2006: A Warning

[ ? ]

National Journal magazine has a Liberals’ wish-list of an article up, titled “What If?” In that article, authors David Baumann, Kirk Victor, and Richard E. Cohen practically drool over the prospect of a takeover in Congress by the Democrats. Unfortunately, sane people should heed that warning, though not for the reasons these three authors propose.

First off, let’s not forget that elections do not always turn out the way they are expected to go. Bill Clinton was hardly qualified to serve as President, yet he was elected to two terms. He admitted to committing felonies, yet even the Republicans in the Senate could not agree to all vote to convict. John Kerry was such a complete fool as a party nominee, that even Saturday Night Live, hardly a friend to Conservatives, could not resist mocking him, yet he claimed more than 48% of the Popular Vote. Al Gore has revealed himself to be an absolutely insane demagogue, yet in 2000 he actually claimed a plurality of the Popular Vote. Liberals can win, even when they are unqualified, even when they are criminal, even when they are insane. We have to defend against that possibility.

Fortunately, the 2006 Elections will not be as easy for the Liberals as they believe. The authors of the National Journal article, whom I will simply dub the ‘3 idiots’ for easy reference, submit that “the once smugly ensconced Republicans have been struggling to overcome abysmal approval ratings and major fissures in their ranks. They’ve been reeling from criticism over their party’s handling of the Iraq War, Hurrican Katrina, gas prices, Social Security reform, and other domestic issues - not to mention the indictments and criminal investigations facing several GOP officials in Congress and the Bush Administration.”

Classic Liberal Mythology, that. I shall address each contention in the order the ‘3 idiots’ presented them:

1. Approval ratings - this is a laugher. The idiots never mention that the polls showing poor approval for Republicans has even lower numbers for Democrats. And the President’s numbers are not only better than either party’s Congress approval, but Dubya’s polls have been climbing. And the idiots have been trying to forget the critical fact that in the last mid-term election, the support from the President made all the difference in several key races. So this is actually a GOP asset, not a Liberal advantage.

2. “Major fissures" - I think they mean guys like me, who felt that certain Conservatives damaged the process by ambushing Harriet Miers and denying her a fair hearing before Congress. Also, there are Republicans who remember the promises made to the American people in 1994, and who fear that we are drifting a bit too much towards the ‘go along’ style of the Democrats. But that is family business - for all the noise, we also remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment, and when the election time comes, we will come together and pull the lever for the RIGHT candidate. The Liberals are lying to themselves to think we will repeat the old mistakes of staying home or splitting our vote. We know the Liberal tricks and history, and while we will argue about ideas and decisions among ourselves, there are few indeed who are foolish enough to think that a Democrat majority in either house is good for the nation.

3. The Iraq War - A classic case of Liberal self-delusion. Between MSM lies and rising casualties with no clear proof of victory during that year, 2004 was the low mark of public support for the war. The evidence of multiple free elections in multiple countries, significant captures and kills of high-ranking terrorists, improved capabilities of Iraqi police and army, and similar successes, has improved public confidence that the war was right and necessary, and that the best course for the future is to finish the job and support the war. The Democrats are not only still on the wrong side of this decision, they continue to notice the tide of support for the troops, the cause, and the determination to finish what we started.

4. Hurricane Katrina - Only a Liberal would still try to blame the Republicans for a natural disaster. This episode is one which the Liberals would actually do well to avoid mentioning, since any serious investigation into who failed to do theri job would unerringly point to the Democrat Mayor Nagin, and the Democrat Governor Blanco. While former FEMA director Brown did not anticipate the confusion which the Governor and Mayor’s ineptitude would create, and State DHS head Landreneau failed to implement the plan developed for just such a crisis, it is impossible to review the events and actions, and somehow blame the Federal response or the Republicans.

5. Gas Prices - If the Liberals want to bring up gas prices, it could be an easy trump for the Republicans, to simply point to all the Democrat obstruction to simply drilling in U.S. territory for the oil we need. Especially with worries about Iran’s intentions, the most logical thing in the world for oil, is for us to drill in ANWR right now - yet that is precisely what the Liberals have tried to prevent. Bringing that up in 2006 would improve the Republican stock, not the Democrats.

6. Social Security reform - This is a laugh. Every debate in the past decade has made it clear that Republicans want to reform Social Security, while Democrats oppose it. Now would be a very good time to remind the American people, who wants to address problems and who wants to hide them.

7. Indictments and Criminal Investigations - that’s Liberal code for 'we figure the charges won’t stick, so let’s get the most mileage we can’. The fact is, by the summer of 2006 the DeLay trial will be over, and from the look of the evidence, it won’t be a problem for The Hammer. As for ‘Scooter’ Libby, the most telling point in that case, is that the charges against Libby have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason Fitzgerald was given his job - Libby neither did nor said anything which endangered or exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent - never mind that she was never a covert operative in the first place during the time concerned. Notice also, that there has been no sense of outrage among the American people - they know a political dirty trick when they see one, and they aren’t buying.

After all that, you might think that there’s nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, we cannot be casual about the threat. One thing the idiots do that should be considered, is warn us about who would be in control, should the Democrats actually succeed intaking over Congress. The idiots send a clear warning we should heed. Consider this roster:

John Conyers as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House
Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader

These are people whose hatred for the troops and the President, whose antipathy for tax reform and contempt for the public will is so well-known, that we can promise their ascension to power would lead to tax increases on an order not seen since Carter, with concurrent legislation to compel Americans to accept the most radical Liberal social agenda imaginable. Remember how Hillary tried to nationalize Healthcare? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen. Remember when Reid said we needed to pay more taxes, not less? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen. Remember when Murtha seriously wanted us to pull all our troops out from Iraq with no notice? With a Democrat-held Congress, it could happen.

During the primaries, we must support the most Conservative candidates possible, but when the fall rolls around, make no mistake, the Republican majority must be protected.

Jack Bauer, Lunch, and Other Things

[ !**! ]

Once the polls closed on the 2006 “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere” decision, I sat down to lunch to think about who should win the title.

From the final voting came this result:

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler – 81.0%
Ace (from Polipundit’s Comments) – 12.1%
Michael Yon – 06.9%


There were just three problems, though. Bauer does a lot of things that are not real popular with the CTU guys or the suits, so popularity cannot be everything. Second, one of Rottie’s own minions referenced his service as a Danish. I can’t see a flaky breakfast pastry in the role of a no-compromise counter-terrorist agent. And third, as anyone who has watched ‘24’ knows, you can’t just come out and say something straightaway. The truth has to come out in some unexpected, violent, testosterone-affirming way.

Paula and Randy came by to thank me for remembering them in the comments of the voting section, and to suggest that Simon Cowell is actually a Chechyan spy who needs to be roughly interrogated. Paula seemed a bit enthusiastic about that idea, and supplied a pair of handcuffs and a gag for that purpose. Randy also tried to throw in a late vote for the Rottweiler, saying ‘I gotta support my peeps, Dawg.’

At this mention, the Rottie himself showed up, grabbed the waiter and knocked the entrée from his hands, dropping a pistol and a letter from the Al Kerry terrorist organization demanding that I name Jacques “Souffle” Chirac as Europe’s “Jack Bauer”. Rottie twisted the waiter’s head off neatly, tossing the noggin towards a table of ‘Earth Or Else' vegans, who scattered like rats.

“I need you to trust me”, said Rottie, “You have to name the Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere in the next five minutes, or a lot of innocent people are going to be hurt.”

“OK, so we’ll make this quick,” I replied. “Why should you be ‘Jack Bauer’?”

“Because there’s no time,” answered Rottie, “and don’t forget DJ – I don’t work for you. I’m doing this my way.”

“What about Ace and Yon?” I asked.

“Good men, but they’re needed somewhere else,” replied Rottie. “I can’t tell you more right now. Hang on-“

Rottie tossed a pair of grenades at an approaching black van in the street, and we ran for the back exit.

Out in the alley, Rottie munched on a cannoli he grabbed from the kitchen, while checking his pockets for remaining weapons. He then sprinted down the sidewalk, stopping as he stared at a kiosk.

“There’s no time!” shouted Rottie.

“Hey, you already said that!” I retorted.

“No, I mean there’s no TIME” said Rottie, pointing to an empty bin at the news stand. “Rove was going to send me secret instructions in the ‘McHitler’ section of the next TIME edition, but there’s no – wait a sec”

Rottie grabbed a TIME magazine from a passing pedestrian, who turned out to be wanted serial bomber Abu BuuBuu. Rottie tied the man’s hands behind him with a coil of wire he was carrying.

“OK DJ, I need you to do three things for me” demanded Rottie as he got up and checked the magazine in his semi-auto cell phone, counting rounds as he spoke.

“One – I gotta be Jack. No one else can do the job.

“Two – I was never here.

“Three – the security of the free world depends on everyone tuning in to Fox for every episode of ‘24’, and regular visits to TAR for briefings.

“And it wouldn’t hurt for them to visit Polipundit a few times every week as well. And don’t forget, kids, killing terrorists is not only fun, it’s good for the environment and leads to cleaner elections.

“Thanks for lunch!”

And with that, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, the new “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere” dashed off, stopping only to throw BuuBuu face-first into passing traffic and to reload his cell phone.

Jack Bauer Revealed?

[ <> ]

Back on January 19th, I asked readers to name who is the “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere”. I set the following conditions:

1. He’s male. Sorry ladies, but this gun-toting, do-what-a-patriot’s-gotta-do guy is focused testosterone. This ain’t Siegfried and Roy, this ain’t Dr. Phil, and any woman pulling the kind of stuff we see Bauer doing in “24″ would look more like “Xena” than a counter-terrorism agent.
2. He’s decisive. No one who can be connected to a focus group or committee need apply.
3. He’s not PC. Bauer does what is required, and is not subtle about it.
4. Despite being violent a lot, Bauer is not crazy or bloodthirsty. He does what is necessary, but holds his fire, and is willing to let even terrorists live if they surrender. That rules out DU or Daily Kos, even if they could accept being on the same side as Bauer.
5. Bauer is in such deep cover, most people think he’s dead. Talk about controlling your ego. That rules out Rush, most talk show hosts and columnists, and anyone who has voluntarily appeared on Leno or Letterman.
6. Bauer knows guns. And uses them often. This rules out anyone from the State Department or the United Nations, or their advocates.
7. Bauer is indestructible. In a previous season, Bauer freaking died, someone got his heart started again and by the end of the episode Bauer was kicking bad guys in the groin as hard as ever.
8. Bauer always knows what’s about to happen. As a result, he has a few seconds to plan his actions, which only appear to be impossible.
9. Bauer trusts the right people. He instinctively knows the traitors and low-lifes, but depends on the ones he knows are stand-up.
10. Bauer gets results. Compromise is useless.

I ruled out Hugh Hewitt from the start for being a lawyer, and I have to re-rule him out again, because he claimed to have Jack Bauer on his radio show. This proves Hugh is not Jack, for 2 additional reasons:

1. Jack Bauer does not have time for interviews, nor would a man with his cover want the publicity.
2. If by some quirk in the universe Hewitt really was interviewing Bauer, then by the fact that Hewitt was interviewing Bauer, Hewitt could not be Bauer. And don’t say Hewitt was pretending to be himself and Bauer; Jack Bauer does not talk to himself.

When the qualified candidates were tallied, twenty-two valid names were submitted. In alphabetical order, they are (special BTDT props to those who have ‘been there, done that’):

Ace, regular commenter on this site
Allahpundit, 'Link Mecca'
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, ‘The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler’
Bill Roggio, ‘The Fourth Rail’, BTDT
Bill Whittle, ‘Eject!Eject!Eject!’ , BTDT
Blackfive, ‘Blackfive’ BTDT
Charles Johnson, ‘Little Green Footballs’
Chris Muir, author of ‘Day by Day’
Dafydd AbHugh, ‘Big Lizards’
Ernie@EHOWA, ‘The Daily Grind’
Frank J, ‘IMAO’
Froggy, ‘Froggy Ruminations’, BTDT
Jack Risko, ‘Dinocrat’
Kim du Toit, ‘RadioActive Chief’
Lumpy, ‘Lump On A Blog’
Mark Steyn, columnist and author
Michael Yon, “Michael Yon: Online Magazine”
Polipundit, ‘Polipundit'
R.D. Currie, ‘Centurion’, BTDT
Reverse Vampyr, ‘Reverse Vampyr’
Rick Moran, ‘Rightwing Nuthouse’
Victor David Hanson, ‘vdh Private Papers’

I figure everyone nominated gets their CTU ID and a nice Glock for the honor. The 'BTDT' vets get full-auto rifles. But in the end, only three people got more than two nominations, so our finalists are

Ace,

The Rottweiler, and

Michael Yon.

The floor is open to debate among those final three. And since all three are distinguished, please mention who the two who do not get your nod for ‘Jack Bauer’ would be. I, for example, consider myself the “Felix Leiter of the Blogosphere”.

And for my votes, I vote

Michael Yon as “Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere”

Rottweiler as “Darth Vader of the Blogosphere”

Ace as “Detective John McClane of the Blogosphere”

You’re up.

Slap The Liar – Another Much-Needed Fisking

[!#!]

Jacob Weisberg has an article up in 'Slate'. Yeah, if you have read Slate you know it tilts just a bit to Port, and the writers there are not all that big on scholarship, so a column regarding Constitutional Law is likely to miss the bullseye. This one, however, missed the whole target, the bale of hay it was sitting on, the barn behind the bale, and pretty much anything the author could be said to be aiming as the goal. Yet because the likely audience won’t catch the mistake, Weisberg will likely be thought of as on-target, simply because the audience will see what they want to see.

The article is titled “The Power-Madness of King George”, which is in no way accurate about the President, but at least correctly warns us about the large and false assumptions Mister Weisberg carries into the matter, a la BDS. So, I am taking it upon myself to note some of the more egregious errors in Weisberg’s article, and to respond as needed.

Weisberg can’t get past the second sentence of his article before his first lie. Says Weisberg; “President Bush believes he has the legal authority to order electronic snooping without asking anyone's permission.”. This is a lie on two levels. First off, it falsely conveys the notion that the President has a jones for “snooping” into people’s private lives just because he wants to. A fitting response would be from President Bush’s address at Kansas State University last week: “When the 9/11 terrorists were planning their attack, they made calls to and from Al Qaeda and their operatives inside the United States. So if a phone number connected to a member or supporter of Al Qaeda calls someone inside the United States, we want to know who they are calling, and why.” Second, Weisberg has such a low opinion of Executive authority, that he actually thinks the President of the United States needs so ask “permission” to do his job. A police office does not ask for the authority to pull over someone who is driving suspiciously; a parent does not ask for authority to see what his kids have in their backpack from school. And a President in wartime does not ask for permission to exercise his authority under Article II of the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Defending the country includes the use of intelligence, and the President directs certain specific conditions and actions, including the interception of communications to and from foreign agents. Mister Weisberg seems to be unaware that such practices were authorized by Presidents Clinton, and all the way back to the first President, George Washington, who paid for information regarding British conversations with Tories, and later the conversations between the Whiskey Rebels. Weisberg is on the wrong side of History, Security, and Common Sense.

Weisberg hopes that the “Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system.” In English, that translates to mean that Weisberg hopes that the Senate will attempt to dilute or outright deny the President’s Constitutional power to wage the war as he is placed to do. Solely authorized, in fact. Weisberg thinks that committees are the answer, which suggests that Weisberg has never had to submit a work of importance to a committee. The circus of the Alito hearings, even when the outcome was known from the beginning, demonstrates that Senate hearings to judge actions which is neither the Senate’s jurisdiction, nor which will help win the war against Terrorism in any way, is foolhardy at best.

Weisberg leaves that lie be, and proceeds on to his next, claiming “Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited.”

Uh-huh.

Care to explain where that is actually claimed, anywhere? The audience will understand that Mister Weisberg knows he is lying here. After all, if the White House did not feel the obligation to limit their actions and authority, they would not have filed literally thousands of FISA requests, nor made dozens of briefings to Congress regarding this program and other intelligence-gathering methods, nor discussed some of his actions in public speeches. In addition, the Article II actions undertaken by President Bush have been demonstrably restrained in number and scale, and always within the clear limits of National Security as defined by the objective of preventing another 9/11-style attack, just as Congress, the Public, and the 9/11 critics have been demanding. Weisberg, having seen these public documents, statements, and news reports, obviously knows this, which means that his implication that Bush is trying to assert unprecedented powers or to expand the boundaries of his office, is a deliberate mis-statement of the facts.

It truly says something about how truly Leftist Mister Weisberg is, that he submits a 42-page legal brief by the Justice Department, who know a thing or two about the Constitution and the Law, to a critique by “Andrew Cohen, a CBS legal analyst”. You know, CBS, the network which got caught trying to manipulate a federal election with forged documents a couple years ago? So it seems a bit ironic to me that Mister Weisberg described the White House, and not CBS, as “an elective dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king.” But then, by now it should be clear that Weisberg has an agenda, and he is quite ready to lie for its advance.

Weisberg, like the blind pig of the fable, actually makes a true statement next: “the president's powers as commander in chief make him the "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs." This status, which derives from Article II of the Constitution, brings with it the authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance for the purpose of disrupting possible terrorist attacks on the United States.” Of course, this is not Weisberg’s opinion, but the Attorney General, whom Weisberg can only address as the “putative author” of the legal brief. This should have been obvious, however, by the fact that Weisberg knows so little about the Constitution that he has managed to oppose Constitutional provisions in his argument.

Rather than consider that the President in his own right represents an entire branch of government, equal in authority to the entire Congress or Federal judiciary, Weisberg dismisses Article II of the U.S. Constitution, declaring that it has a ewhat daffy monarchical undertone”.
Weisberg continues his fiction, to such a degree that he seems to believe that the only authority the President has in regards to intelligence collection resides in the provisions of FISA. That is, in Weisberg’s world the President can do nothing without the express consent of Congress, allowing the President of the United States less discretion in his job than the Senate cafeteria. There, at least, the cooks are allowed to choose what they will prepare and how. Weisberg does not want the President to decide how we will collect intelligence information, or from whom; he confuses the actions of the Justice Department in the prosecution of criminals, with the authority specifically granted to the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Weisberg throws out the old liberal canard that not agreeing to grant captured foreign terrorists the civil rights of U.S. citizens somehow equates to a desire to “excuse torture”. Weisberg, in true liberal hysteria, then speculates that the power to do his job might somehow allow President Bush to suggest “press censorship or arresting political opponents”. ‘Dishonest’ is hardly a strong enough word to describe the malice in Weisberg’s slander.

Weisberg, perhaps realizing he has crossed a line too far for even most liberals, then scuttles back at the end with a grudging claim that he does not “suggest that Bush intends anything of the kind—or that even a Congress as supine as the current one would remain passive if he went so far.”. But Weisberg’s hate against the President still reeks throughout his screed, continued proof of the anger from the Left that a Conservative President, once again, should prove effective in defeating America’s enemies.

It might be comforting to consider the possibility that Mister Weisberg was not fully himself when he wrote these lies and malicious slurs. Perhaps a bitter former employee broke in and wrote this slop under Weisberg’s byline, or perhaps a deranged monkey, such as appear to be writing Op-Eds for the New York and LA Times’, broke in and posted this rhetorical defecation. Alas for Mister Weisberg, a note at the end confirms not only that he wrote this hateful pack of lies. ‘Slate’ notes at the end of the article, that Weisberg misspelled the name of the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, which means that a co-editor corrected the spelling. Unfortunately, that note confirms that the article was presented as Mister Weisberg intended, and indeed as ‘Slate’ desired to present it. A deliberate mis-statement of Constitutional authority, a false and hateful portrayal of the White House and the President in particular, and a pathological denial of the need for vigilant security procedures in the era of global terrorism, are the hallmarks of ‘Slate’ magazine and the angry, truth-hating Mister Weisberg.

FORD – For Obvious Reasons, Dead

O-[][]-O

If I were to describe a major corporation’s products as being best-known for rolling over and spontaneously catching fire, you might believe I was referring to some caricature of a corporation, some Michael Moore-inspired nightmare that has no basis in fact. But I am talking about Ford, the company which seems, to paraphrase Robert Downey Junior, to like the taste of a gun barrel in the mouth.

Ford’s problems started the same way they did for other U.S. carmarkers. Ford was caught by surprise by the quality and popularity of Japanese imports during the 1970s, and suffered the disasters of the Pinto and the 1974-78 Mustang II. Ironically, then as now a combination of poor engineering and worse marketing.

Ford learned from its blunders, or so it seemed, to the point where it’s stock climbed all the way up to $29.85 a share in 2005. But problems were already moving towards disaster long before that high-water mark, and doom was unavoidable by the time anyone in Dearborn looked up to see it. One very key blunder early on was the removal of Jacques Nasser as CEO, replacing him with William Clay Ford Jr. in 2001. This occurred as part of a series of operational changes in an effort to “return Ford to profitability”. Many management professionals were given the boot, and the company failed miserably to consider the most likely causes of lost revenue and market share. And to elect a CEO largely on the basis of family control of the stock – Ford himself admitted that “his name and his family's control of the company's voting stock was a factor in his selection” – is a serious mistake for a major corporation to make. While the company enjoyed some success in rising stock prices until 2005 and a measure of profitability, no one at Ford appears to have ever seriously examined the causes for Ford’s problems, assuming that they would simply go away. And so history repeated itself, this time with possibly fatal consequences.

I mentioned the Pinto and the Mustang II, because they represented fundamental errors made by the Ford Directors. The Pinto was rushed into production, in about half the time normally taken to develop a new model, and so safety risks were not recognized until people died. If you do such a poor job of engineering that you make even Ralph Nader appear reasonable, you have really and truly screwed up. And then there is the Mustang II, an underpowered model no one wanted or was really ever liked. Taking the most famous model of muscle car Ford made, and replacing it with a weak sister with a penchant for transmission problems and oil leaks (as three of my friends constantly complained to me about the car), is an incredibly poor decision, impossible to justify with any knowledge of History of Economics. And judging from the finances of Ford during those years, it was an expensive lesson.

That was then, this is now though, right? Surely after those twin fiascos, you might expect someone at Ford would have put a report together, with some clever variant of a title on the line of “Hey, Let’s Not Do Something This Stupid Again, OK?” But apparently not.

First, there was the Ford Explorer. The SUV is largely a good idea. People love the idea of a big powerful truck, safe from likely accidents with plenty of power for driving and comfort. People don’t mind the big price tag, or even the lousy gas mileage, as long as they feel like they have a strong, capable, safe ride for their family. Emphasis on “safe”.

This is why the Explorer was bungled. Something in the design of the Explorer made it prone to exploding tires and rollover accidents. Extremely prone. Literally hundreds of Explorer drivers died in rollover accidents, and while tiremaker Firestone took a lot of the blame, NHTSA tests showed that Explorers were far more likely to roll over than any other model or brand. Even after extensive refitting and redesign, the Explorer in 2004 was still regarded as the most likely vehicle to suffer a rollover accident.

Ford recalled the Explorer in 2001 and again in 2003, although the company denied any risk of serious accident from the design errors. It doesn’t take a business genius to recognize that if your leading model of SUV has a propensity to kill people in rollover accidents, you have a serious problem. Unfortunately, Ford’s decision to deny there is a problem has not restored great confidence in the model, nor brought Ford to where it was in market share.

What could be worse? How about your most profitable line of vehicles catching fire by themselves? That’s not just a nightmare, that’s exactly what happened. In 2005, Ford was forced to recall 3.8 million F150 trucks, Expeditions, Broncos, and Lincoln Navigators, because the damn things self-ignited while parked. They burned down homes, they destroyed nearby cars and property, they killed people, and for some reason that just wasn’t a popular effect of the vehicles. And just as before, this came after years of denial by Ford that there was any kind of problem, and with no apologies for the lives lost and damage caused by the fatal flaw.

So, how did this all happen? Maybe it’s the fact that Ford never brought in experts to analyze past mistakes. Maybe it’s because CEO William Ford thought it was more important to kiss up to the union than to listen to his best people, to such a point that he canned the folks who could have warned him about what was coming, and how to avoid it. Maybe it’s because Ford has insulated itself in an echo chamber, hiding from real-world opinion and conditions for so long that the company really believes that they will survive every blunder they make.

Certainly that’s the only way I can explain the Ford Fusion. Granted, my degree is not in Marketing, but can someone please explain to me the reasoning in investing a major showcase effort in a product which is not the least expensive in its class, the most reliable, the fastest, the most luxurious, the highest rated by expert comparison, the safest, or by any standard the best in its class? There is no reason, from any rational perspective, to buy a Ford Fusion, yet this is what Ford is banking on to be its star for the future.

At no more than 221 HP, the Fusion is weak in comparison with any of the major muscle cars. At no better than 32 mpg highway (I mean for crying out loud, my 1998 Honda CRV gets better than that!), the Fusion is not an economy car. This car, to be blunt, is no threat to the Accord or the Camry. It might be good for a laugh when matched against the big guys from Japan, but it is by no means a contender. What manner of con man convinced Ford to mass-produce the Fusion, I can only speculate. No matter what manner of idiot in a boardroom thinks this will revive Ford’s futures, the present course is aimed directly at extinction.

What to say about Ford, then? Well, once upon a time there was a great carmaker, called Packard. Nice cars, comfortable, reasonably priced. But Packard couldn’t keep up when they had to, and the company died out. Just like the Hudson, Studebaker, and many other formerly famous names. It appears to be time to say good-bye to Ford.

Have you driven a Ford, lately? There’s a very good reason why not.

Ding Dong, “West Wing” Is Dead

. [] .

NBC’s alternate universe show “West Wing” is dead. Finally realizing this fact, the producers at NBC will air the final episode sometime later this spring, followed by fumigation to remove the odor and some of the worst rodents and vermin attracted by the corpse.

From its beginning, “West Wing” was a lie. The show’s site boasts that WW “offer viewers a realistic, behind-the-scenes peek into the Oval Office and the campaign trail that leads there.” Nothing of the sort, actually. The pilot was run September 22, 1999, when Bubba “Perjury” Clinton was in office. From the beginning, the President was depicted as noble and unerring in judgment, while conservatives were dismissed as trivial and petty. The personal pettiness of Bill Clinton was never depicted in Josiah Bartlett. Indeed, as the years passed it became increasingly obvious that no Democrat seemed suited to the image of Bartlett, who never cheated on his wife, was well-liked by Congress in general and the public in large numbers. By the time the pilot of “West Wing” ran, President Clinton had already been investigated and impeached by the Congress, and tried by the U.S. Senate. While Clinton escaped conviction, the 67-vote threshold to remove him never seriously a threat (the vote was a predictable 50-50 ‘no condemn-no condone' agreement by ‘The Club’), the emerging details of his sordid conduct, especially in attempts to smear his enemies and escape responsibility so immoral that Richard Nixon’s image benefited from the comparison. “West Wing” was clearly a Mainstream Media attempt to rebuild the image of President Clinton, even if it meant contriving a man Bill Clinton could never hope to emulate. Like Clinton, Sheen tried to put the JFK patina on his portrayal of Josiah Bartlett, while deftly ducking the scandals and personal peccadilloes of the Camelot President. “West Wing” was a grand lie to protect a vulgar liar.

I found “West Wing” interesting at times, as a peek into the mind of the Left Coast. But as the years passed, it became more and more obvious that “West Wing” had no contact with Reality. When terrorists attacked America on 9/11, “West Wing” failed to notice it. In fact, to this day the only ‘unreasonable extremists’ depicted on “West Wing” are conservatives and Christians. We face serious real-world questions about National Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation, but “West Wing” focuses on greenhouse gas as a factor in presumed Global Warming, and on the ‘need’ to restore Welfare. Demographics in the real world show parity between Republicans and Democrats, and a general preference for Conservativism over Liberalism, but in the world of “West Wing” the people are overwhelmingly liberal.

But perhaps the most laughable series of episodes are the ones surrounding the ‘election’ between Democrat Matthew Santos (how convenient – a Latino candidate with no accent, Caucasian skin tone, tailored suits copying CEOs of Fortune 50 companies, even an Anglo first name) and Republican Arnold Vinick, two men who together lack the depth I could find in a single sheet of notebook paper. Ironic that in both cases, “West Wing” presumes that the candidate cannot rely on his party platform, which is irredeemably tied to special interests and cronyism, so that we are supposed to cheer for men who defy their party and refuse to make promises to the nation, except in vague assurances that they love America – shades of John Kerry! By the Christmas break, I was convinced that the producers and writers of “West Wing” had no confidence at all in grassroots party volunteers, to say nothing of the electorate at large. No, we need to be told by our leaders what is good for us. They will tell us what we must do, the whole ‘consent of the governed' thing is vastly over-rated, and anyway it was created by a bunch of dead rich white men, right? The arrogance of the writers of “West Wing”, even as rigor mortis sets in, is breath-taking.

I would have found it interesting, had “West Wing” examined some of the new social paradigms from the past election – Dean’s internet fund-raising, the Blogosphere’s investigation and commanding authority in the “Rathergate” scandal, or the evolution of magazines and newspapers towards web-focused articles and blogger columnists, for instance. But “West Wing” was too much like a certain liner captain, who saw the iceberg but couldn’t understand why it didn’t get out of his way when he sounded the horn. “West Wing” began with contempt for Conservatives, and from there simply added to its list of enemies, until there was virtually no one left to watch the show.

I did find one accidental bit of honesty in the show. If you check the website, you can see the cast of the show proudly portrayed as if a vanguard against the foes of Liberalism. You may note that with one exception, the skin tone of everyone lined up is exactly the same; even Jimmy Smits is shown with the same skin tone as Martin Sheen and Alan Alda. The one black shown in the cast is shunted far off to one side, and is a low-ranking cast member who is never promoted, assigned a significant duty, or even asked for his opinion, except for some informal matter in the same patronizing tone might use on a family valet or butler. Small wonder that even in this promotional picture the man is not smiling or confident, and it speaks to the irony of Hillary Clinton’s “plantation” comment in ways she never intended.

The Oligarchess Returns

[ !.! ]

I like to listen to “Morning In America” as I drive to the Park-n-Wait each morning, and this morning I listened to the usually intelligent Bill Bennett interview Kathleen Parker. You know, the woman who said that bloggers are the “insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility - the angry offspring of narcissism's quickie marriage to instant gratification.”
The woman is pure class, without a doubt.

This morning, Ms, Parker was opining on the state of the poor downtrodden male underclass. It seems that Ms. Parker, along with Dr. Bennett, believes that men are commonly the object of ridicule in television and movies, that many programs and businesses go out of their way to cater to women at the cost of men, and that the slide of pro-women, anti-male legislation has increased in both pace and effect. To this degree I find some common ground with Ms. Parker and the good Doctor.

However, from this point Ms. Parker went on to explain her help with the site “Save the Males”, which analogy Dr. Bennet found amusing. I did not. The implication that males are, as a whole, as helpless as beached whales, unable to help themselves and so in need of the mercy of kind-hearted women like Parker is so false as to be insulting, and ironically demonstrates that Parker actually is part of that derision for men and gender elitism that she pretends to fight against. Ms. Parker, for example, said on the show that she wants to help men “come out of hiding”, as if these poor timid souls cannot face the cruel injustice of the woman-dominated world. Parker went on to blame “sexually aggressive” women for the prevailing anti-male mood and her belief that men have gone into hiding. She even went to so far as to say that movies like “Brokeback Mountain” confuse men about their identity and roles, so that we are unable to find anyone to emulate. The Duke is gone, oh whatever shall we men do?

As if. Men are hardly about to faint from the stress of trying to satisfy the demands of feminists, nor are they weak-willed flowers cowering behind the shelter of a nanny or the obsolete memory of past glory. Ms. Parker makes the error of generalizing men, presuming that they are all similar in scope and character. Men continue to dominate government, business, science, all sorts of venues. The hottest TV show features a clearly dominant male. The top authors in many genres of fiction are male. The top athletes are male.

Of course, women are making their mark as well. After all, if we are to talk about Ken Lay, let’s not forget Martha Stewart. If we are to note the hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy talking about ethics, let’s not miss Hillary Clinton talking about the ‘plantation’. If we must wallow at the malicious level of E.J. Dionne, we certainly can’t leave out Maureen Dowd. If we recall the clueless sanctimony of a John Kerry, let’s not forget his charming wife Tereza. Way to go, ladies, you have made your mark indeed. We will sort out later who has to go clean it up.

Don’t worry about us men, though. We will be fine, as always.

The Stealth Weapon of Global Commerce: Oil

[ <.<* ]

In discussing the China paradigm this weekend past, reader JohnMc identified an element in the discussion which is often ignored, yet critical to many nations’ infrastructure. JohnMc said “the US has traditionally been the premier developer of oil fields and their maintenance” and he is dead-on in that observation. Oil and technology go hand in hand and need each other at every step. As a result, nations which ostracize themselves from the West, and especially from the United States, do so at direct economic cost.

I mentioned some time ago, that a steady and reliable supply of Oil depends the refineries and distribution system in place to provide it. And I also noted that Oil obeys very real economic laws and scientific pressures. But it is vital to understand as well, that the existence of an oil distribution system can largely be credited to the British and American companies which invested the research and development to find the oil, drill it, process it and get it where it needs to be. Oil does not come out of the ground just anyplace, nor is it ready-for-use when it is first produced. For example, the jet fuel used for commercial airliners around the world, is a pretty exotic concoction, and can only be distilled from certain grades of oil, and under certain refining conditions. It is not generally understood that top-grade jet fuel is not widely produced in any Middle East country, which means that hypothetically, in a crisis the West could deny high-grade jet fuel to a hostile Arab nation, grounding some of its fighter jet fleet even if that Arab nation was a major oil producing nation! While in actual practice such an embargo would be extremely difficult to enforce (in such a scenario, the Arab nation would fall back to kerosene-derived jet fuels, which are easily made but which burn hotter and less efficiently, wearing out engines and reducing range), the fact that the West has control over certain grades of oil products is an important point to remember.

Almost every refinery and drilling installation in the Middle East was designed and built by a British or American company. While some European and Asian companies have been brought on board in the last couple decades, the number and quality of their facilities does not compare favorably with what the UK/USA offers. This is just one reason why a number of countries take pains to keep communication and negotiation open with U.S. oil companies, even when relations are strained with the U.S. government. I know personally of three incidents during the 1970s and 1980s where governments negotiated trade agreements with American companies through their consulates, establishing a de facto liaison with the Commerce Department and doing an end run on the State Department and their own Foreign Ministry. This sort of pragmatic approach cannot be ignored in determining the course of future negotiations.

Just one more card in the deck to think about.

PFL Conference Championships

[ **** ]

American: Reagan (18-0) 18, Teddy Roosevelt (17-1) 12
National: George W. Bush (18-0) 15, Eisenhower (16-2) 12 OT

China In Limbo

..

The myth of Limbo is an intriguing one, of unresolved decision and unknown futures. I find the notion strangely similar to the current course of China. On the one hand, China is the last powerful Communist regime, but on the other it has been forced to adopt many business-friendly policies to bring in capital investments. China is a nation which will not countenance any sort of organized dissent (witness the crackdown on Falun Gong), yet China feels compelled to appease Muslim extremists in order to continue trade agreements to get much-needed oil. China wishes to become a regional hegemony, yet has agreed to treaties which put critical threats on its Southern flank, at the same time alienating regional Asian governments which could have been valuable allies. China, to describe its predicament, is in Limbo.

The significance in terms of American politics is simple, and drives my thought for the day:

What policies would the next American President pursue to increase the stability of the Asian continent, and to improve the American position in terms of security and opposing the Jihadists? Assuming, of course, that certain leading candidates can be bothered to address the crisis.

The Shadow Of Death: The Threat From Iran In Context

[ sm ]

I have been thinking about how to explain the current crisis in Iran for more than a week now. As usual, when mundane minds hesitate, we are passed by our superiors, and so I see that Victor Davis Hanson has put up his own well-done article. Yet for all the salient points he makes in his column, titled “The not-so-mad mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”, I find I must disagree with the Stanford historian on certain important points. Certainly I agree that Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man, and the threat from Iran must be taken as a grave danger. However, I do not agree that Ahmadinejad is not mad; he certainly is separated from a functional perception of Reality. Where Dr. Hanson contends that Ahmadinejad is not mad but is dangerous, I submit that the President of Iran is quite mad by any reasonable standard, but he is not stupid or foolish. That is to say, Ahmadinejad has been fully briefed on the various nations’ capabilities, he is experienced in the region’s politics, and he understands the difference between what his rhetoric promises and his regime can deliver. The difference between these perspectives is critical to the decision of the best response America can make.

One thing which must be understood is the reason for Ahmadinejad’s threats and prophecies. There are two errors which must be avoided by the West. One mistake would be to class Ahmadinejad’s noise as mere bluster, typical of the “Death To America” screeds which followed the 1979 Revolution. Iran had actually toned down its speeches and denouncements after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, especially after the fall of Baghdad, but has renewed hostility in recent months, especially with regard to its nuclear program. Also, Ahmadinejad’s election as President signals the regime’s determination to pursue a course not only opposed to the United States, but quite likely one to lead to conflict in force. Too many people forget that Iran was willing to attack U.S. Navy vessels when they escorted Kuwaiti tankers during the late 1980s, and too many people fail to understand the financing and support systems Iran created to enable and deploy terrorist organizations. Americans may not be impressed with Iran’s relative success at low-intensity warfare, but Iran believes it can fight the United States and win, provided it dictates the terrain, context, and scale. A pistol aimed at the head of a helpless hostage is more than a fond memory for Ahmadinejad; it neatly describes the Foreign Policy of the Revolutionary Jihadists in Teheran.

The second error however, would be to allow Ahmadinejad victory by granting him too much credence in his fantasies. Iran has made some serious mistakes in its policies since the Revolution, not least because Sharia does not fare well in real-world conditions. One significant reason for the radical shift in Iran’s public pronouncements is the growing momentum for Democracy in the Middle East. Free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, women actually voting, public schools teaching Science and History apart from the supervision of Mullahs, the growth of private businesses, public demonstrations against oppression in Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, even Saudi Arabia, are all seen as signs of a tide moving against the will of Jihad. The anger from Ahmadinejad and his government is as much from desperation as from confidence; he sees the work of a generation slipping away, the dream of Jihadist Triumph paid by the blood of infidels lost to the vision of Arab Democracy, compulsory prayer five times a day defeated by the ideal of people choosing how to believe and how to practice their personal belief. The Reformation of Islam, so long overdue, is seen by Ahmadinejad and his regime as a fatal threat to the Prophet. The best strategy against Ahmadinejad therefore, includes keeping the pressure of such a Reformation fresh and strong before him, attacking him where he is weakest and where the best hope for the Muslim world may be found.

Before going further, it would also be worthwhile to examine the scale and feasibility of the Iranian threat. The problems for Iran are rather significant, if their stated desire to destroy Israel and the United States are to be accomplished. For one thing, it appears reasonable at this time to say that Iran does not yet have a nuclear bomb. This is a very big point in the matter, in part because making a nuke is not so simple as some would have you believe, nor is having a nuclear bomb quite the advancement some thought. Or to put it another way, one should ask just why Ahmadinejad thinks having a nuclear weapon will make a difference. And to do that, we need to consider the limited perspective of History as Ahmadinejad sees it.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees his opportunity through the malaise of the West shown during the 1970s and 1990s. That much is clear. The rise of OPEC and the growth of small terrorist bands into global organizations are much-cherished glories in the mind of the radical Muslim, and give hope for greater victories to come, in the mold of Iran, Somalia, and naturally Vietnam. In a way, it is fascinating to see how much of the old Soviet dialectic finds its way into the thinking of the Jihadist – ‘wait long enough, and our enemy will grow weak’ seems to be the motto of their strategy. To move this process along, the Jihadist chooses only to strike soft targets, to try to weaken Western resolve, and to deny all evidence of the evil of Jihadist actions and intentions. And in the face of Television and the Press, the Jihadists come to believe they are winning the war. It’s only a matter of time, they assure each other.

But Ahmadinejad has problems in his plan, demonstrated by the periodic revival of Western resolve, and the undeniable superiority of American might. He shows no sign of acknowledging what a Reagan, a Thatcher, or a Dubya could mean to upsetting his plans. He could and should consider how previous high-profile troublemakers, like Qaddafi, Hussein, or even bin Laden fared once the U.S. decided to face them down. For all his annoying taped messages, after all, exactly what has Osama bin Hiding accomplished since 9/11? A reasonable person might warn Ahmadinedjad that calling out the West can sometimes be like waving a steak at a Rottweiler.

But even more to the point, it appears that Ahmadinejad wants to be yet another leader in the ‘Mahdi’ mold. He has not, however, considered the fate of all the prior would-be Mahdis. Instead, Ahmadinejad continues to ignore the inconvenient, and assume the best-case scenario will play out. That’s probably because Ahmadinejad’s plans have three stages, and he doesn’t believe he needs much luck to make them work.

Step one for Ahmadinejad is simple but difficult – get a nuclear bomb. The reason he wants one, is not because he plans to nuke Israel. Oh yes, he would love to do it, but it would take a stockpile to do the job, along with missiles that could reach the targets, and never mind the question of accuracy. Iran does not have missiles with the range or accuracy they would need, and as for bombers, the situation is even weaker. Iran does not have an air force worthy of the name; any attempt to attack Israel by bomber will only lead to the loss of every Iranian bomber. This means that in addition to developing the weapon, Iran must develop a delivery system, as well as a stockpile sufficient to the campaign along with the security needed to protect each part of the system. Knowing this, Ahmadinejad must be planning something other than an immediate immolation of Tel Aviv.

The obvious thought pops up, that Ahmadinejad could simply smuggle a nuke into Israel and detonate it via a suicide bomber. The problem there, is that such an attack could not reasonably coordinated in such a way as to destroy more than 3 or 4 locations, and probably nothing in a way which could disrupt the IDF’s own nuclear threat. And Ahmadinejad is not stupid enough to forget the Samson Option – the well-known threat by Israel that a nuclear attack on Israel would result in the use of Israeli nuclear missiles on every Arab capital or holy city. No matter how much the Jihadists would like to destroy Israel, they would not be willing to destroy themselves, especially their holy cities of Mecca and Medina, to do so. For all their bluster, the leaders of the Jihad are seldom willing to die for their cause. Kill yes, torture certainly, but they themselves are unlikely to accept their own death as the cost of victory.

Another point most people forget, is that Iran has Chemical and Biological WMD. It would be easy for Iran to attack Israel with the WMD already on hand, to say nothing of not bothering neighboring countries with the dangers of fallout from a nuclear volley. That has not happened either, possibly for reason of that same retaliatory threat from Israel, but also because attempting to out-and-out destroy a country by killing everyone in it is not only very difficult from a pragmatic perspective, but it also is all but impossible to justify. Such an attempt, Ahmadinejad knows, could easily create a global backlash against the Arab world and in support of Israel.

Consequently, Ahmadinejad has a longer plan, if also a slower one. By declaring that the Iranian Nuclear reactors are peaceful, Ahmadinajad hopes to generate sympathy for Iran among other nations excluded from the “Nuclear Club”, and so build a coalition of his own to stand against the greater powers. Trade agreements with China not only provide revenue for Iran and encourage China to support Iran in the United Nations, but also help Iran grow closer in its plans to foment insurrection along the China border later on. Most people are unaware of the growing Jihadist threat along China’s Southwest flank, which also could act against India if needed. The Jihadist threat against Russia can be demonstrated by a look at the difficulty posed by Chechnya, which now suffers from a number of active Al Qaeda cells. Add to that the unrest in France and Germany, and it is not difficult to see why Ahmadinejad believes that Iran’s long term strategy will work, keeping Europe and Asia out of the matter when Iran chooses to attack Israel. For now, it seems a simple measure for Iran to demand Europe and Asia not block its access to “peaceful” nuclear power, even though this means a bomb in a matter of two or three years. Also during this time, terrorist action may be expected to try to destabilize Saudi Arabia, either to crate an additional Jihadist regime or to force financial backing for an expanded Jihad.

Once Iran has the bomb, Ahmadinejad will test it, as a warning sign to the Unted States, and a ballistic missile capable of reaching the Gulf or the Mediterranean will be the next order or business. At some point, the missile will be test-fired into waters where U.S. aircraft carriers often travel, and the U.S. will be warned that Iran will not allow trespass. This does not mean that Ahmadinejad will seek direct confrontation with a carrier group, but he will hope to intimidate the United States, especially if this occurs after Bush leaves office. In similar fashion, Iran will make a number of statements forcing regional governments to choose a side, with the implication that anyone opposing Iran will stand alone and at significant danger. The deployment of terrorist cells may be expected to be timed to these announcements. Also, a regional alliance consisting of Iran, Syria, and at least one more Middle East power may be announced at this time. A strong effort will likely be made to create a military alliance on the order of OPEC. Provocations against Israel will also occur.

Essentially, the first two steps require finding a way to force the United States and Israel to back off pressure on Iran, while the Jihad builds regional support. The third step begins when Iran believes it has the means to invade a major regional power, such as Turkey or Egypt. When this happens, the Iran-led alliance will find a pretext to invade Israel, ostensibly on behalf of the Palestinians but actually to fulfill Ahmadinejad’s promise to wipe Israel off the map. The eventual war against the United States will depend on the acquisition of WMD sufficient to destroy a number of critical junctures, though in actual fact victory conditions for the Iranians would simply be to force de facto recognition of an Arab superstate in the Middle East, the long-awaited Caliphate.

Intimidating as this sounds, it has a rather large number of weak points and assumptions, and failure at any of several critical points would collapse the whole plan. The obvious problems for Ahmadinejad begin with the fact that Iran is not behind him on this plan. The average Iranian couldn’t care less whether Israel is destroyed or not, and he has little interest in fighting in a war that doesn’t have to happen. The young are demanding political reform, the women are demanding the vote, and the veterans from the old Iran-Iraq war are demanding a better sense of how to avoid killing off an entire generation of men. And that doesn’t include the people who could be interested in a counter-revolution against the Mullahs. One of the more ironic dangers for Iran in trying to develop a nuclear bomb, is the possibility that rebels could seize the weapon and use it against the regime.

And then there is Iraq. A rebuilt Iraq with a sense of its new independence is not likely to smile on a Jihadist neighbor, especially one with a violent history and threatening words. The war between Khomeini and Hussein was a very bad thing for both countries, but a new war between the two could be much bloodier. During the first Gulf War, there was fear that a weakened Iraq might be invaded by Iran. The possibility that Iraq, with or even without U.S. backing, might invade Iran must also be considered. There are real reasons why this would make sense to Iraq, and Iran has to plan how to prevent this possibility.

Also in play is Afghanistan. President Bush understood the Afghans in a way the British and Russians never did, and ironically the Iranians also have failed to grasp. In some ways the Afghans are very much like the Turks, absolutely relentless as an enemy, but absolutely trustworthy as a friend. The United States could not convince Afghanistan to attack Iran, but at the same time Afghanistan is highly unlikely to support an Iran-led alliance. This is a real problem for Iran’s long-term plans in the region, especially if Afghanistan sends an ultimatum of its own to Teheran, which is not as unlikely as some people think. The Afghans play Chess the old-school way: Shah Mat.

All this may help to explain why the United States is taking the tack it has. In the first place, Iran has a longer road than it pretends. Also, the U.S. sees no advantage in doing what Iran expects it to do, especially since the U.S. has options that Iran cannot prevent. Third, the U.S. has long-term goals of its own in play, and if these succeed, Iran will be in a bad way to prevent the dissolution of the Mullahs’ control. It’s a very dangerous business, but for more than one side.

Who IS the 'Jack Bauer' of Blogging?

[ - bang - ]

As I drove home from work yesterday, I listened to Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and Hugh turns out to be a fan of "24". So much so, that he readily accepted the nomination, which he says was tagged by blogger Frater's Libertas, as the "Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere". Chad the Elder wrote in response that he actually dubbed Hugh as "the Jack Abramoff of talk radio and the blogosphere".

Heh.

I don't know that I would be linking respectable and intelligent people with Abramoff right about now, but I have to agree with Chad that Hugh is not the Bauer model. I like Hewitt, and he's spot-on with some of his insights, but sorry Hugh, you're no Jack Bauer. If nothing else, the fact that you are a lawyer disqualifies you. Could anyone imagine Jack Bauer with a law degree? Please.

But it raises a good question. Just who, in the Blogosphere, is our Jack Bauer? Without saying at the start who I think fills the bill, here's how I see the role:

1. He's male. Sorry ladies, but this gun-toting, do-what-a-patriot's-gotta-do guy is focused testosterone. This ain't Siegfried and Roy, this ain't Dr. Phil, and any woman pulling the kind of stuff we see Bauer doing in "24" would look more like "Xena" than a counter-terrorism agent.

2. He's decisive. No one who can be connected to a focus group or committee need apply.

3. He's not PC. Bauer does what is required, and is not subtle about it.

4. Despite being violent a lot, Bauer is not crazy or bloodthirsty. He does what is necessary, but holds his fire, and is willing to let even terrorists live if they surrender. That rules out DU or Daily Kos, even if they could accept being on the same side as Bauer.

5. Bauer is in such deep cover, most people think he's dead. Talk about controlling your ego. That rules out Rush, most talk show hosts and columnists, and anyone who has voluntarily appeared on Leno or Letterman.

6. Bauer knows guns. And uses them often. This rules out anyone from the State Department or the United Nations, or their advocates.

7. Bauer is indestructible. In a previous season, Bauer freaking died, someone got his heart started again and by the end of the episode Bauer was kicking bad guys in the groin as hard as ever.

8. Bauer always knows what's about to happen. As a result, he has a few seconds to plan his actions, which only appear to be impossible.

9. Bauer trusts the right people. He instinctively knows the traitors and low-lifes, but depends on the ones he knows are stand-up.

10. Bauer gets results. Compromise is useless.


So, with that in mind, who is the Blogosphere's "Jack Bauer"?

Please include reasons with your nomination(s).

The American Dream

[ +++ ]

I read Kay Hymowitz’ column while I drank my morning coffee and ignored my e-mail. The article, titled “Marriage and Caste”, argued for the need for a woman to have a marriage, but also touched on the concern about “whether the American Dream is within the reach of all.” That struck a chord, in no small part because Ms. Hymowitz never defined the Dream for her audience, and that seems to me a significant point of contention.

Everyone dreams about something, but even for a particular individual, those dreams may change over time. For instance, I have at various times dreamed of wealth, fame, romance, or simply to avoid disaster at work, with the law, or with my family. So to mention “the” dream, is to imply that there is one ubiquitous desire for everyone, and to dub it the “American Dream” is to suggest a unique quality to the dream apart from the human condition. So that is my starting point, to re-examine the nature and elements of the American Dream.

In the Declaration of Independence, the Congress concurred that Man holds rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. While various legislatures and demagogues have wrought havoc on those basic presumptions over the years, the basic rights are still pretty simple, especially the fact that we enjoy the right to chase Happiness; there is no guarantee we shall have it.

And yet there is a kind of joy to such a pursuit. Anyone who has played sports knows the thrill of contest, and anyone who has completed a difficult project knows the satisfaction of accomplishment. And it is critical to understand that the dream can be the same, even when it is different for each person.

In my life I have met an Indian woman who whose dream was to choose her husband. I met a Muslim whose personal proof of the mercy of God was having his wife and daughter in his life. I met a Baptist who wanted to run in the Olympics. I know a Sikh who wants to get his novel published. I am friends with a guy who wants his son to play for the Astros. And I know a guy running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Some of these people have already fulfilled their dream, others are working on it. Some will never succeed at their dream, but the point is they are able to try. As for myself, I am looking for a publisher for two novels, as well as going after my MBA. Maybe it will happen, maybe not, but the truth about the American Dream, is that I can try. Shoot, I have already become internationally known as a blogger, mistaken for an authority on a couple subjects, and I have as fine a wife and family as I could ever have asked God to grant me.

OK, so some of the more cynical will stop and say, 'yeah, duck the issue DJ. The fact is, some people got money and always will, others never will.' To them I ask, is money all you know? Because money will not make a happy marriage, give you purpose, or help you sleep at night, knowing you made a difference in someone’s life.

But even if money is the all-important thing to you, nowhere is the field more level, the roster more open to everyone than in America. You can open a business of virtually any kind, virtually anywhere, and we actually have a decent set of laws which work well to a surprising degree, to protect intellectual rights, property, consumers and workers. Yes, there will always be some who are richer than their efforts deserved, but in America more people make their fortune than anywhere else. Yes, it means accepting risks and an inconstant climate, but no one said you get to coast to success. It’s the American Dream, not the Yankee Comfy Nap.

Pick a dream. Chase it. See what happens.

Using Intelligence – the N.E.S.T.

[ . . . ]

Paul Holman* was on his way to work in Baltimore one early morning in January 2005, driving to a power plant run by Baltimore Gas & Electric, when his pager went off. The pager was a special one, and it flashed a number with a code warning Holman he needed to find a Secure Telephone Unit (STU) before making the call. When Holman called in, he was directed to immediately proceed to Boston to meet with four other members of his team. Four Chinese nationals and two Iraqis were alleged to have smuggled an unknown amount of radioactive material into the city of Boston, and it was the job of Holman’s team to find the material, and determine whether a nuclear bomb had been made. The Boston Police, FBI, bomb-sniffing dogs, and even the Boston office of the DHS were put at the team’s discretion.

Paul is a member of a NEST, or Nuclear Emergency Search Team. NESTs are controlled and directed by the Department of Energy, and exist solely to find and defuse nuclear threats. As part of its job, a NEST has to have real-time intelligence information, and immediate access to the resources needed to act on tips and clues. A NEST can be deployed by the “DP-20 Duty Officer” from the DOE field office in Nevada, by the Office of Threat Assessment, by direct order from the Secretary of Energy, or by order from the National Command Authority (NCA) – the President of the United States or his designated case officer. In such an event, a team will be mobilized to act in the area of crisis. This field team is formally known as an Operational Emergency Management Team (OEMT), but to law enforcement they usually also refer to themselves as NEST to avoid confusion. There will be a Team Leader (TL/DOE), who will be in charge and report actions and events to the NEST Director and the Energy Secretary, and where appropriate, the NCA.

The number and specific qualifications of NEST members is classified information, but NEST members are distinctive for expertise in nuclear materials and explosives. So, in addition to members with military and law enforcement experience, especially in bomb disposal, NESTs also include white-collar professionals like Paul, whose specific knowledge applies not only to day-to-day operation of such mundane responsibilities as electricity transmission grids, but also the radiation characteristics of enriched material. So, it is possible that if you work in the utilities field, or in scientific research, you may personally know someone whose responsibilities include protecting the country from a nuclear terrorist threat. While the government will neither confirm nor deny the contention, it is believed that similar teams exist to deal with Chemical and Biological threats, managed by DHS under the heading "Domestic Emergency Search Team", or DEST . At least twenty discrete NEST groups are believed to have been established in the continental United States, usually located in or near major cities, especially where nuclear power plants are in operation.

In the actual event in January 2005, no bomb turned out to exist after a four-day search, nor was any radioactive material found in the Boston area. Even so, the deployment was valuable experience for the NEST, who were debriefed by DOE and the FBI before returning to their regular duties. These debriefings are critically important, as in each case there are things which go right, and things which go wrong. In one previous event, a NEST discovered a stored sample of radioactive waste which had no connection to the threat, but for a time generated significant concern. On another occasion, a suspect claimed to be able to detonate a “dirty” radioactive bomb by remote control, complicating the search operation. Learning from such difficulties improves the teams’ ability to address the next incident.

In terms of Intelligence, NESTs are examples of “Right Now” Intelligence – data which not only has to be accurate, but specific and fast. They didn’t say, but I’d be willing to bet that in a NEST deployment, no one bothers with warrants.


* Not his real name

The Red Pen – Correcting More Liberal Inaccuracies

[ xxx ]

Niall Ferguson has an interesting article written up in the Telegraph. Interesting, but largely wrong. The opinion piece, titled “The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented” appears on the surface to be in support of the Bush Doctrine of pre-empting catastrophic threat. But the author makes so many mistakes, in historical fact as well as in his conclusions, that the piece must be redressed on something better than Ferguson’s rhetorical swagger.

Historians, as a rule, like to feel important. This is a common characteristic which shows up in their narration of events, as though they understood things better than the average fellow, a condition which is seldom true of academics. Also, it is my experience that a proper student of History should always consult more than one point of view, to avoid the errors which bias, however unintended, always displays on a version which accepts only one perspective. To that end, I will address the gist of Ferguson’s contentions, with emphasis on his errors and the proper correction to them, as I see it.

The first error by Ferguson is this statement: “The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.”

To begin with, anyone who knows the history of the late 1960s through the 1970s understands that the heyday of oil’s strategic value was before the Reagan era. Ferguson mistakes the prevalent use of oil by emerging industrial nations, and the continued consumer reliance on oil, as indicators of potential global crisis. However, the far more serious OPEC embargoes, especially during the Carter Administration, impacted the world economy in ways which are not possible today, not only because of improvement in alternative sources for petroleum, but also because governments and industries were forced to accept the need for far greater efficiency and diversified processes. Ferguson’s note about oil prices during the 1990s ironically misses two salient points – first, low oil prices have been the exception rather than the rule for the past half-century, and second, prices were so low in the 1990s because the improvements in diverse sources, efficiency, and alternative processes created a relatively low demand for OPEC oil in specific. OPEC addressed this by expanding its membership, paying close attention to market conditions, and by understanding that the most efficient alternatives would be shelved by high availability and low prices. In other words, sound business practices were more effective and beneficial for OPEC than political brinksmanship. It is not, to be blunt, in OPEC’s interest to allow any one nation or player disrupt the flow of oil, because to do so would damage OPEC to a far greater extent than it might gain. Accordingly, Iran will lose friends in OPEC if it tries to use Oil as a political weapon, to such a point that it is possible for OPEC to do an end-run to keep supplies moving. This removes the 'crisis'value of Oil in terms of sparking a global conflagration. Ferguson is reliving old history and has failed to observe policy and industry changes which have set a different course under such a scenario.

Ferguson’s next error was demographics, comparing Muslim fertility to European fertility. Ferguson notes that the population explosion in Iran led to “a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.”

Again, this is a serious mistake by Ferguson. He even manages to mention the devastating casualties suffered in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, without once considering the social effects of such a war on the support for a war of conquest. Ferguson also fails to note the rise of youth protests against Iran’s repressive government and policies. Ferguson does not seem to have considered that arming large groups of Iranian men and training them to fight, could result in a massive revolt against the Mullahs. In an age where rebels can communicate through cell phones, faxes, websites, e-mail, and many other hard-to-block, hard-to-track technologies, dismissing the potential of insurrection is foolish. Especially against a regime which advocates extreme policies for the perceived benefit only to themselves.

Ferguson makes a telling error in his next statement, claiming “people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.”

More than anywhere else in the article, Ferguson here identifies himself as a Liberal, and demonstrates a filtered perspective of the region. This statement not only locks Ferguson into the obsolete political thinking of the Stalin v. Eisenhower era, but also defines him firmly as a 'September 10th' historian. Ferguson is blissfully unaware that the 2002-present military actions were not meant to impose a Western will on the Arab world, but to remove a global threat – international terrorists created, trained, supported and sponsored by Arab factions and governments. The Coalition did not invade Afghanistan in hopes of creating a regime submissive to their policies, but to take out Al Qaeda. The Coalition did not invade Iraq in order to turn the place into a docile colony, but to remove a despot who was known to have used WMD on another country, and on minorities in his own nation. For Ferguson to have missed this essential point is appalling, and demonstrates a basic flaw in his logic.

Ferguson then lays out his third “precondition for war: cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.

Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.”

This is another stupendous blunder, to be frank. In the first place, Ferguson glosses over the fact that most Arabs and Muslims wanted no part of the radical Jihadism pushed by the likes of Khomeini. Even an overview of the Arab Culture reveals sharp divisions between the way Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, and other Middle Eastern nationalities see their region and responsibilities. Ferguson even fails to observe the waves of repression versus reform demands in Iran, as the country struggles to decide whether the majority of people will be able to take back their nation. Ferguson forgets that Khomeini’s power came not from genuine support by the Iranian people, but through manipulation of events to establish his minority sect in the seat of power, one dictator simply replacing another. There are quite literally millions of Iranians who would like see a government which represents the Iranian heart and mind as it is, not in the image cast by a Shah or an Ayatollah, especially given recent history.

As to Europe, let us never forget Fabrizio Quattrocchi, who was kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in 2004, yet shouted defiantly on camera “This is how an Italian dies!” Such is hardly the act of a man void of ideals or courage.

When terrorist bastards blew up buses and trains in London, the result only hardened resolve and diligence, bringing support even from countries like China. It can therefore hardly be said that terrorism is dissolving alliances and commitment to international security. It’s especially worth noting that the main reaction by British Muslims was to denounce terrorism and offer to help catch the men who did it. Ferguson would do well to observe that many more Muslims are appalled and revolted by the tactics of terrorists, than ever would applaud such actions.

When Jihadist terrorists murdered hundreds of children held hostage in a school at Beslan, the response was not submission or a massive repression. Even though the Russian occupation of Chechnya is controversial, the Russian response to this atrocity was measured and restrained in context. This demonstrates a level of strategy and resolve beyond Ferguson’s understanding.

These points and others demonstrate the reason why the Coalition remains a viable alliance, despite the misleading publicity given to the few who have cut and run. In plain fact, Europe has not lost its ideals and nerve, and the Jihadists have not gained influence and support to anything like the degree Ferguson pretends. Whether by accident or connivance, Ferguson ignores the overwhelming majority of Middle East people and nations to pretend ascendancy for a militant few. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the region invalidates all assumptions and calculations drawn upon it.

Ferguson casts Iran’s sociopathic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in the role of an Islamic Hitler, and I admit the caricature is appealing to the emotion. Ferguson properly observes the incendiary quality of Ahmadinejad’s claim that the Holocaust was a “myth”. It is correct to voice concern when a national leader describes a neighboring sovereign country as a “disgraceful blot”, to be wiped “off the map”. Yet Ferguson fails to observe the basic question of capability, and of reaction to such an attempt. Ahmadinejad speaks in much the same way as Castro did, and Castro could never make good on his threats. Ferguson seems to just want to inflate the madman's credibility. Ferguson here follows with a series of statements which are dubious or even outright false in their claims. Said Ferguson, about the possibility of removing the Iranian reactor through air strikes;

“The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981.”

This presumes that the United States would wish to use Israel as a proxy, and also that Israel would be inclined to take on such a role. There is no evidence to support either contention.

“Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006.”

Many conservative commentators, including myself, have better imagination and comprehension of the region than that. Ferguson presumes that force would be the most effective response, but in actual fact there is much reason to doubt that opinion. Not only has Iran prepared for an anticipated attack, but also there are strategic choke points which would damage the Iranian programs effectively, without providing an incident that Iran could effectively use as propaganda against the United States. These options include economic sanctions, blockade, and subversive actions against Iran, such as contaminating the uranium stocks used by Iran. Further, the development of nuclear weapons, as Iran doubtless intends to build, depend on a number of crucial requirements, which the U.S. is well-positioned to deny. While such actions are more complex and difficult than simply dropping bombs where we think the plants and materials are kept, in the long run thy could well yield better results. Consider how the average American considered 3 Mile Island, which was never anything but a civilian power plant, and imagine the Iranian response to an accident at a plant designed to make nuclear weapons, which themselves could not be used in anything but a war likely to kill millions of Iranians. Ferguson, like Ahmadinejahd, has not thought this matter through to any great degree.

“The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.”

Ferguson is quite wrong on both counts. It needs saying, yet again, that the inspectors did find weapons in Iraq, though not in the numbers anticipated, but more to the point, they discovered that the WMD programs were still a high priority to Saddam Hussein, and if the invasion had not happened, the development of strategic weapons would indeed have begun again and very quickly. The consensus of those who have seen the evidence is that the invasion was indeed justified and necessary. As to the insurgency, the fact that the men committing the majority of violence are foreign to Iraq disproves the “insurgency” claim. And the fact that the terrorists in Iraq have been more and more turning their guns on Iraqi Army and police instead of U.S. troops since the last two elections in Iraq, demonstrates that this “insurgency” is in fact nothing more than a foreign-supported attempt to prevent genuine self-rule by Iraq; and the results of the past two elections, both with greater-than-predicted levels of participation, shows that Iraq is well on the road to taking care of itself. The U.S. still needs to assist in Iraq, but Ferguson is either lying or has made a colossal blunder in overlooking the general success of the American mission in Iraq.

“As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking.” Ferguson demonstrates that he has no operation knowledge of groups like the SAS or people like the American Director of National Intelligence.

“The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.”

Ferguson demonstrates a complete lack of perception regarding American post-9/11 diplomacy. Rice does not make that mistake. The Bush State Doctrine, as many well know, is not one to allow a threat to grow beyond redress.

Ferguson proceeds down his imaginative fallacy: “The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.”

Failing to understand the U.S. military, Ferguson presumes a nuclear event would be allowed to proceed. Failing to understand the Iraqi identity in the aftermath of free elections, Ferguson assumes that Iraqis would act in the image of a nation almost completely unlike themselves. Failing to perceive the new identity of women and youth in the Middle East, in places like Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, Ferguson fails to understand the present actions behind the scenes in the Middle East, and the importance of true Sovereignty and Self-Determination to the Arab states, Ferguson presumes that the majority would act in imitation of the worst among them. And failing to understand the Chinese Grand Strategy in Southwest Asia, Ferguson does not understand why Beijing will work to rein in Iran, albeit quietly, rather than encourage Jihadist movements which would threaten their own frontiers in short order.

Niall Ferguson does do one service to the matter – he demonstrates how so many people, understanding only one perspective and proceeding from a series of rash assumptions, can oppose the very actions which remove the dangers they fear, and will ridicule the people whose words and plans are better suited to the moment and its challenge. That is, we can be very glad that God has provided us with the likes of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to address such a crisis, instead of the likes of Niall Ferguson. It is a small matter then, that years from now when the events in Iran are seen in retrospect, academics like Ferguson will forget their dire predictions and claim there was never a threat at all, or else that we were providentially spared from the approaching disaster, rather than crediting the plans and foresight of the men and women who faced the crisis. Bloggers like myself will be there to set the record straight, and the people will decide.

PFL Divisional Playoffs

[--]

American Conference
Teddy Roosevelt (17-0) 24, Monroe (14-4) 12
Reagan (17-0) 26, Washington (16-2) 6

National Conference
George W. Bush (17-0) 26, Jefferson (14-4) 9
Eisenhower (16-1) 24, Franklin Roosevelt (15-3) 9


Conference Championships
Reagan at Teddy Roosevelt
Eisenhower at George W. Bush

Television and Self-Delusion

[duh]

This past week has been interesting as an observation in Maturity. The confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito have actually gone better than many on the Right expected, in large part due to the Democrats’ inability to perceive when they have crossed the line, to such a degree that even Katie Couric chided Senator Bombast for his conduct. A rather plain, professorial man has become perceived as the unfair target of a political witchhunt. And so his stock rises even among thsoe who would prefer to see him fail. But we already know that Democrats, in the main, have simply abandoned responsible priorities and civil debate. This week, while welcome, was predictable.

So too the trends in Mainstream television. I don’t just mean the “News”, which on the major broadcast networks means running the copy through the Boston and Los Angeles affiliates to make sure it has that left-wing sheen to placate the screaming lunatics sophisticated minions of journalism, but the prime time fare. During this week, I noted the leading shows, established and new, and found them strangely familiar in their method:

Cold Case - Unsolved murders are unraveled by a single white female, who heads up the Cold Case team. In true PC fashion, even her boss defers to her judgment and opinion. The victims are usually women and minorities, and the villains generally male and white.

Close to Home - Brave single white female leads search for truth, prosecuting crimes perpetrated against women and minorities by males and whites. This week’s episode featured a white family carrying out a race war one murder at a time; the black victims were always helpless, and there were several scenes where the families of the victims nodded their obligatory thanks for the courageous white woman stepping to save them from the other white people.

CSI - Team of pathologists solves what is beyond trained investigators from the police department. The forensics team is diverse in race, gender, class and culture, but homogenous in political sentiment. The villain is often the richest white person in the plot.

Injustice - Hailed by ABC as “groundbreaking”, this series features a brave white defense lawyer, who convicts the entire Criminal Justice system on the assumption of massive misjudgments by police, courts, attorneys and juries. The brave white man steps in to help minorities who apparently are not able to find justice without a brave white liberal to help them. Apparently the “groundbreaking” part comes from a white liberal male helping the minority people out, instead of a white liberal female.

The idea is well-established in more than a dozen primetime dramas, and yet it would offend any reasonable person, the notion that minorities need the help of liberals to find justice, to say nothing of a minority person holding authority under their own merit and effort. And yet, that is exactly how the Democrats present their candidates; mostly men, a few strong women, but always white in the nationally prominent positions, and always left-of-center. OK, so these days it’s hardly shocking that Democrats look for left-of-center, but it’s fascinating to notice just how much the Democrats seem to think that Hollywood’s version of things ought to be, is just how the DNC spends its support. Comparing the Republican record, especially in recent years, to the Democrats’ record, is amusing and quite telling. President George W. Bush has appointed more minorities to significant posts than any Democrat has even suggested. And look at the judicial appointments; no modern Democrat has even nominated a Black, Hispanic, or Asian to the Supreme Court, ever. A glance at the short list for Bush’s next appointment shows some faces and names that would be hilarious to see the race-conscious Liberals attack; they will of course, just as they did with Clarence Thomas, but the hypocrisy will be harder than ever for them to hide.

Facing Down Malice And Morons

{<>}

Readers may be aware that I am preparing, late in life, to pursue my Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree. Because of my work and family responsibilities, I am not in a position to move to another part of the country and spend full-time studies at a prestigious university, nor does my resume suggest that such a commitment would be significantly effective in improving my career. Like many Americans, my career needs documentation to advance, but my position does not afford the luxury of full-time study. As a result, I began to research part-time study and Distance Learning. A large number of schools offer graduate degrees with evening and/or weekend classes, and of course the Distance Learning courses were designed with working people in mind. But in addition to the need to measure the reputation of each school and program, the working student must also consider the stupidity, prejudice, and hidebound fear of progress present in many places, especially as ‘brick-and-mortar’ schools find themselves ill-equipped to address 21st-Century realities.

As a case in point, there is a blogger by the nomme de plume of “Dead Man Blogging” (his real name appears to be Dean Domenico, first name unknown, college unstated, credentials nonexistent judging from this little piece of work), which seems an awfully petty inference to such a serious issue, especially given that this fellow has not posted even one article on the Death Penalty, but I digress.

This fellow claims to be a Department Chairman at “a New England College’s Business School”. Certainly he has the arrogance to match the claim, as he tears into Distance Learning with absolutely nothing beyond his prejudice and fear of new technology to support his insults. Even so, his claims are worth examining, as they demonstrate not only the false assumptions of the Brickhead set, but also their emotional refusal to examine the matter in detail, which practice is often fatal in the business world. That is, when an executive makes important decisions on assumptions and prejudice, he is often going to discover his error in the General Ledger. For a department head of a college to make such a mistake in dismissing the value and credibility of alternative degree programs, is no less stupid than Ken Lay’s repeated imitation of Sergeant Schulz about what was going on at Enron.

“Dead Man”, as he wishes to be called, makes a series of blunders in his assertions, which should be considered in the light of reason, to which I humbly submit my efforts:

Dead Man: “Distance learning, where students essentially attend college online, seems to be a win-win for all concerned. Students get college credit from the comfort of their own home, and colleges have a high profit, high growth potential alternative revenue stream. Even make-believe colleges, like the University of Phoenix, can get in on the action in tapping into the large number of people looking for an easy degree and willing to buy the credential.”

So, beyond the obvious hatred for Distance Learning, what errors does Dead Man make here? First off, he implies that Online students are lazy and Online schools are greedy. The best refutation to that comes from the fact that the University of Phoenix is accredited, meaning that its practices and curriculum have been reviewed and approved by an authorized body of professionals. In UoP’s case, that would be the Higher Learning Commission, founded in 1895 and responsible for accrediting higher-learning schools in nineteen states. The HLC is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Phoenix is also a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of eleven major regional accrediting agencies in the United States. The United States has no national accrediting body, but does recognize several national associations in specialized degrees.

As a result, not only is the University of Phoenix recognized at regional and national levels as a fully-accredited school of higher learning, it is entirely possible that UoP has better accreditation than the college where “Dead Man” runs a department. I think it is patently obvious at this point, that referring to an accredited university with clear and strict degree requirements and course curricula as “make-believe” is not merely a baseless insult to the professors and students at the University of Phoenix, but demonstrates the low intellectual effort made by Dead Man to determine the school’s qualities. Claiming that Distance Learning is an “easy” degree or that students are trying to “buy the credential”, appears to my mind to be so false and prejudiced as to tread on an actionable offense.

Dead Man has therefore established an intellectual laziness on his part, with more than a whiff of dishonesty and malice. One difference, after all, between the in-school and online studies, is that the student attending school can sometimes hide in the back, “attending” the class but not participating if he is not prepared, while the online student is required to participate and contribute – the system records his comments and questions, so there is actually a higher standard of participation required for the online student. Dead Man is oblivious to this rather plain fact.

Next, we read this from Dead Man : “I see a lot of students, especially those returning after some time in the work force, that are just looking to get their ticket punched and seeking the easiest path to the sheepskin.”

Now see, only someone so immersed in Academia and its Elitism for Elitism’s Sake mantra, could possibly address professionals seeking an advanced degree with such obvious contempt. It seems that we working folks are somehow sullying the halls of his Ivory Tower to seek a degree which we can actually use, or to presume that years of professional work can add practical value to classroom discussion would somehow diminish the wisdom of such sages as “Dead Man”. I rather suspect that Dead Man fears that theories which are touted in the classroom would have reason to fear close examination by people experienced in the real world, and so he would prefer to keep out those who might prove him wrong, unaware that his own arguments demonstrate his error.

Dead Man did make one salient comment in his article: “The two important issues are whether the distance learning experience delivers a valuable education, and whether a distance learning degree delivers a valued credential.”

Unfortunately, this “Department Chairman” completely fails to answer the first question honestly, and so fails on accuracy as well. His article places the value on what Dead Man calls “traditional college educators” and “sophisticated employers”, never observing the false premise contained in those groups. First, a reasonable querant looks for objective responses to significant questions, not consensus among partisans. Dead Man apparently asked some people with backgrounds and environments similar to his own, and wonder of wonders, discovered that they share his prejudice. Dead Man reinforces this blunder by claiming, again on no evidence whatsoever, that Distance Learning means “low-level entrance requirements (which are essentially a pen and checkbook)” [the man simply cannot be bothered to go dig up the facts on this point], and “the lack of a classroom experience replete with interactions with instructors and other students”. This second statement is even more outrageous, when one considers real-world examples. I have already outlined the accreditation of Phoenix, but Dead Man also blows the point by failing to observe that a number of very fine traditional universities also offer Distance Learning graduate programs, including Arizona State University, Boston University, Colorado State University, Drexel University, Gonzaga University, the University of Iowa, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine University, Purdue University, Quinnipiac University, Syracuse University, Temple University, Tulane University, Villanova University, Wake Forest University, and the University of Washington. Dead Man manages to falsely insult over a hundred universities offering online degree, including many with AACSB accreditation – the highest tier of accrediting associations for business schools. Dead Man once again proves himself to be either exceptionally dense, or exceptionally malicious in addition to being recklessly stupid.

Dead man dismisses the online discussions as “canned”, which I find distinctly hypocritical and pretentious. I recall my undergraduate days at Baylor, in classes which sometimes exceeded a hundred students, so that asking the professor a question during class was simply impossible, and many professors were notorious for not being at their offices during posted hours. The online experience, on the other hand, is specifically engineered to create conversation including all students, where every student has access to the professor and classmates, and where questions and observations are not limited to a set schedule, but are posted and answered both in real time and as different individuals see the posting. This provides not only for more response, but better information and a deeper understanding of the material discussed. Once again, Dead Man’s prejudices blind him to perceiving the true state of things.

Dead Man sniffs at the very notion of Distance Learning, saying “This is not a defensive posture germinating from a desire to preserve our jobs and the status quo; quite the contrary, distance learning (and for some, even web-ct, i.e., distance learning lite), would make our jobs immensely easier. We are philosophically against it, and see it as a matter of ethics and efficacy.”

Having cited evidence that shows Dead Man is not only unaware of the educational advantages of the online classroom, clearly biased against fullly-employed students pursuing advanced degrees, and totally out of touch with not only the failings of old-style classrooms, but also the teaching gains to be had by using new technology, this statement is worse than self-serving – it is no better than denial, and once again falsely implies a lower standard to Distance Learning. Further, the exponential growth of Distance Learning degrees from schools ranked as among the very best for business degrees by such publications as Business Week and U.S. News and World Report, demonstrates a rank hypocrisy by Dead Man and his like-minded cronies. No, he and his ilk demean Distance Learning, even as some of the very best schools in the country pursue such options and excel in their results. Dead Man says “When we get applications from those with distance learning degrees, for instance, they are immediately discarded. Many of the employers we talk to have the same perspective, and in fact a distance learning degree is sometimes viewed as worse than having no degree at all.”

That is simply the hate speech of a delusional bigot, and at this point only reinforces the sad stupidity of this claimant. Dead Man demands that students “work in the right way and get the job done. A distance degree signals sloth with the faint scent of artifice, a desire to take the easy way out.”

I dare say sir, that a graduate from a school like Syracuse or Drexel with an online MBA is far more competent in his field than you can pretend, especially as your inability to support your claims with evidence, or even notice the explosion of quality programs, so coldly displays a refusal to do your homework or consider evidence from the real world. And speaking from my writing perspective, Dead Man is also a distinctly poor blogger.

My point in this denunciation of such recalcitrant hypocrisy, is not only to take apart this slander against a sector of the student population, whose work is equally as good as the old-style schools could claim, but to point out that a key responsibility for the modern commentator includes challenging the prejudices and old-world bias that still stain progress and injure honest people. Whether correcting the bias of Mainstream News or the malice in Hidebound Academia, we must pursue open discussion, correction, and redirection towards Reality, away from the assumptions and hypocrisy of the past.