement of our laws, it is dishonest to propose another amnesty as a solution“
Find a dictionary, Mr. Tancredo. An “amnesty” forgives wrongful and criminal acts of whatever nature and frequency. That is not what the President has suggested. What Bush wants is to separate people who are already here into two groups - those who show they are willing to begin the legitimate process, and those who are not. This reduces the stress on the enforcement measures, and stages the actions to address themost serious threats first. You and your side have yet to propose a functional plan in detail, instead demanding “perfection now”.
“What proponents of true border security have proposed in several bills now before Congress is a comprehensive system of border security that will include a fence, added sensors and cameras, airborne surveillance, and a doubling of Border Patrol manpower. These proposals also include new resources for interior enforcement beyond the border region, including vigorous enforcement of our labor laws.”
If you had bothered to pay attention to the President, Mr. Tancredo, you would have observed that the President’s plan does almost all of those things alreasy, and beyond that establishes liason between law enforcement and the Intelligence Community to address border concerns directly.
“If we follow the president's plan and authorize a new amnesty for another 10 million people who came across our borders illegally, it will only encourage the next wave of illegal aliens on the hope and expectation that they, too, will eventually be granted amnesty. That has been the sorry history of the last 30 years, and it is time to call a halt to that nonsense.”
That sir, is a lie. In the first place, no one is suggesting we simply let in “another 10 million people” illegally, and I should also note that the “last 30 years”, while problematic, has hardly been a showcase of Congress or the President trying to protect the illegals, but unfortunately necessary corrections have failed, because various groups and high-profile names have refused to support anything that was not both a perfect answer, and their own proposal. I contend, Mister Tancredo, that attitudes such as yours are not only adding nothing to the solution, you are distinctly prolonging and worsening the problem, because no one is ever good enough by your lights.
“The president's temporary worker proposal is also lacking in realism. He asks Americans to believe that after six years on a temporary worker visa, these workers will go home voluntarily. Who believes that? Citizens in Europe can tell you that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker.”
More evidence that you have not paid attention to how this will actually work. Rather than, say, the French method of issuing a residency card and forgetting about the alien, hoping for the best, this plan registers individuals with a series of identification measures designed to make their location and (if necessary) capture more feasible. Bearing in mind these are people who are already in the country and would have to come forward of their own volition, this does not increase illegal entry by even a single person, but identifies a key demographic within the community - individuals who are willing to become legitimate, given the chance. This is critically important for two reasons - first off, every person already in the country who demonstrates a desire to begin abiding by the law must be encouraged to do so. Providing a way for someone to work here temporarily then leave or begin the formal application for permanent residency or citizenship, is always going to be better than reinforcing the status quo of unknown numbers in unknown places, with no incentive for cooperation. Also, the worst illegals, the career criminals, the coyotes who traffic in smuggling of humans, drugs, and various contraband, and potential cells for terrorists, are known to hide in communities of illegal aliens. If even one person in that community begins to cooperate with law enforcement, that community is denied the criminal element, and it becomes easier to find and intercept that element. I have never yet heard how you intend for DHS to capture illegal alien criminals already in the United States, Mister Tancredo, so in my book you are out of line for trashing a feasible plan for addressing the greatest threat, when you have none of your own.
“Another red herring is that the only alternative to amnesty is to have a mass deportation of 10 million people. That is nonsense. All we have to do is to begin enforcing our laws and establish genuine border security. When the jobs slowly disappear because employers prefer to raise wages and attract legal workers instead of going to jail, most illegal workers will go home voluntarily. That strategy is called "enforcement first," and it is better than amnesty.”
Ever hear of Prohibition, Mister Tancredo? If a law is not supported by the people, it will fail. While everyone is concerned about violent criminals coming across the border, and people generally support the notion of enforcing immigration laws, it’s a different thing entirely when you suggest we can solve basic problems without addressing the cause. The problem with illegal immigration, you are correct, is that many laws are not enforced, but that reflects a social version of laissez faire for people who are willing to live and work peacefully. There is no public support for higher prices without a clear benefit, or for more punitive laws without a clear explanation for why this is necessary, and why it is consistent with our Constitution to treat people differently on the basis of their appearance and culture, as will be necessary in actual practice to enforce the laws. That is not to say such actions are not necessary, but to remind you that neither the President nor the Congress has any power to change these perceptions, but it must begin at the local and county level. Your harangues against the President are doing nothing to address this grassroots issue, which suggests to me that you are more about the image of a fighter, than a true general seeking victory in a crisis. The President is working on the base problem, by separating the gentle immigrant, legal or not, from the violent one, and the one willing to begin obeying the law now, from the one who has no such intentions. With proper support, Bush’s plan will make it simpler and easier and more popular to pursue the worst of those crossing our borders, which should be everyone’s first objective.
“An honest debate on immigration reform must start with that fact, and only people who don't really want to stop illegal border traffic can propose such amnesty with a straight face.”
I agree we need an honest debate. I would therefore like to see you put away your false claims, support the good ideas Bush has presented, and work to propose specific and realistic solutions for the future.
PFL Week Thirteen
** grunt **
Week Thirteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0) 43, Cleveland (7-5) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (13-0) 61, Clinton (0-12) 12
Washington (13-0) 55, Van Buren (3-9) 3
George W Bush (12-0) 31, Wilson (7-6) 3
Reagan (12-0) 28, Lincoln (8-5) 9
Polk (10-3) 18, Monroe (10-2) 15 (OT)
Jefferson (11-2) 41, Hayes (5-7) 3
FDR (11-2) 30, Taft (7-5) 9
Grant (11-2) 24, B Harrison (4-9) 15
JFK (10-3) 38, LBJ (1-11) 0
Truman (10-3) 30, McKinley (6-6) 10
John Adams (7-5) 23, Madison (7-6) 22
JQ Adams (7-5) 18, Jackson (6-7) 12
Nixon (6-6), idle
Taylor (6-6), idle
Arthur (6-7) 25, Pierce (2-10) 0
GHW Bush (6-7) 37, Harding (2-10) 10
Ford (5-8) 24, W Harrison (2-10) 21
Tyler (4-8), idle
Coolidge (3-9), idle
Carter (3-10) 30, A Johnson (0-12) 12
Fillmore (2-10), idle
Garfield (2-10), idle
Hoover (2-11) 30, Buchanan (0-12) 15
STANDINGS
Division A
[03] Washington (13-0)
[09] Monroe (10-2)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[01] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (11-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (12-0) Division Clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (11-2)
[10] JFK (10-3)
[17] Taft (7-5)
Division E
[02] Teddy Roosevelt (13-0)
[08] Grant (10-2)
Division F
[04] George W Bush (12-0)
[12] Truman (10-3)
Week Thirteen Scoreboard
Eisenhower (13-0) 43, Cleveland (7-5) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (13-0) 61, Clinton (0-12) 12
Washington (13-0) 55, Van Buren (3-9) 3
George W Bush (12-0) 31, Wilson (7-6) 3
Reagan (12-0) 28, Lincoln (8-5) 9
Polk (10-3) 18, Monroe (10-2) 15 (OT)
Jefferson (11-2) 41, Hayes (5-7) 3
FDR (11-2) 30, Taft (7-5) 9
Grant (11-2) 24, B Harrison (4-9) 15
JFK (10-3) 38, LBJ (1-11) 0
Truman (10-3) 30, McKinley (6-6) 10
John Adams (7-5) 23, Madison (7-6) 22
JQ Adams (7-5) 18, Jackson (6-7) 12
Nixon (6-6), idle
Taylor (6-6), idle
Arthur (6-7) 25, Pierce (2-10) 0
GHW Bush (6-7) 37, Harding (2-10) 10
Ford (5-8) 24, W Harrison (2-10) 21
Tyler (4-8), idle
Coolidge (3-9), idle
Carter (3-10) 30, A Johnson (0-12) 12
Fillmore (2-10), idle
Garfield (2-10), idle
Hoover (2-11) 30, Buchanan (0-12) 15
STANDINGS
Division A
[03] Washington (13-0)
[09] Monroe (10-2)
[11] Polk (10-3)
Division B
[01] Eisenhower (13-0)
[06] Jefferson (11-2)
Division C
[05] Reagan (12-0) Division Clinched
Division D
[07] FDR (11-2)
[10] JFK (10-3)
[17] Taft (7-5)
Division E
[02] Teddy Roosevelt (13-0)
[08] Grant (10-2)
Division F
[04] George W Bush (12-0)
[12] Truman (10-3)
Saturday, December 03, 2005
1984
DWBB DWBB DWBB
I noticed a comment earlier this week, an out-of-context reference to Orwell’s ‘1984’. As it happens, I was re-reading ‘1984’ this past week, and once again observed that while it is justifiably called a classic, it is such for reasons the Liberals have neither observed, nor are willing to accept.
To refresh the memories of those who have not read ‘1984’ recently, the book focuses on the life on one Winston Smith, citizen of Oceania and outer member of the ‘The Party'. Smith lives on an island called ‘Airstrip One’, though he vaguely recalls it used to be called England. From this perspective, the reader sees a world in black and grey, all of it dirty and defiled, so that by the end of the book it is no wonder that the forces of oppression have won.
Many people have concluded that Orwell was sending a clarion warning of the dangers of Soviet Communism; and he was doing just that. But most people have forgotten that despite being British by citizenship, Orwell was not born there; he was born in Bengal in 1903 under the given name of Eric Blair, and served with the Loyalist forces in the Spanish Civil War. ‘1984’ was written in 1948, just one year before Orwell died from a lung ailment, which may go a distance in explaining his depression and futilism in the novel. Orwell was a Socialist, in that same unrealistic sense that pursues a dream without much notion of how to make it real. In the novel, the Party is opposed by a small, nebulous group which calls itself The Brotherhood, but without any formal roster, chain of command, or political platform. Rather, in my opinion, like those modern-day Socialists who protest everything done, but with so substantial or detailed plan for how to repair the issue. In ‘1984’, Capitalists are only discussed in perjorative and misleading terms, confused by the protagonist and the Party with the worst excesses of the aristocracy. When Winston acquires a copy of the forbidden “Book”, he learns that “the final phase of Capitalism” ended in the 1940s. How convenient, to exclude one of the most formidable positive influences on Society by claiming it was already obsolete. Ironic, that a device either used by Orwell to show the ignorance of the Party or demonstrating his own short-sghtedness, is so reflective of the modern Liberal mindset.
I also found the re-read interesting, because of the theme on War. In ‘1984’, Orwell’s world exists only as three great Super-states: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, which exist for practical purposes as oligarchies of equal size, strength, and morality. That is to say, a convenient and completely unreasonable assumption of global development, which ignores the culture, social fabric, and historical track of over a hundred-eighty nations. And again it is fascinating to see how this is reflected in the modern Liberal mindset, which considers all nations of equal moral weight, and every culture identical in character to any other. Although the Liberals borrow from another Orwell classic, and insist that Communists and Socialists are ‘more equal’ than others.
But I also re-discovered something I had forgotten before. Orwell explains that the world of The Party and the war is unending; Orwell implies that the future is hopeless, and survival a quixotic illusion. The strongmen came to power and ordinary people have no effective weapon against them; it was strange to me to read the physical description of Big Brother:
“the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features.”
That, and the fact that Big Brother plasters his mug everywhere, sure reminds me of Saddam Hussein. That, and the way that Liberals had and have so many things to say against his enemies.
I’m sure I don’t need to go into a detailed exploration of how ‘Newspeak’ found its way into Liberal Reality; calling Abortion “Choice”; calling suppression or religious expression “Freedom”; and demanding special rights and advantages for selected minority groups but claiming this is done in the name of “Equal Rights”. All of these tell us where Orwell’s ‘Party' went after his death.
It's enough to make me look a Clinton in the eye and ask them how "O'Brien" is doing.
I noticed a comment earlier this week, an out-of-context reference to Orwell’s ‘1984’. As it happens, I was re-reading ‘1984’ this past week, and once again observed that while it is justifiably called a classic, it is such for reasons the Liberals have neither observed, nor are willing to accept.
To refresh the memories of those who have not read ‘1984’ recently, the book focuses on the life on one Winston Smith, citizen of Oceania and outer member of the ‘The Party'. Smith lives on an island called ‘Airstrip One’, though he vaguely recalls it used to be called England. From this perspective, the reader sees a world in black and grey, all of it dirty and defiled, so that by the end of the book it is no wonder that the forces of oppression have won.
Many people have concluded that Orwell was sending a clarion warning of the dangers of Soviet Communism; and he was doing just that. But most people have forgotten that despite being British by citizenship, Orwell was not born there; he was born in Bengal in 1903 under the given name of Eric Blair, and served with the Loyalist forces in the Spanish Civil War. ‘1984’ was written in 1948, just one year before Orwell died from a lung ailment, which may go a distance in explaining his depression and futilism in the novel. Orwell was a Socialist, in that same unrealistic sense that pursues a dream without much notion of how to make it real. In the novel, the Party is opposed by a small, nebulous group which calls itself The Brotherhood, but without any formal roster, chain of command, or political platform. Rather, in my opinion, like those modern-day Socialists who protest everything done, but with so substantial or detailed plan for how to repair the issue. In ‘1984’, Capitalists are only discussed in perjorative and misleading terms, confused by the protagonist and the Party with the worst excesses of the aristocracy. When Winston acquires a copy of the forbidden “Book”, he learns that “the final phase of Capitalism” ended in the 1940s. How convenient, to exclude one of the most formidable positive influences on Society by claiming it was already obsolete. Ironic, that a device either used by Orwell to show the ignorance of the Party or demonstrating his own short-sghtedness, is so reflective of the modern Liberal mindset.
I also found the re-read interesting, because of the theme on War. In ‘1984’, Orwell’s world exists only as three great Super-states: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, which exist for practical purposes as oligarchies of equal size, strength, and morality. That is to say, a convenient and completely unreasonable assumption of global development, which ignores the culture, social fabric, and historical track of over a hundred-eighty nations. And again it is fascinating to see how this is reflected in the modern Liberal mindset, which considers all nations of equal moral weight, and every culture identical in character to any other. Although the Liberals borrow from another Orwell classic, and insist that Communists and Socialists are ‘more equal’ than others.
But I also re-discovered something I had forgotten before. Orwell explains that the world of The Party and the war is unending; Orwell implies that the future is hopeless, and survival a quixotic illusion. The strongmen came to power and ordinary people have no effective weapon against them; it was strange to me to read the physical description of Big Brother:
“the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features.”
That, and the fact that Big Brother plasters his mug everywhere, sure reminds me of Saddam Hussein. That, and the way that Liberals had and have so many things to say against his enemies.
I’m sure I don’t need to go into a detailed exploration of how ‘Newspeak’ found its way into Liberal Reality; calling Abortion “Choice”; calling suppression or religious expression “Freedom”; and demanding special rights and advantages for selected minority groups but claiming this is done in the name of “Equal Rights”. All of these tell us where Orwell’s ‘Party' went after his death.
It's enough to make me look a Clinton in the eye and ask them how "O'Brien" is doing.
Friday, December 02, 2005
NO MERCY
...
Convicted murderer, gangbanger and Liberal celebrity Stanley Tookie Williams is scheduled to die in California. Not surprisingly, there are many people on his side, including a showcase of successful rappers.
“He’s a special guy”, gushed Snoop Dogg. You got that right, Snoop. Williams not only murdered four people in 1979, he was a co-founder of that famous Youth Activities Association known as the “Crips”, whose long history includes murdering young men for the offense of wearing the wrong color or being in the wrong neighborhood, or even for just being in the way.
Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to meet privately with Williams’ lawyers on December 8. That does not speak well for Justice, or promise solace for the families of Yen-I Yang, Ysai-Shai, Yee-Chen Lin, or Albert Owens.
I notice that no celebrity seems to believe they should speak up for a murdered convenience store clerk, or for a family who did everything he demanded, but whom he killed just to leave no witnesses. Let me be very, very clear: In my book, if you put a shotgun to the head of a little girl and end her life, just because she’s inconvenient, there is nothing, at all, that you can say or do that justifies letting you continue to draw air. These murders were especially brutal and unprovoked. And his career as an entrepreneur of violence and devastated lives only confirms it. Justice demands that Williams receive the fate he earned.
The call is simple, Mr. Governor, but it’s vital you tell California there is a line which cannot be crossed. When you meet with his lawyers, explain to Mr. Williams through them that he will receive as he has dealt, in full measure. No mercy – that was the creed of Williams’ life before he got caught, it should be no different now that he sees his fell resolution come to claim him.
Convicted murderer, gangbanger and Liberal celebrity Stanley Tookie Williams is scheduled to die in California. Not surprisingly, there are many people on his side, including a showcase of successful rappers.
“He’s a special guy”, gushed Snoop Dogg. You got that right, Snoop. Williams not only murdered four people in 1979, he was a co-founder of that famous Youth Activities Association known as the “Crips”, whose long history includes murdering young men for the offense of wearing the wrong color or being in the wrong neighborhood, or even for just being in the way.
Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to meet privately with Williams’ lawyers on December 8. That does not speak well for Justice, or promise solace for the families of Yen-I Yang, Ysai-Shai, Yee-Chen Lin, or Albert Owens.
I notice that no celebrity seems to believe they should speak up for a murdered convenience store clerk, or for a family who did everything he demanded, but whom he killed just to leave no witnesses. Let me be very, very clear: In my book, if you put a shotgun to the head of a little girl and end her life, just because she’s inconvenient, there is nothing, at all, that you can say or do that justifies letting you continue to draw air. These murders were especially brutal and unprovoked. And his career as an entrepreneur of violence and devastated lives only confirms it. Justice demands that Williams receive the fate he earned.
The call is simple, Mr. Governor, but it’s vital you tell California there is a line which cannot be crossed. When you meet with his lawyers, explain to Mr. Williams through them that he will receive as he has dealt, in full measure. No mercy – that was the creed of Williams’ life before he got caught, it should be no different now that he sees his fell resolution come to claim him.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
PFL Week Twelve
Week Twelve Scoreboard
Week Twelve Scoreboard
Eisenhower (12-0) 45, Hayes (5-6) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (12-0) 49, B Harrison (4-8) 3
Washington (12-0) 59, Carter (2-10) 13
George W Bush (11-0) 25, Truman (9-3) 6
Reagan (11-0) 34, Madison (7-5) 13
Monroe (10-1), idle
Jefferson (10-2) 47, Hoover (1-11) 9
FDR (10-2) 42, Arthur (5-7) 9
Grant (9-2) 41, Garfield (2-10) 10
JFK (9-3) 15, Taft (7-4) 6
Polk (9-3) 30, Van Buren (3-8) 12
Cleveland (7-4), idle
Lincoln (8-4) 43, GHW Bush (5-7) 3
John Adams (6-5), idle
John Quincy Adams (6-5), idle
McKinley (6-5), idle
Wilson (7-5) 32, Ford (4-8) 6
Jackson (6-6) 44, Clinton (0-11) 9
Nixon (6-6) 43, Buchanan (0-11) 6
Taylor (6-6) 38, A Johnson (0-11) 3
Tyler (4-8) 21, Pierce (2-9) 9
Coolidge (3-9) 18, Harding (2-9) 16
Fillmore (2-10) W Harrison (2-9) 15
LBJ (1-10), idle
Rankings and Division positions:
Division 2
(1) Washington 12-0
(7) Jefferson 10-2
(14) Cleveland 7-4
Division 3
(2) Teddy Roosevelt 12-0
(9) Grant 9-2
Division 1
(3) Washington 12-0
(6) Monroe 10-1
(11) Polk 9-3
Division 4
(4) George W Bush 11-0
(12) Truman 9-3
Division 5
(5) Reagan 11-0
(13) Lincoln 8-4
Division 6
(8) FDR 10-2
(10) JFK 9-3
(15) Taft 7-4
Week Twelve Scoreboard
Eisenhower (12-0) 45, Hayes (5-6) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (12-0) 49, B Harrison (4-8) 3
Washington (12-0) 59, Carter (2-10) 13
George W Bush (11-0) 25, Truman (9-3) 6
Reagan (11-0) 34, Madison (7-5) 13
Monroe (10-1), idle
Jefferson (10-2) 47, Hoover (1-11) 9
FDR (10-2) 42, Arthur (5-7) 9
Grant (9-2) 41, Garfield (2-10) 10
JFK (9-3) 15, Taft (7-4) 6
Polk (9-3) 30, Van Buren (3-8) 12
Cleveland (7-4), idle
Lincoln (8-4) 43, GHW Bush (5-7) 3
John Adams (6-5), idle
John Quincy Adams (6-5), idle
McKinley (6-5), idle
Wilson (7-5) 32, Ford (4-8) 6
Jackson (6-6) 44, Clinton (0-11) 9
Nixon (6-6) 43, Buchanan (0-11) 6
Taylor (6-6) 38, A Johnson (0-11) 3
Tyler (4-8) 21, Pierce (2-9) 9
Coolidge (3-9) 18, Harding (2-9) 16
Fillmore (2-10) W Harrison (2-9) 15
LBJ (1-10), idle
Rankings and Division positions:
Division 2
(1) Washington 12-0
(7) Jefferson 10-2
(14) Cleveland 7-4
Division 3
(2) Teddy Roosevelt 12-0
(9) Grant 9-2
Division 1
(3) Washington 12-0
(6) Monroe 10-1
(11) Polk 9-3
Division 4
(4) George W Bush 11-0
(12) Truman 9-3
Division 5
(5) Reagan 11-0
(13) Lincoln 8-4
Division 6
(8) FDR 10-2
(10) JFK 9-3
(15) Taft 7-4
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Shopping In Hong Kong
Beverly Hills, look out!
Hong Kong has changed from its conversion under British Rule to control by Mainland China. But it has more shopping malls than any place I have ever seen.
There are the normal clothing and electronics and entertainment places, as you'd expect. But the jewelry stores sell things you literally cannot find in the United States, and the cultural mix is totally unique. It's very strange to see so many people who look utterly foreign, but upon sight of an obvious American, they become a completely different person, as if they have studied the idioms and manners of Americans, to put us at ease. The store windows almost all had advertisements in English, making it clear to me at least where the hoped to get their best business. Of course, Hong Kong's legacy is such that many of the locals speak with what sound surprisingly like an Eton accent. I already knew about the British influence, but it's the American influence which now permeates the malls. I almost expected the U.S. Embassy to be set in a mall, given the atmosphere.
I was warned early on by my wife, not to do any buying, or even to speak. This is because my wife is convinced that on sight of an American, the price goes up. Or more likely, since the price is often posted, someone who speaks Cantonese and looks it as well can haggle, where an American is expected to pay the full price. After all, we're all rich, right?
I was pleased and displeased to notice certain aspects of the Hong Kong culture. As an American, I was more or less excused for my large waist; Americans are expected to be fat, even if that is not a flattering image. But Asians, and Hong Kong especially, have completely unrealistic expectations for their body types, and I found myself sympathetic more than once to an overweight boy or girl, who was openly taunted for their weight by other children. I know from some discussions that such ridicule is a lifelong ordeal for heavy Asians, especially in professional positions. On the other hand, I was pleased to observe that racism is largely unknown in Hong Kong. That is, while Cantonese take a provincial pride in their culture, individuals from other nations and cultures are welcome and generally treated with respect and open minds. This was a pleasant change from Tokyo, where Nisei abuse of other nationalities, especially Koreans, is both common and malicious.
I found myself once again dismayed at how poorly Americans manage mass transit, when I saw how efficient the Hong Kong bus system is. It may not be the best in the region, and certainly not in the world, but it was surprisingly easy to get places in Hong Kong by bus, especially compared to Houston, where only the Park n' Ride system works well. I'm not picking on the Metro drivers, please understand, but the lack of coordination to make it possible for the ordinary person to commute, shop, and get around where they need to be without owning or renting a car.
The weather so far has been very much like Houston, warm and very nice in the afternoons, with just a little less humidity, if a little cool in the mornings. On the other hand, the water in Hong Kong, well, let's just say it inspires the bottled drink industry.
Hong Kong has changed from its conversion under British Rule to control by Mainland China. But it has more shopping malls than any place I have ever seen.
There are the normal clothing and electronics and entertainment places, as you'd expect. But the jewelry stores sell things you literally cannot find in the United States, and the cultural mix is totally unique. It's very strange to see so many people who look utterly foreign, but upon sight of an obvious American, they become a completely different person, as if they have studied the idioms and manners of Americans, to put us at ease. The store windows almost all had advertisements in English, making it clear to me at least where the hoped to get their best business. Of course, Hong Kong's legacy is such that many of the locals speak with what sound surprisingly like an Eton accent. I already knew about the British influence, but it's the American influence which now permeates the malls. I almost expected the U.S. Embassy to be set in a mall, given the atmosphere.
I was warned early on by my wife, not to do any buying, or even to speak. This is because my wife is convinced that on sight of an American, the price goes up. Or more likely, since the price is often posted, someone who speaks Cantonese and looks it as well can haggle, where an American is expected to pay the full price. After all, we're all rich, right?
I was pleased and displeased to notice certain aspects of the Hong Kong culture. As an American, I was more or less excused for my large waist; Americans are expected to be fat, even if that is not a flattering image. But Asians, and Hong Kong especially, have completely unrealistic expectations for their body types, and I found myself sympathetic more than once to an overweight boy or girl, who was openly taunted for their weight by other children. I know from some discussions that such ridicule is a lifelong ordeal for heavy Asians, especially in professional positions. On the other hand, I was pleased to observe that racism is largely unknown in Hong Kong. That is, while Cantonese take a provincial pride in their culture, individuals from other nations and cultures are welcome and generally treated with respect and open minds. This was a pleasant change from Tokyo, where Nisei abuse of other nationalities, especially Koreans, is both common and malicious.
I found myself once again dismayed at how poorly Americans manage mass transit, when I saw how efficient the Hong Kong bus system is. It may not be the best in the region, and certainly not in the world, but it was surprisingly easy to get places in Hong Kong by bus, especially compared to Houston, where only the Park n' Ride system works well. I'm not picking on the Metro drivers, please understand, but the lack of coordination to make it possible for the ordinary person to commute, shop, and get around where they need to be without owning or renting a car.
The weather so far has been very much like Houston, warm and very nice in the afternoons, with just a little less humidity, if a little cool in the mornings. On the other hand, the water in Hong Kong, well, let's just say it inspires the bottled drink industry.
PFL, Weeks Ten and Eleven
***
Week Ten Scoreboard
George W Bush (9-0), idle
Eisenhower (10-0) 44, Nixon (5-5) 3
Reagan (9-0), idle
Teddy Roosevelt (10-0) 37, Grant (8-2) 0
Washington (10-0) 65, A Johnson (0-10) 3
Monroe (9-1) 64, Carter (2-8) 0
Jefferson (8-2) 64, Buchanan (0-10) 0
FDR (8-2) 57, Pierce (2-8) 3
Truman (8-2) 50, Fillmore (1-9) 9
JFK (7-3) 41, Tyler (3-7) 12
Polk (7-3) 45, Taylor (5-5) 6
Taft (6-3) idle
John Adams (6-4) 35, GHW Bush (5-5) 16
Cleveland (6-4) 25, Hoover (1-9) 9
Hayes (5-4) idle
Lincoln (6-4) 56, Harding (2-8) 3
Madison (6-4) 47, Coolidge (2-8) 0
McKinley (6-4) 38, Ford (4-6) 6
JQ Adams (5-5) 18, B Harrison (4-6) 12
Arthur (5-5) 27, LBJ (1-9) 13
Wilson (5-5) 44, W Harrison (2-8) 9
Jackson (4-6) 30, Garfield (2-8) 7
Van Buren (3-6) idle
Clinton (0-9) idle
Week Eleven Scoreboard
Eisenhower (11-0) 62, Hoover (1-10) 0
Teddy Roosevelt (11-0) 53, Garfield (2-9) 9
Washington (11-0) 56, Taylor (5-6) 7
George W Bush (10-0) 27, McKinley (6-5) 6
Reagan (10-0) 35, John Adams (6-5) 19
Monroe (10-1) 38, Van Buren (3-7) 6
Grant (8-2) idle
Jefferson (9-2) 46, Nixon (5-6) 9
FDR (9-2) 49, Tyler (3-8) 0
Truman (9-2) 48, Ford (4-7) 3
JFK (8-3) 38, Arthur (5-6) 6
Polk (8-3) 48, Carter (2-9) 3
Taft (7-3) 28, LBJ (1-10) 3
Cleveland (7-4) 19, Hayes (5-5) 15
Lincoln (7-4) 48, Coolidge (2-9) 3
Madison (7-4) 24, GHW Bush (5-6) 13
JQ Adams (6-5) 39, Clinton (0-10) 19
Wilson (6-5) 45, Fillmore (1-10) 6
Jackson (5-6) 15, B Harrison (4-7) 12 (OT)
Harding (2-8), idle
W Harrison (2-8), idle
Pierce (2-8), idle
Buchanan (0-10), idle
A Johnson (0-10), idle
Week Ten Scoreboard
George W Bush (9-0), idle
Eisenhower (10-0) 44, Nixon (5-5) 3
Reagan (9-0), idle
Teddy Roosevelt (10-0) 37, Grant (8-2) 0
Washington (10-0) 65, A Johnson (0-10) 3
Monroe (9-1) 64, Carter (2-8) 0
Jefferson (8-2) 64, Buchanan (0-10) 0
FDR (8-2) 57, Pierce (2-8) 3
Truman (8-2) 50, Fillmore (1-9) 9
JFK (7-3) 41, Tyler (3-7) 12
Polk (7-3) 45, Taylor (5-5) 6
Taft (6-3) idle
John Adams (6-4) 35, GHW Bush (5-5) 16
Cleveland (6-4) 25, Hoover (1-9) 9
Hayes (5-4) idle
Lincoln (6-4) 56, Harding (2-8) 3
Madison (6-4) 47, Coolidge (2-8) 0
McKinley (6-4) 38, Ford (4-6) 6
JQ Adams (5-5) 18, B Harrison (4-6) 12
Arthur (5-5) 27, LBJ (1-9) 13
Wilson (5-5) 44, W Harrison (2-8) 9
Jackson (4-6) 30, Garfield (2-8) 7
Van Buren (3-6) idle
Clinton (0-9) idle
Week Eleven Scoreboard
Eisenhower (11-0) 62, Hoover (1-10) 0
Teddy Roosevelt (11-0) 53, Garfield (2-9) 9
Washington (11-0) 56, Taylor (5-6) 7
George W Bush (10-0) 27, McKinley (6-5) 6
Reagan (10-0) 35, John Adams (6-5) 19
Monroe (10-1) 38, Van Buren (3-7) 6
Grant (8-2) idle
Jefferson (9-2) 46, Nixon (5-6) 9
FDR (9-2) 49, Tyler (3-8) 0
Truman (9-2) 48, Ford (4-7) 3
JFK (8-3) 38, Arthur (5-6) 6
Polk (8-3) 48, Carter (2-9) 3
Taft (7-3) 28, LBJ (1-10) 3
Cleveland (7-4) 19, Hayes (5-5) 15
Lincoln (7-4) 48, Coolidge (2-9) 3
Madison (7-4) 24, GHW Bush (5-6) 13
JQ Adams (6-5) 39, Clinton (0-10) 19
Wilson (6-5) 45, Fillmore (1-10) 6
Jackson (5-6) 15, B Harrison (4-7) 12 (OT)
Harding (2-8), idle
W Harrison (2-8), idle
Pierce (2-8), idle
Buchanan (0-10), idle
A Johnson (0-10), idle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
