Paving The Career Path - Part 1

-[]-

A reader asked me to discuss, in greater detail, how employers view the University of Phoenix. This is a good question, but as it happens the answer is a little complicated. This is because I don’t know enough about the writer’s situation, to fairly say how such a degree may help their resume. This, combined with another query about the reputation of online degrees, suggested to me that a broader discussion might be appropriate. As you know, I am returning to school to pursue my Masters in Business Administration. I will be starting Graduate School this fall at either the University of Texas at Dallas, Texas A&M - Commerce, or the University of Houston at Victoria. The reasons for choosing these schools for my application are important, but I will have to return to them. This is because I am writing this column in response to some mail I have recently received.

I fooled with the idea about discussing where different educational levels take a person, but it really comes down to this - when you apply for a position in a company, you will be considered according to the factors of your experience, your skills, and your education. Experience comes with time, and work skills develop the same way, but education is a bit more difficult. Partly because your school, as much as your degree, influences your opening image with a company. There is a real value to prestige, if you are applying for a position that is out of the ordinary; you will have to show something on your application or resume which stands out. I know that sounds mercenary, but it’s a hard fact of life; any desirable position will get a lot of competition, and you need to stand out to get a chance for it. So choosing your school can be a very important factor.

Every year, magazines like U.S. News and World Report, Business Week, and so on run lists of their “best” colleges and universities. I put that in quotes, because you need to know what your standards are in a school; what gets points from a magazine may not match what you need. In my case, I got a Bachelor’s degree from a medium-scale university, arguably the best Undergrad school in Texas but only “Top 50” on a national scale after the years passed. Also, my degree was a Liberal Arts degree, a common choice but it doesn’t work well in the business world. Also, my college grades were not impressive. So when my Senior year began, I had no interviews and no post-graduation prospects. First lesson from my mistakes; understand that your choices will have consequences, both good and bad. I got into a company at a low-level position and worked my way up. After two decades of work, I have held some medium-level management positions and earned a few honors. I have solid experience and skills collected from the four companies where I have worked. The problem for me now, is that to move into a real executive position I need educational credentials beyond my present degree. So that is what is sending me back to school at my age. With my experience, you may note that I do not necessarily want a top-tier school. That is for two reasons. First, my resume can get me considered for employment at a lot of companies, more than any school I go to. But also, my resume has shown limits of growth and development, so that there are companies which would not consider me, regardless of where I might claim an MBA. With that in mind, I wanted to choose a school which provided the best results for my effort and expense.

The first quality you want to find in a school, is which one will most improve your resume. If you are young and have not established a work history, then the higher-reputation schools are necessary to get you considered. They also establish a good foundation for a promising career. The downside to those schools, is that they are extremely difficult to enter, very expensive, and very demanding. If you can’t make it through those schools to the degree, you’re out a lot of stress and money for nothing. A better choice for many people is a regionally-respected school, one with name recognition and a long history. These can also be tough and pricey, but not so bad as the top-tier schools. As a comparison, if you wanted to go to Stanford, widely respected as the top MBA school overall, you’d have to be able to commit maybe three years of full-time work, and $180,000 for the tuition, books, fees and other expenses. In comparison, the University of Texas is well-known and widely respected, and offers MBA classes in several major Texas cities in a two-year plan which costs somewhere around $72,000. Still difficult, competitive, and pricey, but not nearly as hard a road as Stanford. Of course, if you make it through the Stanford course, you’d be likely to claim about $120,000 a year after getting your MBA, whereas the Texas grad would only pull about $100,000 on the strength of the degree, but bear in mind that if you want to be, say, the CEO of General Motors, the school you go to will get you into a good company, but your resume and accomplishments will still decide if you get the top chair.

So OK, you accept that your work experience will decide how far you go, but won’t a school act like a booster rocket to get you the chance to be seen? Yes, provided you get the right degree and the proper qualfications. In my case, I am happy not to be the CEO of a major corporation, because I don’t need a quarter-million dollars a year, if the expectations damaged my family or marriage. But I do want an executive position, meaning I might want to be a CEO of a smaller firm, or to be the go-to guy for the CEO of a significant company. In fact, I already know from my work experience, that I find it very satisfying to solve problems and find good answers which improve performance for the company and satisfaction for the employees. So, to get to the point, I want an MBA to open the door to a position where I can combine my experience and talents to make the company more efficient and the employees feel better respected. Oddly enough, I think my niche for doing that is through Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. I am not kidding. I believe that I can hel apply the law in such a way that not only is the company compliant, but also improves the working environment. So, there’s my tack. You see, to be heard by the executives of a company on something like policy and Sox, you have be one of them, and for that I need the MBA. However, it does not need to be a top-tier MBA, just so long as it’s accepted as bonafide.

This is where accreditation and reputation come in. There are, so far as Business schools are concerned, three general levels of accreditation, and four general levels of reputation. Some schools are not accredited by any of the standard regional accrediting boards, and should therefore be avoided. Most schools however, have regional accreditation and a standard for achieving a degree comparable to the most established schools. The distinction, in terms of an actual demonstrably higher standard of academic expectations, would be membership and accreditation in the AACSB, or the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business, an international associaiton with upwards of five hundred business schools as members. Anyone who receives an MBA from an AACBS-accredited school, then, has a legitimate right to claim the highest accepted standard for acedemic qualification.

But that brings us to reputation. I mentioned four general levels of reputation, and these are, well, rather subjective. The top tier would be schools which have automatic name recognition as a business school, such as Wharton, Harvard, or Stanford. Note that in some cases it is the specific Business school which matters, while in others it is the university which carries the shine. These top-level regards are generally created by an alumni from the school who has done well in the world, and his school does the work to make sure they are mentioned whenever the fair-haired hero is named. The second tier would be schools which names have recognition, though the person citing the school may be vaghue on just how he has heard the name. More than a few schools of middling academic standards, therefore, have made their alumni more prominent through success on a playing field. The third level would be schools which are essentially unknown, and the benefit of the doubt is granted or withheld by the interviewer. The lowest level, of course, would be the school which name is known, but not in a positive way. Again, whether the interviewer holds this against the applicant depends on his or her personal choice. There is no hard and fast rule on where a given school will fall, but it should be understood that such pools of repute exist, and a school will affect your initial impression.

[ to be continued ]

Weiners On Parade – Censorship and Advocacy

---

Well, as usual the cartoon “South Park” has found a way to upset people, even when they agree completely with the cartoon’s message. This week, it was the high & mighty Weiner Dogs In Suits who run Comedy Central. You may recall that last week “South Park” ran the first part of a show wherein another cartoon, “Family Guy”, features a cameo appearance by the Muslim founder Mohammed. This cartoon of the Prophet would theoretically inflame radical Muslims blah blah blah. The guys at “South Park” did a nice job of sending up the hypocrisy of America proudly surrendering to Islam while denying their cowardice. Naturally, a lot of people were looking forward to this week’s ‘part 2', where Mohammed was supposed to actually show up.

Comes the day, and what happens at the big moment? The screen goes black, except for a text description explaining that Mohammed hands a football helmet to the Family Guy. Immediately after that another text screen explains “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network”, and that launched the debate. At first, many people figured it was somehow part of the joke, a dig at the hypocrisy of modern broadcasting, if a strange one. But at NRO, Stephen Spruiell confirmed that Comedy Central actually did, in fact, make that transformation to flaccid weiner in one incredibly fast lapse of ideals.

Here we go again, into another debate which probably won’t change anything. Maybe that’s what saps my energy about discussing it. Of course, it should be observed that this is not Censorship, since it involves a private company making a decision about what it will do with its own proprietary material. That said, it certainly sends a message of poor import, to talk about Free Speech and eviscerate it at the very point which makes the point. I still suspect that the clip was always created that way, because there is no question to me that the “South Park” writers, Trey Parker especially, wanted to spark debate, and the episode as aired certainly did that.

But it occurs to me that we are missing the flip side here. I am not especially bothered when something is suppressed in order to prevent an undesired reaction, especially if people have the opportunity to find it elsewhere. Some people have pointed out that they don’t mind the negative things written by the press about President Bush, except that the press writes so differently about Democrats like President Clinton. They don’t mind so much that people won’t run a picture of Mohammed because it might offend Muslims, except that the same people have no concerns about pictures which are specifically intended to insult and offend Christians. The problem is not so much Censorship, since a private company or group has the right to choose what it supports, but an Advocacy falsely presented as objective fact. So it doesn’t bother me that I don’t see pictures of Mohammed, but by that established rule claimed by the media, I should not have to see pictures which defame my Lord and Savior. The practice goes beyond media, of course. I was reading a back issue of “Scientific American” this week, and came across two disturbing articles. One was an editorial demanding that pharmacists be compelled to provide “morning after” pills, even if such products directly violate their religious or moral principles. By itself, that was one thing, but the writer, speaking in the official capacity of the magazine, stated that pharmacists do not enjoy the same rights as scientists and doctors who also object to any practice connected to Abortion. The magazine actually supported a stance which by definition was duplicitious. Whatever your politics, this can hardly be called a morally defensible position, but is plain tyranny. Towards the back of the magazine, I read an approving review of a book denouncing Republicans, on the subjective claim that President Bush somehow is hostile towards Science. Not only were the cited claims at odds with the facts as I know them, the writer and reviewer completely left off from considering evidence that the President, and Republicans, approve and support a great many scientific endeavors. For instance, the review and the book made no reference to the fact that President Bush has requested, and the Republican-led Congress allocated, more money for AIDS research than any previous Administration, and by a significant measure. Again, my issue was not the partisan flavor of the article, but the presentation of the political insult as if it were objective fact. The two examples in that magazine were rank hypocrisy, and yet had made it past the editors and whatever proof-readers the magazine uses, right onto the pages. It leads me to question the magazine’s credentials to make any sort of claim, if that kind of conduct is to be condoned.

This brings me to the blogs. Some people have dismissed political commentary blogs, because they see only a partisan argument. This is true, yet such claims miss the point that bloggers like me are only setting the balance right again, matching Conservative opinion and insight against the long-time presentation we saw only from the Left. Walter Cronkite was a truly influential Liberal. It was two decades later before Rush Limbaugh found the opportunity to answer him. Dan Rather was a truly influential Liberal. It was another two decades before Hugh Hewitt was able to counter him on anything like the same level. Countless other Liberal figureheads and icons have set this country on a course towards Socialism and all manner of wrongs, and it has taken time for the course to even begin correction. So, while I will do my level best to be open-minded and tolerant, it is my duty to speak truth directly and loudly, to balance the lies and demagoguery so long spewed from the mouths and papers of the Left. It is my place to set things Right, to speak for hope and truth and the ideals on which this nation was founded and which is the hope left to us by God, to save this world from itself.

Drake’s Advice On Iran

--*--

One disappointing facet of American education these days, is the lack of respect for History. As a result, people grow up to believe all manner of foolish things, like thinking not supporting their party will do anything but help the opposing party, like thinking that when two people disagree, the truth must lie somewhere in between them, or that you can trust a single group of media elites to give you an objective presentation of the facts. But it also means people miss the opportunity to learn lessons from the past, some of which could help to avoid costly repetition of History. And one of those lessons comes to us from the Honorable Sir Francis Drake.

Even as we speak, the insane asylum which passes for the Majlis of Iran is supporting the Jihadist policies of Mahmoud “Me for Mahdi” Ahmadinejad, which include a determined effort to ramp up uranium enrichment in what appears to professional eyes to be a clear weaponization campaign. That is, Mad Mad Mahmoud wants Iran to have a nuclear weapons stockpile. Needless to say, such a development would be bad enough when a government is known to be hostile to several of its geographic neighbors, but when that government has a significant history of supporting and even sponsoring terrorist groups and operations, the danger passes all limits of acceptable threat. A response is demanded, one which will fully counteract the steps taken by Iran towards a nuclear conflagration.

This is, of course, where matters get tricky. Iran has not, despite its apparent rush, just sat down and thrown its program together, but instead has developed a program which protects its material and secrets, both physically and in operational terms. The nuclear laboratories and development sites are in eight or nine locations, most of them underground and hardened against expected modes of attack. In addition, Iran’s nuclear sites are known to practice good discipline with regard to operational security, especially signals emissions and communication over clear airwaves. This makes any mission to wipe out the program in one blow difficult, even for the kind of weapons possessed by the United States. Also, given the recent actions taken by the U.N., the media, and some of our supposed “allies”, it could be very difficult to launch an attack on the sites before Iran found out about it and moved its critical components.

This is where Sir Francis comes in. Most people don’t have a lot of knowledge about the 16th Century, or interest in it for that matter, but the world was a busy place then, just as now. The world’s closest thing to a superpower in that day was England, which was hated by a lot of nations on the European mainland. Indeed, looking at how Queen Elizabeth I was regarded by most of the European leaders, one can see the seeds of common sentiment between England and America, even so long before the birth of our nation. And like the braver leaders of our day, Elizabeth often found it difficult to address serious threats to her realm, even where she explicitly held the power to act. Circumstance was not often a friend, and so ingenuity must be called to service.

This was especially the case with Spain. Spain was into Catholicism in a very political way, especially with regard to the British. In 1569, the Pope in Rome declared Queen Elizabeth a heretic, and this spurred Philip II of Spain to apply religious overtones to his continuing feuds with England. Two notable developments pressed events to a crisis. First, Francis Drake, a noted pirate nicknamed “El Draque” for his daring, showed a clear preference for Spanish vessels as his targets, leading Philip II and many other Spanish nobles to blame Elizabeth for an alleged sponsorship of the man. Also, not unlike the Jihadists of today, the Spanish crown sponsored acts of violence against Protestants in the Netherlands, with Philip II himself promising a bounty for the murder of William of Orange. When William was murdered in 1584, England answered calls from Dutch rebels to send the Earl of Leicester in as Governor-General, which in no way pleased the Spanish. Accordingly, it became the policy of the court of King Philip II to invade England and overthrow both the court of Elizabeth and the new Anglican Church. To that end a huge fleet of warships was built, called the “Grande y Felicisima Armada” or Armada.

Whether or not Elizabeth had sponsored Drake before, she saw the need now for his service, and Drake also saw the need for such an alliance. Drake quietly began to cultivate contacts with the Basques, a minority in Spain who had been seeking rights and a homeland without success. Somehow, Drake convinced the Basques to help work on the ships of the Armada, but with special attention to certain details, like the masts and rigging. No one knows precisely how many ships were so targeted, but this all took place while the ships were in construction in 1586-7. The Spanish planned to test their new fleet to make sure they were sea-worthy, so to prevent this Drake raided the Port of Cadiz, leaving England on April 12, 1587, and arriving at Cadiz on April 29th late in the afternoon. Over the next day and a half, Drake destroyed every ship in port, some thirty-seven warships and merchant vessels, taking little damage himself. After this, Drake made as if he was headed to the West Indies, where in 1585-6 he had raised havoc before. This essentially forced the Spanish to do two things. First, they negotiated with the same Basques Drake had recruited to replace the destroyed supplies, and second, they decided to make the fleet ready for invasion; it was deemed too risky to let the ships sit at port, even for testing of their condition. So Philip ordered the fleet to make ready for the invasion of England, some hundred-thirty warships. These finally made sail in mid-April 1588, complete with Basque-supplied food (which included such delicacies as rotted fruit and rat bodies) and Basque-conditioned masts and sails.

The fleet ran into a storm shortly after leaving Lisbon, where the Basque’s handiwork showed its results. No ships were destroyed then at the storms, but the entire fleet had to return to port for repairs. Unfortunately for the Spanish, the damage done to the sails and rigging did not suggest to them the need to inspect their keels and hulls. The patched-up fleet set out again in May and held close to the northern coast of Europe as it approached England. A raid through the English Channel emboldened the Spanish, as Drake was not in position to fire effectively at the Armada, but the Spanish were not able to land troops at that time, for a variety of reasons. So the Spanish retreated to Calais and waited for the troops they were to ferry across to England, some 30,000 men headed by General Parma. This delay provided an opportunity for the English.

Admiral Howard sent a number of “fireships” into the Spanish fleet. Old worn-out ships loaded up with wood, tar, loaded guns and various explosives, these ships were released upwind of the Armada and allowed to make mischief as the wind permitted. More than a few ships of the Armada panicked when they recognized the fireships, so much so that some cut their anchor lines in order to get away from them. Those ships which cut their anchor lines lost significant ability to remain in position with a standing fleet, thus weakening the formation. The next day the English fleet attacked in earnest, and while the battle was technically indecisive, the smaller but mush more maneuverable English fleet suffered far fewer losses than the Spanish, and more to the point, both sides understood that the Armada was far from invincible. After losing dozens of ships, the remaining Armada of more than a hundred ships fled into the North Atlantic, and the threat of invasion from Spain was over.

Sailing around to the east coast of England, the Armada then discovered the cost of using the Basques. Strong gales met the fleet and many weakened hulls, whether from battle or the mischief from the Basque dockworkers, gave way. Most of the remaining Armada sank in the storms. This battle sent a clear message to France and other rivals of England; the Lion could be thwarted in its ambitions, but invading the island was far more difficult than it appeared, and could undo the invader through the attempt.

The lesson from Sir Francis is deep in layers. You use what weapons are made available to you, whether the ordinary or the unconventional. You make use of your enemy’s rivals and other foes to achieve common advantage. You do the unexpected. And you use every weapon at hand. The United States, in the matter of Iran, has every right to destroy the regime of Ahmadinejad, has every right to seek and destroy the key elements of the nuclear enrichment campaign, and has the right to act unilaterally or in cooperation with allies, as it sees fit.

If I were put in charge of a program to deal with Iran, I see three projects which deserve my support. First, I would set up special units tasked to attack and destroy critical elements of Iran’s nuclear development team; a nuke is a complex device and the loss of certain material or components can devalue the threat. Along those lines, I would suggest finding means to contaminate the fissile material, as well as deny or sabotage trigger mechanisms. Bearing in mind the likelihood that Iran’s principal use of a nuclear device would be as a terrorist weapon, the targeting of guidance or delivery platforms would be a lesser priority, although still worthwhile. The elimination of selected military and imamate leaders would also be a logical priority, although such actions would require NCA approval and must be held in strictest secrecy. I would not, for reasons of visibility and likely public outcry, target Ahmadinejad himself or high-profile Majlis leadership, but would instead sponsor, although indirectly, more secular political alternatives, which do in fact exist in Iran and whose public support is far greater than the media reports.

As to immediate actions, I would strongly support planning for air raid on any military assets which could be expected to be used in any kind of offensive action, especially staging bases for armor, submarine docks, and silos within 100 km of the borders to Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. I would ask Congress to immediately double the effective military commitment to Qatar, the U.A.E., and Bahrain. I would make clear to anyone asking on the issue, that I considered Iran a clear threat to the United States and its interests, and that preparations for an appropriate response to any Iranian action must be undertaken now.

If Iran was ever directly connected to any insurgent actions inside Iraq, I would authorize reprisal raids within Iran, so far as Zanjan, Arak, or Ahvaz. I would make clear that any action by Iran risked decisive response, to be decided and measured solely by the United States.

I would also work from within, however. Iran has been seeking support from the Palestinian Authority who, once you get past their fecal leadership, can sometimes be surprisingly useful as an ally. The PA, apparently unknown to the Iranians, have been making some overtures to the West, as many members are less than pleased with the results of their last elections. Carefully managed, then, the PA may in some cases serve American interests if specific members can be recruited. The reason they would want to do this, is the common-sense desire to be on the winning side for once, knowing that their only serious chance at a permanent homeland is with U.S. support, which would have to be earned. Also, the League of Arab States is more than a little below the radar – this group of 21 nations is not unlike NATO in some respects, and while technically non-affiliated with the United States, has cooperated with the U.S. in some past times, and certainly leans more towards America than towards Iran, which (pointedly) is not a member of the League.

My point is that we don’t have to have big explosions in major towns in order to have significant results – indeed, such operations as will serve us best may well be underway already. Just something to think about when the MSM goes off pretending to know what it’s talking about.

The Revenge of Jabba – How Ted Kennedy Wages War Against America

- jdi -

I can’t say that I hate Ted Kennedy. I try very hard not to hate anyone, and in Ted’s defense he’s been through some tragedy and drama in his life. That said, I cannot easily think of anyone else in American politics who has done more than Ted Kennedy to undermine and devalue the American ideal and Constitutional standards. Therefore, I will say here that I consider Ted Kennedy an especially pernicious enemy of the Republic, and a villain in the darkest context.

It should also come as no surprise that I am a staunch supporter of President George W. Bush. In my eyes he is the greatest President of my lifetime, even passing Ronald Wilson Reagan, who before 2001 held that position so firmly that second place in the standings could not be seen. The War on Terror, the all-out resolution to settle matters in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tax cuts, the courage to take on Social Security reform, two outstanding Supreme Court selections and many outstanding Federal court appointments, and the tenacity to attempt broad reforms in many other arenas makes Bush a truly significant leader and visionary. The present whiners and fair-weather supporters do not detract from his accomplishments in the slightest. Dubya has his faults, of course. He has difficulty at times confirming that he understands the public mood, and even when he is fully in command of an issue, he often must be understood by what he does, because his elocution is clumsy. A bit like Moses in that respect, but I digress… I have been trying to sort out what it is, precisely, which prevents President Bush from being plainly understood and his proposals being seriously considered. The answer was obvious; Senator Kennedy was insinuating himself into every debate like Jabba the Hutt making a wager, in such a way as to suggest that he agreed with the President, thereby invalidating Bush’s position from serious counsel. The first time Jabba did this was when Bush began to propose a means to reform public education. Senator Jabba attached himself to the issue, and conned many leading Republicans into supporting not Dubya’s initial ideas, but the perverted version spun by the Hutt from Massachusetts. The result turned “No Child Left Behind” into ‘Ted Kennedy’s Sabotage Delight'. Seeing the success of his mission, Jabba has worked relentlessly against Dubya and against America, all the while pretending to embrace serious discussion. And this is his mietre again, in addressing the Illegals question.

The New York Times is worried about Kennedy’s “drive to strike a deal with Republicans", comparing the demands of illegal aliens to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Utter garbage to be sure, but it shows that even the Times has noticed Kennedy’s attempts to pull Republicans into his orbit. A word to President Bush, if I may – keep Ted Kennedy’s tentacles off your plans, please, and direct the GOP to steer clear of Senator Jabba’s company.

Taxes

$$$

Because my father is in the hospital, I did his taxes last week. As a result, I am still finishing up my own return, which has put me in a mood to discuss the American tax system, in none too kind a sentiment. Basically I believe, as I understand most people do, that the system we have in place is inconsistent, inequitable, and simply fails in its most important functions. The questions of course are to find a better system, and then find a way to commit Congress to adopting that improvement.

There are essentially five ways in which a government can produce revenue through taxation. The government may apply a tax to the general population in some manner, it may tax consumption, it may tax foreign investment, it may tax the presumably wealthy and the acquisition of luxury items, and it may tax corporate wealth. The United States does all of these things. The average person pays taxes on his income, his home and automobile(s), pays sales tax on his purchases, pays additional tax on gasoline and “luxury” items, pays Social Security and Medicare, and gets less from his employer than he might because his employer is forced to pay Social Security and Medicare, as well as a variety of corporate taxes. If our man saves any money and invests it, he then has to pay taxes on any interest or profit from it. And most of that is Federal tax; we have not touched State, County, and Local taxes except for the property tax and license fees. There are tolls to pay on some roads, additional sales tax for all sorts of things, and additional fees for basic services, like water, sewer, trash pick-up and so on. Assuming our man has electricity, there are additional taxes and fees included in his statement, and the same for his phone service, his cable TV and/or satellite, and additional charges when he gets rid of his old tires, batteries, and motor oil. Small wonder the average American feels overtaxed; there are fees and charges hidden in just about everything.

This is just stupid. What I mean is, not only do I disagree with the present method, but the way the system works is sure to anger the taxpayers, regardless of their situation. Consider the Income Tax filing, for example. If a taxpayer finishes his form and discovers he owes money, he is angry at having paid taxes all year, and now is being told to pay still more. But if he has overpaid and is due a refund, the taxpayer will be unhappy that the government has taken too much of his money, and he has to ask for his own money back, money which he could have spent or invested earlier, but the government took too much. The 1040 Form is difficult to fill out, especially with the implied threat of penalty even if an honest mistake is made. All in all, the system is very poorly presented, and the whole manner very inefficient and punitive. It allows too many loopholes, yet at the same time punishes too many regular people. It is highly unlikely that any two people find themselves in the exact same tax condition, which further creates the impression that the system is inconstant and arbitrary, that someone who knows how to play with numbers is allowed to cheat while someone trying to pay his fair share gets taken for a sucker. Worse, the IRS has recently had to admit that its own telephone counselors sometimes give out the wrong advice, yet they still penalize the taxpayer for the error.

This only adds to the contempt the average American must feel for the tax agency. Then there is the tax rate. The U.S. Income Tax system uses a graduated tax rate scale, meaning that the percentage tax you must pay rises as your income rises. As Rush reminds us, the top half of wage earners pay 96.03% of all income taxes, which means that as you work harder and get your well-deserved promotions, the government will take more and more of your paycheck. Add to that the taxes paid on investments, capital gains, interest, and so on, and what you have is a clear disincentive to save or state your earnings.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

It’s no wonder that every corporation of significant size and every individual of significant worth hires as good a tax attorney as he can find, to protect what he has. And this in turn angers the Middle Class taxpayer. He knows he is paying taxes which the poor escape, yet he feels he is paying a larger share than the rich, whom he believes use lawyers to skate from heavy taxes. So at every level, the taxpayer feels he is improperly burdened by the system. That’s not the best way to collect revenue, making your citizens feel that they are being played for suckers.

The Federal Budget being sorted out by Congress right now is an estimated $2.77 Trillion dollars.
Given the estimated 143.6 million working people in the United States, that works out to $19,289.69 per working person. That’s, uh, just your Federal tax tab for this year. Feel rich? It may surprise people to see the average so high, because most people don’t notice how much their employers have to pay, and how much more gets handled through bonds and the like. And, ahem, because the Federal government has been quite willing to spend money it does not have, and knows it will not produce. It seems to me that one necessary change in the allocation of Federal monies should be, that no member of the House, Senate, Judiciary or White House should receive a penny of money until and unless all other federal apportionments have been made, and then paid only from remaining balances, not allowing for any deficit spending for their paychecks. That would spur interest in a balanced budget, I believe.

The Future of Latino America

..-..

Well, the mob was out there again this weekend, stomping around demanding that Congress stop legislation which might slow down the flood of illegal entry into the United States. As before, a large portion of the marchers were students, with a large representation of Liberal special interest groups. As before, the marchers had no interest in the facts, but demanded “Fairness”, “Justice”, and opportunity for “all immigrants”. The strange thing is that no one objects to those things for immigrants, but we do wish to have some measure of security for our borders from terrorists, murderers, and the like. And in that deceptive speech lies the fraud being perpetrated upon the Hispanic immigrants themselves, by their self-framed “advocates”. The way of these protests, if successful, would condemn millions of Latinos to lives of suffering and deprivation, specifically because of the methods used by these groups.

I have mentioned before, that I believe many of the illegals do not understand how the system is meant to work, and worse are lied to about their chances of being accepted here. This is for a number of reasons. First is language; if you cannot understand what someone is saying to you, you cannot participate in dialogue with them. For all the pride in Latino heritage, refusing to learn English speech and reading only denies Hispanics opportunity in education, work, and society. Simply put, far more people speak English than Spanish, especially in the United States, so refusing to learn English is to reject the opportunities offered by the majority of the people. Second is culture; Hispanics and Caucasians and Asians and Blacks who live in the United States often find a lot of common ground. Where laws are concerned, many habits between the races are similar, and for the simple reason that people tend to obey laws which they consider necessary and reasonable, and a consensus is developed through a sense of mutual respect and responsibility. Consequently, it is vital for immigrants to learn quickly which laws are most important and act in cooperation for those priorities and ideals. Otherwise, immigrants will find themselves outcasts because they do not act in alignment with commonly accepted rules of behavior.

This is the real cost of supporting illegal immigration. Besides the obvious dangers in allowing people to enter the country without reasonable checks to ensure they will be neither violent nor a burden on the country, there is the fact that such practices introduce a wholly unacceptable dichotomy into the nation’s landscape; people who are neither taught the standards of conduct and their benefits, nor are they inclined to learn to participate within their new community. These illegals attempt to subvert the laws and covenants of American cities and states for their own personal benefit, which is the conduct of thieves and rebels. It is not at all unreasonable for a nation to protect itself against such conduct, nor to increase security where necessary to protect the general welfare of its citizens.

The hypocrisy taught by the illegal entrant proponents is evident by a simple examination of their own conduct. People commonly lock their doors and windows these days, in order to keep out burglars and predators, yet these same people object to the government securing the border from the same sort of criminals. They want to be able to work for the wages promised without fraud, and to receive what they pay for, yet they object to the government demanding fair payment of taxes and measures to prevent fraudulent use of services and resources. They want to raise their children to be good and honest, yet see nothing wrong with breaking important laws whenever they choose.

If illegal immigration is not significantly curtailed, not only will Hispanics continue to increase as a share of the population (which is fine), but the participation of Hispanics here who are illegal and non-compliant with U.S. law will increase, not only as a share of the general population, but as a proportion of the Hispanic demographic. This is a crisis which threatens all Hispanics, because if and when illegals outnumber legitimate Hispanics in the United States, this will corrupt Hispanic values and ideals with the replacement by illegal and immoral practices, as already evidenced by increased gang activity, especially in terms of drug and gun running, by such groups as the Latin Kings and M13. Such actions will inevitably provoke a crackdown by government forces, which can only harm all Hispanics. Further, the conflict between illegals and law enforcement can only escalate, as the illegal population crosses the line where the economy can no longer provide ready employment and functional resources; the balance is already strained in hospitals and schools, and so a backlash is inevitable. In addition, the trite argument that illegals 'do the jobs regular Americans refuse to do’, even if true, does not consider that such jobs are limited in number, duration, opportunity, and location, and as a result continued illegal entry by workers unable to pursue advancement because of their legal status and poor education, especially communication skills, will directly result in an explosion of unemployment in those cities and regions where illegal entrants live. In addition, the social separation between illegals and Americans, brought about by the continuing refusal to assimilate, will result in bitter isolation and insurgent rhetoric, which in turn can only lead to a devastating increase in crime and violence; it is not unreasonable to expect riots, even insurrection, in urban areas. The problems which Mexico is facing today result from ignoring the troubles in its neighbors to the South; the United States cannot afford to repeat that mistake.

The sole solution to this crisis is to act now in protecting the infrastructure of the economy and state governments. A wall/fence must be built and maintained; sharp and direct penalties must be enforced on anyone who supports or protects illegal entry, whether the coyotes who make fortunes in human trafficking or the employers who choose to ignore mandatory identification procedures. Hispanics who are here legally must become involved, especially to help illegals understand the reasons for following the process to valid residency and citizenship. Spokesman for Latinos must make clear that while treasuring one’s own heritage is precious and right, demanding to supplant American values and laws within the United States is wrong and destroys their own opportunity. Democrats and Republicans alike must fight the temptation to play political short-term games in order to win the next election, and serve the country in the greater measure by protecting borders and government alike. And we the people must support the heavy lifters, and remain focused on the larger ideal.

The Middle East - A Primer

[00-]

One thing which sticks in my craw is when people in the media bray on and on about something where they clearly do not understand the context or direction. Certainly this is the case with the War in Iraq, where every MSM reporter seems to begin with a network orientation that presumes defeat, negativism, and anti-American anger by the locals. Such a posture is not only dishonest and falsely maligns the noble and costly work of our military, but also insults our Middle East allies.

Take the DP World ports deal, for example. Yes, it was badly handled by pretty much everyone, but the annoying presumption began with comparisons between the United Arab Emirates and Al Qaeda. Such statements only displayed a complete lack of comprehension about the history and character of the Middle East, usually made and repeated by people who couldn't be bothered to learn the basics. This article attempts to begin discussion about the Middle East by identifying the key players and their significance.

Most people do not care to learn History, so I will leave off from the thick mass of information, and just start off with a quick recitation about who the major players are in the Middle East, or as I think of them, the Six Directions of the Middle East. The cast may surprise you.

Egypt - Many people don't think of Egypt as a major player in the Middle East, but for most of History Egypt was definitely Big-League. When Rome set up its empire, the main nation in the Middle East was Egypt. When Napoleon set out to control the Middle East, he did so by taking control of Egypt. And Britain did the same, never quite making Egypt a colony but setting up garrisons all the same. One reason for the Suez Canal, after all, was that it established gains for both Egypt and Britain. And finally, two of the most significant major players in the 20th Century Arab world were named Nasser and Sadat. The first shock from the Middle East to scare both the Kremlin and Washington was not OPEC, but the United Arab Republic. And it was Nasser and Sadat whose 'Non-Aligned' nations tactics forced both sides to treat with them.

Saudi Arabia - When Islam granted Arabia control and stewardship of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, it was partly because of the piety represented by the families in place. When Ibn Saud made his deals with the Imam Muhammad Abdul Wahhab, it was a cunning blend of politics with religion, and led to the rise of modern-day Wahhabism, the reactionary sect which is believed to drive some, if not most, of the Jihadist violence of the past two centuries. The Royal Family has tried to distance themselves somewhat from the worst extremists, but this is a bit like a Mafia family trying to go 'legit' and pretend their money just happened through innocence. More, the Crown in Riyadh has always had a hand in affairs of the neighboring, and also smaller and less influential, countries, trying to annex desirable territory and coerce agreements to Saudi advantage. As an example, almost no one realizes that the U.A.E. was a band of small nations which created a federal government to prevent their invasion or plain annexation by Saudi Arabia. Abu Dhabi for example almost ceased to exist in 1949, as Riyadh claimed nearly 80% of the land as its own. Fortunately for the Sheikh, the Saudis attempted to bribe a British arbitrator in 1954, which offense caused the British to declare that a modified version of the 1937 boundaries would serve as the line. More than a few Middle Eat nations have suggested that Saudi Arabia has few friends beyond the ones impressed with its money.

Iran - It's a plain fact to people now, that the Muslim extremists in Teheran have been creating and supporting terrorist organizations, for the purpose of destabilizing Middle East regimes and pursuing an asynchronous warfare against the West. But the Shah also pressed to expand his empire, and another reason for forming the U.A.E. was Iran's continuing effort to seize desirable oil fields and strategic islands. "Persia", as Iran was called until 1971, regularly represented itself as the Empire of the Middle East.

Iraq - Besides its unmatched capacity for oil processing, Iraq served to counter both Saudi Arabia and Iran in weight and power, a check many Arabs thought was necessary to prevent hegemony. Yet the Communists almost turned Iraq into a trump card, by fueling insurgencies throughout the Middle East through proxy terror groups and various "Popular Fronts", such as Yemen. The Baath Party existed long before Saddam Hussein, and assassins hired in Baghdad are an old, old story.

Britain - When Napoleon invaded Egypt, Britain discovered that it needed to not only have friends in the Middle East, as a barrier to protect India and for its position in the Mediterranean Sea, but to control vital territory. Accordingly, Britain set garrisons in numerous places, and established not only the ruling families, but the boundaries of many countries. This arrangement lasted longer than the colony system for Britain, indeed well into the 1970s.

The United States - When Britain began to cut and run from military commitments in the Middle East, the nation which took up the slack was America. Not only because the United States also desired stable oil production and a barrier against Soviet overthrow of important strategic nations, but also because the Middle East recognized that they needed a 'Patron', a nation which would prevent apocalyptic change.

It comes down to this, then. Every significant international event by a Middle East nation in the past century has been in cooperation with, reaction to, or opposition against one of these six major players. From there, the course should make more sense.

Citizenship & Residency

--.

In this nation, we take pride in accepting the misfits from around the world. But some think ‘misfits’ is the same thing as the criminals, the thugs, the vermin, and its high time to correct that nonsense.

The United States, as I have written before, has never had a consistent policy on Immigration, and we are paying for that mistake. My father expressed to me his deep contempt for a system which, in his lifetime, barred Asians, Jews, and adherents of certain religions from entering the United States, while applying much more lenient standards to Europeans, even when they were communists and fascists. He saw the hypocrisy of a nation which boasted of its open arms, but whose businesses posted signs which read – please excuse me for the coarse language – “No Niggers, Wops, Kikes, or Micks”; a harsh and blunt rejection for the very existence of Black Americans, Americans from Italy, Jews, and the Irish. My father saw such signs in Philadelphia, where he was born and raised, and more than once pointed out to me the irony of such signs posted within 500 feet of the display for the Liberty Bell. I learned from such lessons the need to examine any policy closely.

Of course, in my age I have seen the hard examples of Angel Maturindo Resendez, an illegal immigrant who killed at least seven people who did nothing to provoke him, and various murders of police officers by illegal aliens whose conduct has failed to gain any apparent notice from Congress. The clear message is, we need a better plan.

The United States first established a national policy on Immigration after the Civil War. Up to that time each separate state was able to set a policy as it saw fit, which led to some significant disparity in demographics. In 1875 the U.S. Supreme Court declared Immigration the province of the Federal government, so in 1891 the Immigration Service, a forerunner to the INS, was created. There was no Border Patrol until 1924, so you can see what that meant for effective immigration control. This is significant, because for all the modern noise and worry, the Federal government did not pay much attention to the borders for most of our history. The Depression of the 1930s kept many immigrants from coming to the United States, for the obvious reason that we no longer seemed as attractive as before. Also, individual states and towns were able to enforce whatever controls they saw fit. To be blunt, in the age of Jim Crow laws if you were not white and male you stood little influence in a courtroom or with a police officer, so many minorities simply tried to avoid being visible. The lack of a comprehensive Immigration policy only made things murkier. While this made assimilation a functional need for immigrants, it also made reform trickier.

As to Latinos, one issue of concern was the practice of migrant workers, people who came into the United States to work during harvesting season, but who then returned to Latin America to their permanent homes. The Bracero Program, begun in 1942 but formalized by a treaty between the United States and Mexico in 1951, allowed for migrant workers to cross the southern border each way, and this program was a source not only of great advantage, but also manipulation and fraud, by many people on both sides of the border. The program was officially ended in 1964, but continues in practice more or less unabated. It has been suggested that INS officials were pressing a revised version of the program to President Bush in 2001, but it was delayed by the response to the 9/11 attacks. If so, resubmitting the plan without proper security considerations would be singularly poor thinking.

Essentially, modern Immigration presents four issues which demand resolution in whatever program is to be enacted:

1. The borders of the United States must be secured to prevent entry by criminals or terrorists.

2. Immigrants do not generally speak English, or desire to assimilate. Assimilation, including knowledge of basic English and compliance with general Law as established in the United States, including financial responsibility, must be demonstrated as part of any program for residency, work, or citizenship.

3. Immigrants tend to live and work in cultural communities. This culture should be supported and acknowledged, but not to the point of supplanting other valid cultures. Insurgent political groups, such as ‘La Raza', must not be tolerated.

4. Americans who cooperate or who are complicit in attempts to knowingly bring illegal entrants into the United States must face felony charges, whether for purposes of employment, deliberate illegal activity, or any support or participation in an action known to be in violation of Federal law regarding non-citizens.

The Constitution of the United States does not appear to me to define Citizenship by a non-native person, which I find a wise precaution. Article IV. Section 2 seems to imply that National Citizenship derives from State citizenship, and of course the 14th Amendment carries the key phrases:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This is a significant statement to me, that a person must be “subject to the jurisidiction” of the United States and their residing state in order to be considered a citizen. That phrase has been used in the past to deny people the claim to dual-citizenship; you cannot say the laws of the United States do not apply to you if you want to be counted as an American citizen. Accordingly, any person who enters the United States illegally does not reasonably enjoy any consideration even as a potential citizen, which is a fundamental consideration for Residency. Further, the argument that simply being born in the United States is less than solid; if the means by which a child is born is fraudulent, then even being born on American soil does not confer citizenship, because the means used to produce that birthplace was in defiance of the jurisdiction, not subject to it, as the Amendment requires. In the days of liberal judges, this obvious attempt to subvert the law could be and was ignored, but with proper judicial oversight, the Constitution makes clear that the Federal government can and should make corrections to the flaccid policy which allows Citizenship and Residency on far less than reasonable conditions.

I am not wise enough to speak in specific to the conditions that should pertain to Citizenship and Residency, except that they must address the four issues I listed above, and an absolute requirement must be an oath of allegiance to the United States; anyone unwilling to protect the Sovereignty of the United States over its territory and people must not be allowed the rights or privileges granted our residents and citizens. We are a nation of immigrants, and must be open to those who wish to join us. That does not mean, however, that we must accept those who wish to destroy us.

America And Assumptions

...

Everyone makes assumptions. It’s a necessary part of living in a complex world. Most assumptions are pretty reasonable, like expecting gravity to remain in force and the laws of physics to follow their nominal patterns. But others, especially the ones involving human behavior, are less credible when examined, yet people hold them as currency in developing their plans. A clear example of this is the present Middle East situation.

President George W. Bush began his planning for military action in the Middle East with a crucial assumption; that a democratic republic was feasible for governments there, and could be implemented. That assumption is being put to the test right now, and significant policies will be adjusted one way or the other by the results of that experiment, to say nothing of the small matter of the fate of tens of millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am one who believes Dubya’s assumption is valid, and will prove true unless Congress decides to desert our allies - again.

But the other side makes its assumptions as well. More than a few sources say that Ahmadinejad has decided to lay his plans for 2009, when a new and conceivably softer President takes office. Ahmadinejad and his supporting mullahs have come to believe in the assumption that America can only endure short wars with clear, clean endings. Accordingly, he thinks that if he can ratchet up the cost gradually and make a decision doubtful both in time and in cost, we will give up the fight and he can win by default. I believe such an assumption is spectacularly foolish.

I must stop here and examine the ‘short war’ theory. It’s true that America has a history of fighting wars which are historically short; our War for Independence began the fighting in 1775, and settled matters just six years later at Yorktown. We fought a bloody civil war, but it took only four years to reach Appomattox. We did not enter either World War I or World War II until late, and both together represented less than six full years of warfare. It has been said that we cut out of settling affairs in Korea for fear of China, and again the same in Vietnam. It has also been said that we cut and ran under Carter, under Reagan (Lebanon), under Bush and Clinton (Somalia and Haiti). In that light, Dubya is a strange one, an aberration the Jihadists may simply wait out; they know he leaves office after this term.

Yet a closer look at each of those cases shows the lie to the assumption. We did not, actually, settle matters with Britain at Yorktown. The evidence of that lies in the sparring and bickering after the end of that war, all the way through to the end of the next war in 1814, making the war for our nation’s birth really a 39-year conflict, without a lot of clear decisions until the end. You may recall that the British trashed our own capital, and burned down the White House, yet in the end it was America which won, and won without a doubt. One reason the Brits are such good friends with us, is because they know we are not a nation to have as an enemy. It is a deadly mistake to set yourself against us.

As for the Civil War, sure we signed an armistice in 1865, but again it is a great fool who thinks the war was over then. Reconstruction took at least the next generation, and as late as 1964 many of the initial issues remained to be resolved. It’s not at all incorrect to say our Civil War was our own ‘Hundred Years' War’.

As for World War I and World War II, yes we entered late and didn’t muck about waiting to resolve the conflict, but we did so in no uncertain terms. The Kaiser effectively ceased to exist after we invaded Germany in 1918, and after World War II, there was no longer a Nazi government, no longer an “Imperial” Japan, no longer an “Il Duce” in Italy. And there has been no similar style of government in those nations since, and need I mention we have garrisoned troops in those nations ever since that war? Democrat or Republican, every President and Congress understands why, 61 years after we finished that war, we still keep control in those countries. As friends and honored guests now, to be sure, but well-armed and alert for all of that new-minted friendship.

I will say bluntly that Korea and Vietnam stand as tragic reminders to us, of the cost from betraying allies and forgetting commitments. They are not the rule, but the lesson as to why we must be willing to fight. Carter and Clinton did a great deal of damage to American credibility, true, and I was dismayed a bit at our retreat from Lebanon in 1983, but Reagan restored our name and integrity in South America, Africa, and in the Middle East. Far too many people forget that the U.S. Navy escorted tankers through the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, receiving the hatred and scorn from both Mullah and Dictator for their valor, yet the tankers made it through. When we retook Grenada, critics smirked, but it sent a message that there was a line beyond which we would certainly pay in force, and when Qaddafi-supported terrorists bombed a German night club in 1986, the responding air raid sent a clear message that America would no longer settle for diplomatic measures. An “accidental” bomb dropped on the French Embassy sent a perhaps unintentional message to that nation that neutrality is a fiction in such conflicts.

And lest we forget, the Cold War lasted between the end of World War 2 and the end of the first Gulf War, some 46 years, at times threatening truly horrific possibilities. The United States won that war, a war which Liberals would now like to pretend was never really going on. There are too many veterans of violent incidents, however, for that fairy tale to really catch on, yet it seems to have fooled the Mullahs.

Nobody but madmen wants a long bloody war. But it’s an even greater fool who fails to notice that America has had long conflicts in its history and more, tends to settle the conflict by totally removing the group from existence which provoked the conflict. After the American Revolution, there were fewer and fewer absolute monarchs. After the U.S. Marines raided the Barbary Coast, piracy was distinctly less popular. After World War 2, the only places you could find large numbers of Nazis were in certain South American countries and in Hollywood movies. The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man, until we made it abundantly clear that we could literally kill every single person in Japan if we had to do so. When the stakes matter, we do not fight halfway, or settle for terms.

In conclusion, the new movie “United 93” is about to come out, yet another lesson the Jihadists have failed, which will cost them dearly. In the opening lines of the trailer, the narration reminds us that four airliners were hijacked, and three of them made it to their target. The one which did not, was stopped not by the Air Force or Army, but by regular people. Ordinary citizens who had never been trained to fight, who had no warning about what was to happen to them, who were facing near-certain death, discovered what had happened to the twin towers, and took it upon themselves to protect innocents at another place. The heroism of those 40 people stands on its own, deserving of its own honors many times over, but for here it also reminds us that ordinary people, ordinary Americans, can and have stood up when the need was present, an unseen power and authority which no enemy ever seems to count until they are wondering how they could have lost so badly. I cannot say how long it will take or what it will cost, but we will win this war, and in doing so end Jihadism and its cruel minions in the Middle East.

Shalo And Poser

...

My two dogs are littermates, which means they are about the same size and look a lot alike. But each is starting to show his own personality, as I have noticed this week. Last Friday, as I came home from work and opened my yard gate to bring in the trash can, it was a bit dark, so I heard one of my dogs growl in warning at what he thought might be an intruder.

As I opened the gate all the way, I saw Shalo in full guard-dog mode, growling, head lowered and legs set for possible charge. Behind him, maybe 15 feet behind him and off to one side, sat Kyle. Kyle looked very much like he had no plans to deal with an intruder, in fact I would describe him as a spectator.

Then Tuesday night, I woke up to hear a dog barking in my yard. I looked out and saw Shalo about a foot away from the fence, again in his best ‘don’t mess with me’ pose, barking in full voice at someone outside the fence, apparently down the street a way. Kyle was relaxing in the porch swing, watching Shalo. Then Kyle turned his head and noticed I was watching. At that moment he jumped out of the swing, ran alongside Shalo, adopted the same pose and began barking as if he was the same trustworthy guardian, just like his brother.

I had to laugh, but it reminds me that a lot of people are like that, and you can not be sure sometimes if someone you see is the real deal or a poser. Just something to remember in these days of high-profile images crafted by PR firms.

Winning The PR War On Immigration

...

Congress has been more spineless than usual this week, as many Conservatives have complained. Despite the moral imperative to address Illegal Immigration as a critical National Security and Economic Infrastructure issue, the House and Senate have not managed to put a bill on the President’s desk. In fact, the House, Senate, and White House all seem to be moving towards differing objectives, to say nothing of how the nation’s court system is likely to react to whatever legislation eventually makes its way out into the world. So it is that perverse fate of the universe that seems to grant that the Democrats will gain from this debacle, not through any merit on their part or moral virtue; the Democrats are uniquely malicious towards the notions of protecting the borders or enforcing extant laws regarding citizenship and fraudulent manipulation of our economic and legal system. Yet it is that because the party of reform and ideals seems to be showing little of either at the moment, that the party of pettiness and pandering hopes to gain seats in both Houses, perhaps enough to take over the House or Senate, which result would poison the nation’s course for at least the next two years. As it happens, however, the cause is not yet lost, and the Republicans may yet set things right. Part of that effort, of course, requires the Republicans to start speaking the language of the average American.

When the yappers and whiners finally get tired and leave the discussion to adults, a consensus shows up pretty soon. No one but the criminals thinks we should be granting citizenship to anyone except those who were born here or those who go through the legal system. No shortcuts. No one but the criminals thinks we should give a break to illegals who are already here, as some kind of reward for getting away with it, or to employers who move their business success ahead b breaking the law. After all, you wouldn’t want your builder to ignore the building codes when he builds your house, and you wouldn’t want him to surprise you by dishonestly padding his costs, so it just makes sense to expect him to only hire legitimate workers, that is to say no “undocumented” workers. No one thinks that millions of people pouring through our borders is a good idea, and no one thinks better security is a bad idea. With that in mind, it obviously becomes a matter of how you sell the fix.

The Democrats have learned from the recent past in one respect at least; when you don’t have any ideas, let your opponent hurt himself. With the MSM pushing stories that make the Republicans look incompetent or dishonest, Democrats simply sit there and gain by default. I have been pushing for people to be careful about how they address the issue, because I recognized that the broad attacks against the President have not been helping to resolve the issue or convince Congress to act responsibily, but instead have merely lowered public confidence in the President. False clams about what he intends or has proposed only muddy the waters and make fair examination of his plan that much more difficult. Rabid radicals like Tancredo, who demand perfection now but will not explain the details in their own demands, heighten the tension without any good effect. In the end the noise drowns out better discussion.

President Bush bears some responsibility here, but not in the way he is so commonly attacked. His plans are intelligent and demonstrate a deeper understanding of the causes of this border problem, and he has moved to forestall obstacles being placed by Mexico and other Latin American countries. Yet the common perception is that President Bush either does not understand the issues of Illegal Entrants or worse, sides with them against the American people. While the White House has belatedly begun to corrrect those false claims, other people have allowed the White House to be blamed for their refusal to address the issue, most notably the U.S. Senate. While Senators Kyl and Cornyn have begun to make good suggestions, as a whole the U.S. Senate seems to be in a serious condition of denial.

The problem then for President Bush is not so much that he is on the wrong side of the issue, but that as the Chief Executive of the nation he has not done so well in bringing the teams together in a common effort, and in explaining his priorities and vision to the nation. People sense that Dubya’s on the right road, but the lack of firm details makes it hard to stay on that road with him for many people. This allows Democrats to weasel out of the fact that they either have no alternative to present, or else simply do not wish to control our borders, and it allows egotistical politicians to demagogue the issue and prevent effective discussion of the issue.

The main responsibility, though, lies with the Media. The protests of which the MSM made such commotion, were largely high school and middle school students who saw the protests as a way to get out of school, and urban “progressive” groups which attempt to use any possible issue to attack traditional values and priorities. The MSM tactic of presenting biased polls as news, and manufactured events as some kind of barometer for public commitment, has been shameful and dishonest, and only weakens the already-plastic spine of Congress to address the issue with conviction and resolve. The duty of the New Media, then, begins with correcting the image by providing facts and functional solutions. Whether by radio, blogs, or grassroots politics, the New Media must focus on those whose ideas need highlighting, and whose coordination drives home the argument and which provide solutions. It is not valid for New Media to only make the problem worse by rousing anger and resentment and drowning out calmer voices. Too much of the New Media is copying the tactics of the Old Media, pulling audience response by getting everyone angry, and doing nothing to support the people working to actually move the dialogue forward. This is plain wrong.

There are good ideas out there, some which address the short-term condition and some which address the long-term condition. There is a a consensus which must be the starting pont of all dialogue, and there is a sense of moral responsibility which every member of Congress should be reminded on a regular basis. That challenge faces all of us, not just the suits and the high-profile chuckleheads. And so what happens depends on all of us, not just the convenient blame targets.

The Amazing Stealth Missile?

[ pbbb ]

I used to love to read PRAVDA, the old Soviet newspaper from Tass which proclaimed the glories of the Communist system, usually by departing from reality. Of particular interest to me, was the way in which the latest harvest or production numbers always exceeded previous records, which is to say ignored the past entirely. I suspect PRAVDA saved on its operating costs by ignoring any sense of an Archive. The comedy act was so successful that other nations emulated it, most notably Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, aka Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Ministry of Information spokesman whose assurances that “They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion” as Coalition forces entered Baghdad demonstrated the delusion in Saddam’s regime. I wondered who, if anyone, could match that keen ability to avoid the truth. Now we have a new contender.

The government of Iran test-fired a missile on Saturday, which they claimed could not be detected by radar, and which could deploy multiple warheads. If true, this would significantly raise the stakes in Iran’s bid to build a nuclear warhead to place on those missiles, but the claim struck me as strange.

The Fajr-3, or “Victory” missile, is claimed to be able to reach Israel and/or U.S. bases in the Middle East, again according to Iranian claims. But the actual information does not really bear out the claims. The Fajr-3 was fired underwater, which indicates submarine launching, a sophisticated method and a strategic trump for nuclear planning. Unfortunately for Iran, even if we were to grant the development claims for the missile, the known limits of Iran’s submarine fleet makes it hard to believe that they have developed an effective delivery system for submarine-based missiles.

Also in doubt are the claims of Iran regarding the missile. For instance, the ability to deliver multiple warheads has raised concerns that Iran wants a MIRV-ICBM. However, nothing even in Iran’s claims demonstrates the kind of range or coordinated telemmetry necessary to make such a technology leap. The likelihood is much stronger that Iran wants an MLRS system, still an advance and a threat, but on a much smaller scale. As to evading radar, a number of signal-absorbing paints are known to reduce the signature of missiles, but there remain fundamental problems to cloaking a missile from detection, most obviously the heat plume. Location and direction of any significant missile can be determined by simple thermal satellites, of which there are hundreds already in place. In plain English, even a missile which is difficult to track by radar can be tracked with thermal imaging, magnetic anomoly detectors, sonic wave disruption patterns, and other methods.

Iran also claimed to have successfully tested a 223-mph torpedo, called the “Hoot”. Again, the lack of details raises doubts as to the veracity of the claim, especially the complete absence of tracking and targeting systems for the weapon. It’s awfully hard to be impressed with a fast weapon, if there is little confidence it will hit the target. Further, individual weapons are not as great a threat as a comprehensive force development, which has also not been shown to exist in Iran.

What does this development mean, then? The most likely scenario is quite simple, actually - the military sees a chance to gain reputation in Iran, and the Army and Navy are beginning inter-service skirmishing to claim precedence. Because there is no comprehensive national strategic doctrine in place for Iran, the result is a hodge-podge of officers and agencies fighting for attention and funding. It means developing an advanced torpedo and SL missile, but not the submarine platform it needs to be viable. It means pursuing nuclear weapons, but not developing a hierarchy of command authority, or performing game tests to determine the desired scale and deployment pattern. It means threatening neighboring countries with aggression, but not developing a response doctrine if one of those countries chooses to respond in force. I have compared the Ahmadenijad regime in Iran to the Hitler regime in Germany, but there are important differences, not least the fact that the Germans had a professional corps of military officers and engineers, skilled and experienced in modern warfare as their world knew it. Iran, while fortunate to have some brilliant minds at its disposal, has not developed a comprehensive means for waging a war, whether in defense or conquest. This latest announcement appears to me little more than another attempt by Iran to scare away potential enemies while it begins to put the pieces together.

Cynthia McKinney – Agent For R.O.V.E.

:)

The LORD works in mysterious ways, in this case through the malicious mind of U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Carter Country). The readers are by now no doubt well aware of Ms. McKinney’s most recent adventure, but in summary here it is:

Wednesday, March 29 – Ms. McKinney enters Capitol Hill without the required identification pin for members of the House. She proceeds to walk around the security booth and metal detector, without showing any sort of identification. When a Capitol Police Officer stopped her, Ms. McKinney struck the officer in the chest. The incident was apparently caught on tape, though I have not yet seen footage of the incident.

Friday, March 31 – After consulting with her attorney, Ms. McKinney decides to hold a press conference, where she refused to apologize and instead accused the officer of “inappropriate touching”. McKinney’s lawyer accused the Capitol Police of “police harassment”.

Monday, April 3 – Ms. McKinney escalates her campaign against the Capitol Police, holding another press conference with supporters and a special interest group in order to defend her from the charges. Ironically, despite calling a press conference. McKinney refused to discuss the facts of the incident, her remarks, or to answer any questions from the press she called to the event. Not only is McKinney not apologizing for her actions, her lawyers have actually stated they may file a civil suit on the police officer for doing his job.

So there we are. Just when it looked like the Democrats had a great opportunity to make gains on the Republican in-fighting, here comes Ms. McKinney to remind us that Democrats neither think nor act as Americans do, nor pursue America’s best interest by work or example. In a post-9/11 world, someone who refuses to wear proper identification and who is so hostile towards common-sense security measures that she would strike a police officer for doing his job, cannot be seriously considered as a representative of any competent political party. That Democrats have chosen to rally around Ms. McKinney instead of rebuking her and demanding she apologize and accept the consequences of her actions, simply highlights that they cannot be trusted with National Security. Yes, it’s true that Ms. McKinney did not imperil the nation’s safety by ignoring the Capitol’s security ordinances, nor even when she struck the police officer; that was simply arrogance and boorishness. But the average American has a solid understanding of how you act when the police stop you; the elected representatives in government have a duty to act responsibly in complying with the law, as the high-profile examples they are. When someone like McKinney defies the law in this way, they set themselves apart as a mark of contempt against those standards and laws. And people who respect the laws and their standards, cannot also respect those who ignore them.

Also, Ms. McKinney’s protest against common sense and reasonable measures brings to mind other such rebellion; the reader may remember how President Clinton would ‘give the slip’ to his Secret Service protection every so often, or how Hillary countermanded security orders which she felt hampered her personal space. That was almost a scandal in Bubba's day, but now it's unconscionable for an elected official to spite the same security ordinary people take as a necessity in the post-9/11 world. Ms. McKinney has made the race to Congressional domination just a bit harder for the party of defeat and horse manure. Coming in such a time and situation as now, I find it almost certain that Karl Rove, the Phantom of D.C.'s Operetta, somehow caused it to be.

Many Fail The Test

0

Good day, everyone. I got tired of sitting around waiting for small morsels of information from my father’s doctors, and have decided to post a thought while doing some laundry at home. I will be spending most of my time away from the computer, but will try to revisit this afternoon. Just in summary, thanks to everyone for their kind words, my father’s fever is all but back to normal, though he is very weak. Unfortunately, the docs found an abnormal growth and are waiting for test results to see if it’s benign or malignant. Unlike the TV shows, we aren’t getting answers after the commercial break, and what we are hearing is thin on detail and satisfaction. All that waiting has driven me to seek a means to concentrate on something more productive.

My father gave a long explanation of his dissatisfaction with antibiotics in general, owing to their function of purging the body. As a result, my father is focused on the odor and sense associated with bodily evacuation, which brings to my mind the present conduct of Conservatives and Republicans.

For a man who claimed 62 million popular votes in the last election, and who has done more to establish and maintain the Republican majority than any single individual in the last generation, President George W. Bush sure has to put up with a lot of garbage from his party and self-impressed commentators. I have, more than once, pointed out the virtues of our President, noted that there is no one remotely close in caliber to him running in 2008 save one who does not wish to run. I have noted that Dubya is far more subtle and forward-thinking than many people suspect, which helps him spring traps on liberals and tyrants, provided of course that his own party backs him up instead of putting a knife in his back. I have noted that Dubya’s record demonstrates this kind of multi-level operation; despite the claims from the Liberals, Dubs does not run headlong into a decision, but when the stakes are high he tends to order his actions according to the long-term solution and broadest resolution. This is why he did not panic during the VQ-1 incident in April 2001, where a Chinese fighter jet collided with a Navy reconnaissance aircraft in international waters. Ten days of tense negotiations resulted in the freedom of the 24 U.S. navy airmen, notably without an apology from the United States. In an implicit admission of guilt, the PRC shipped back the EP-3E aircraft to the United States, though in pieces – the Chinese claimed it was not possible to send it back any other way. This is why Bush’s actions on and shortly after 9/11/2001 were careful yet deliberate. This is why he took his time to decide on invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but once committed has never wavered, something few other Republicans have managed to maintain. This is why he requested tax cuts when the Democrats still held enough numbers in the Senate to cause trouble, and why he does not veto Congress – Bush makes his decisions, and trusts the Hill to do the right thing. For all the lies tossed out by the DNC, Bush is a man who strongly believes in the Separation of Powers, and while he fully employs his Presidential authority, he does not try to coerce or punish members of Congress or the Courts for performing their jobs. Whether one approves or not, Dubya is a man of honor, strange enough in Washington D.C., but also a man whose code demands consistency in that honor.

Detractors, opponents, and moral absconders may and do point to decisions they question, and attack the President for any appearance of mortality and personal preferences. Sadly, among these are some who should know better, and who owe far better to the man than they ever serve. Significant examples of this are self-worshipping demagogues like David Frum, people with great minds but petty egos, who forget too readily that no one elected them to office, and that their personal opinion far too often pretends to knowledge the White House holds but they do not. And then there are those whose criticism is valid on the facts, but who forget that timing and presentation make a difference between useful critique and providing ammunition for the enemy. A long time ago, I learned the business management maxim of ’praise in public, rebuke in private’, and it would do well to be employed here in politics. Not that I expect the likes of McCain or Specter to put country ahead of their personal pride, or the party ahead of a sound bite.

It should also be understood that while the President carries one third of the U.S. Government on his shoulders, he usually comes to depend on his staff and support for information and advice. It has been long noted that President is far more loyal and supportive of his team than Presidents usually are, and this sometimes leaves him open to take a hit for a staffer’s mis-statement or error. Also, too often the Bush White House lets an issue sit for too long before addressing it, allowing a valid position to be cast as a poor decision by the Left and the paranoid. A good example of this is the DP World deal, where the White House first failed to consider the likely reaction to the deal, and further failed to explain from the beginning that business contracts do not customarily receive Presidential oversight, especially prior to the DHS and other agencies’ review. Then the staff blundered again, by allowing the President to remain in the media cross-hairs, instead of having the proper individuals explain the situation in context. The U.A.E.’s recent history of close cooperation with the Department of Defense should have been brought up by someone wearing stars on his shoulders. The U.A.E.’s political structure and unique history, especially viz a viz Iran and Saudi Arabia, should have been brought up by the State Department, who were well aware that the U.A.E. is one of our best friends in the region, both in recent performance and in strategic potential. The nature of international businesses flagged in the U.A.E. should have been addressed by the Commerce Department, to remind Americans that the U.A.E. is a federal government of small countries, whose business interests are completely separate from government control in most cases, as in DP World. Instead, the spotlight was focused wrongly on President Bush, who was not properly briefed or supported when the questions began. And worse, it was allowed to remain there.

I have been trying to figure out just why Presidents are so often plagued as “lame ducks” in their second term, because I don’t see the men losing their vision or character. What I see instead, is that their team tends to coast, and worse thinks they have less responsibility for their Chief’s reputation and influence, when in fact they should be working harder than ever. In that light, the departure of Andrew Card is not only appropriate but necessary. I am not, in any way, impugning Card’s work; Chief of Staff of the White House is a slot for which words like “demanding”, “exhaustive”, and “frustrating” are distinct understatements. But with the right replacement, such a shake-up can be good for the Administration. It is an unfortunate custom of politics to deny a rotating squad concept, which could allow for a hard-working staff to take a break without fear of demotion or dismissal. It would also be a good thing for Bush to find someone with the steel to speak bluntly to the “team”. Rove, Rice, Rummy, and the gang are all major-leaguers, and it’s next to impossible for them to accept direction from anyone but the President. Dubs would do well to find someone he could place in front of the GOP and say, in essence, ’he speaks for me’. Bush had this kind of person before in Karen Hughes, in Cheney before tapping him for Veep, in Condi before she became SecState, so he knows how to pick them. The trick is finding someone willing to take the heat, to be the President’s pit bull, to kick GOP heads to get them in line. Frist and Hastert should have been doing this all along, but neither has shown the courage or ingenuity to get the job done in his post. McCain and Gingrich and Giuliani could each have taken the front spot in the 2008 race by taking up the challenge and showing himself the President’s protégé. I understand the noise coming from the poll-dependant, who forget that polls in the spring have diddly to do with election results, especially years later. I will say clearly that just like 2002 and 2004, in 2006 and 2008 any Republican who wants to be elected or re-elected will need the clear support and preference of President George W. Bush. That McCain and the other wanna-be Bosses do not understand this basic fact, demonstrates in advance their failure to think beyond the moment, and thus they prove themselves unequal to the office. The sole hope for the GOP in 2008 is that the Democrats continue to prove themselves even less-qualified.

I am hardly saying that President Bush is perfect. What I am saying, and have for quite a while now, is that he is President of the United States of America and the Chief Executive Officer of the Republican Party. He did what was necessary to claim those titles through two grueling campaigns, first to secure the party nomination then the office. He has neither lied nor misled anyone about whom he is or what he would do, and Bush’s performance on the most important concerns has been equal or better to anyone in the past 140 years. He owns the job, and so long as he holds it no Republican has the place to pretend they hold equal right or claim. While protest and debate are precious rights in American history and the fabric of our being, when Dubya gets it right he more than deserves credit for it, and not just for the day. Those tax cuts not only got the economy going again, they are still being felt. The Bush Doctrine not only freed Afghanistan and Iraq, it affected many other countries and is still being reflected in the acknowledgment that the United States can undertake missions beyond the scope of any other nation in the world. So when fair-weather Conservatives like Michelle Malkin whine that they are “not in the mood to wave pom-poms”, they betray how shallow they hold their ideals and commitment. If a Conservative finds a given proposal untenable, he does well to speak his mind, but in such a way that seeks a better answer. If however a Conservative tears down his party’s leader and President simply because it suits his pique, then he is no Conservative at all. This is sadly the way of Republicans too often. They deserted President Hoover after the Stock Market crashed, preferring to let him carry the shame when so much came from their own indolence. They deserted Eisenhower in his second term, finding it more to their liking to bicker about lost opportunities in Eastern Europe than to work to find more. They deserted Nixon when the House began to accuse White House aides, some justly, but some unjustly, preferring to abandon the President rather than keep their commitments. They deserted Reagan when the Democrats made up their lies about Iran-Contra, and they deserted G.H.W. Bush when the Democrats threatened to shut down Congress in order to force a tax hike. There have always been plenty of Republicans ready to sing along in victory, but who run for the hills when the going gets tough. From Novak to Will to Buchanan to McCain to Bennett, there are plenty of players willing to accept glory but not hardship, to eat at the feast but not work to prepare it, to enjoy the perks of command but not endure the attacks from the enemy. Such days as now are when men show their true colors, and many fail to keep the promise made.

I will say plainly that five years from now, Conservatives will miss George W. Bush, and they will wonder aloud why they have such a hard time finding his like. Just like Reagan before him, George W. Bush understands that to do the right thing, to take on the mantle of real leadership, often requires a man to stand alone, deserted and betrayed all too often even by those who promised they would pass the test. I have seen petty men and I have seen great men. I stand with the great man here, and will not be silent about my contempt for those whose confidence and enthusiasm is blown by the wind of the day.

A Personal Emergency

..

I will not be blogging for a while.

My father, who will be 82 this June, did not respond to attempts to wake him this morning. The paramedics took him to Memorial City Hospital, where he remained unconscious with a 105-degree fever. They have treated him with a battery of antibiotics, and he has come to some level of semi-consciousness, though not full cognizance.

My family has come together to wait for developments, and so after this announcement I shall be unavailable for a time. I apologize for the absence.

Dominance Games

[ wuf ]

I woke this morning to the sound of a dogfight. My two 20-week old hound puppies, Kyle and Shalo, were mock-fighting with each other, in a dominance game that more than once has crossed over into actual fighting. My vet warned me this could happen, that two puppies would sort out a question of supremacy between themselves; it’s an instinct with them and difficult to train out. I have made it clear to both dogs that I do not approve of any sort of aggression, especially biting, and so when I came out into the yard both dogs immediately stopped, sat up and pretended nothing had happened. In this case Kyle was the main aggressor, so I sat him on top of the trash can for a ‘time out’ and scolded him. He whimpered in the appropriate places that either means he understands he did wrong, or else he has figured out how to say what he thinks I want to hear. Since each dog has crossed 20 pounds in weight, it’s getting to be a big deal to me that they learn to curb their behavior to within the limits taught.

It occurs to me that people are not all that different from dogs. People are social animals that become accustomed to certain routines of behavior and expectations. And like dogs, from time to time certain individuals and groups will exhibit behaviors which must test the patience and forbearance of more mature persons. This is true even up to the level of national policy.

The United States is an odd country, a nation comprised of immigrants and self-created ideals. From what I have read, when we declared our independence from England, most of Europe never figured we would win, and France just backed us in order to weaken England. We very nearly went to war with France just a little while after winning at Yorktown, because of the shabby way in which American freighters were treated. In short order we put together a navy and sent it off to punish pirates off the Barbary Coast. When England invaded us we fought back and established our nation to such a point that no nation has since taken away our land on any coast or battlefield.

We established our nation by a Constitution so effective that dozens of other countries copied it in their own legislatures. We established a military so dominant that we are the acknowledged force of order when so employed. Our money is so ubiquitous that even Communist countries hold reserves of Treasury notes and U.S. currency as a hedge against the weakness of their own money. Our culture pervades everywhere, whether music or literature or mass media. It’s obvious to everyone willing to look, that God has blessed this nation very well and for a very long time.

And for good reason. The United States has symbolized not only the free exercise of faith and personal responsibility, but also the assimilation of all immigrants into an emerging new identity, one which advances Mankind in his best merits. It is no coincidence that America takes the lead in global change. While other nations may begin or support a movement, it always depends on the United States to find its momentum. Without the United States, the League of Nations never had a chance. Once it betrayed the United States, the United Nations lost its right to claim any sort of moral leadership.

As we continue into the Twenty-First century, the world once again looks upon America and is amazed. Afghganistan was supposed to tear us up, but instead it is growing into something better than it has ever been before. Iraq was supposed to be another 'Vietnam', but it has had two free elections and increasingly is able to take careof its own affairs. Al Qaeda has lost more than the Old press will admit, and the U.S. Military looks as strong as ever. Our moral compass is sure, our ideals clean, and we still seem to enjoy God's favor.

Small wonder the enemies of America hate this. To them, we are still the "top dog", and they neither understand nor care that we are not trying to be their superiors, but merely keeping the trust given to us. What we get from France, from Venezuela, from Iran, is no more than a dog's petty dominance game, one which by the Grace of God we shall not lose to them. Not because we deserve the victory, but because we have been trustworthy with that stewardship.