Game Scores:
A Johnson at Washington, 36-19 Washington
Ford at Carter, 30-26 Ford
J Adams at McKinley, 37-31 McKinley
Tyler at GW Bush, 36-29 GW Bush
T Roosevelt at Monroe, 32-30 TR
Truman at Lincoln, 37-30 Lincoln
Reagan at GH Bush, 37-28 Reagan
F Roosevelt at Polk, 32-30 Polk
Buchanan at Kennedy, 32-23 JFK
Jefferson at W Harrison, 32-25 Jefferson
Nixon at Fillmore, 31-30 Fillmore
Cleveland at Wilson, 30-25 Cleveland
Taylor at L Johnson, 31-21 Taylor
JQ Adams at Eisenhower, 30-27 Ike
Jackson at Hoover, 32-23 Jackson
Arthur at B Harrison, 26-22 Arthur
Madison at Garfield, 29-25 Garfield
Taft at Grant, 28-25 Taft
Hayes at Harding, 31-27 Hayes
Van Buren at Clinton, 25-23 Van Buren
Pierce at Coolidge, 25-22 Pierce
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 1 President is winless.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Thursday, May 03, 2007
MLP Round 018
Game Scores:
Washington at JQ Adams, 34-27 Washington
GH Bush at Ford, 35-27 Ford
F Roosevelt at McKinley, 37-30 McKinley
GW Bush at Jackson, 33-28 GW Bush
Jefferson at T Roosevelt, 33-31 TR
Lincoln at Taft, 31-30 Lincoln
Monroe at Reagan, 31-30 Reagan
Fillmore at Kennedy, 32-31 JFK
Taylor at Nixon, 31-30 Nixon
B Harrison at J Adams, 30-22 J Adams
Hayes at Truman, 32-26 Truman
Polk at Garfield, 30-29 Polk
Coolidge at Cleveland, 31-26 Cleveland
Eisenhower at Van Buren, 32-23 Ike
Wilson at Tyler, 28-23 Tyler
Hoover at Arthur, 26-25 Arthur
Madison at Carter, 29-26 Madison
L Johnson at W Harrison, 25-21 W Harrison
Grant at A Johnson, 28-19 Grant
Harding at Buchanan, 27-20 Harding
Clinton at Pierce, 22-18 Clinton
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 2 Presidents are winless.
Washington at JQ Adams, 34-27 Washington
GH Bush at Ford, 35-27 Ford
F Roosevelt at McKinley, 37-30 McKinley
GW Bush at Jackson, 33-28 GW Bush
Jefferson at T Roosevelt, 33-31 TR
Lincoln at Taft, 31-30 Lincoln
Monroe at Reagan, 31-30 Reagan
Fillmore at Kennedy, 32-31 JFK
Taylor at Nixon, 31-30 Nixon
B Harrison at J Adams, 30-22 J Adams
Hayes at Truman, 32-26 Truman
Polk at Garfield, 30-29 Polk
Coolidge at Cleveland, 31-26 Cleveland
Eisenhower at Van Buren, 32-23 Ike
Wilson at Tyler, 28-23 Tyler
Hoover at Arthur, 26-25 Arthur
Madison at Carter, 29-26 Madison
L Johnson at W Harrison, 25-21 W Harrison
Grant at A Johnson, 28-19 Grant
Harding at Buchanan, 27-20 Harding
Clinton at Pierce, 22-18 Clinton
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 2 Presidents are winless.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Global Warfare - Part 1
It’s a human conceit to talk about things beyond our scope. Sometimes it is necessary; parents need to give clear instruction to their children, even where they themselves might be unsure. At other times, however, it’s the desire to be in control, matched with the arrogance that we do not need to trust experts and the experienced. This is why so many idiots make a home repair problem worse, why so many people bungle financial decisions, and explains 90% of Congress’ votes in its history. This is not so bad when the stakes are commonplace and the mistake can be repaired, but in warfare the cost can be very high. Especially since decisions about war tend to have a high emotional content and petty politics cannot help but enter into things. Lincoln’s 1864 re-election campaign was littered with absurd second-guessing of the Civil War, and made the whole matter far more bitter and complicated than it ought to have been. If so serious a threat as the Civil War could fall prey to Macchiavellian ploys, it must be understood that all wars will be targeted by blackguards for their personal gain. And especially so, when the conduct and scope of the present war is misunderstood.
For better or worse, President George W. Bush has engaged the United States in a war to address the strategic threat from Islamist Middle-East-based terrorism. The consensus from all the studies and publicly available intelligence of the past thirty years, is that Islamist Terrorism is essentially a loose network of groups with a common general goal or driving the United States out of the Middle East, after which a union of Islamic Republics will be established. Some of these groups are backed by governmental organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Others are nominally independent, such as Al Qaeda. The essential point to understand here, is that these groups cooperate to varying degrees for the common purpose of asymmetrical warfare, especially designed to pursue propaganda and financial goals, to weaken alliances between the West and where possible break them, and to destabilize any and all Western-style governments in the Middle East. Therefore, the United States must address the threat by creating effective counters to these goals.
The Middle East has not enjoyed a stable environment since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There is little disagreement to the statement that a number of European nations have treated rulers and nations of the Middle East like game tokens, and to a lesser degree the United States prior to 1968. As a result, the region has not enjoyed either political stability nor an atmosphere of trust with the West, except for the happy exceptions of Israel and Turkey, and to some degree Jordan after 1973. It may be said with some fairness, that the West was distracted from establishing a proper relationship with the Middle East, by interference from the Soviet Union; many Cold War-era terrorist groups received aid, training, and support from Moscow, especially in Soviet Client states such as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Some of these groups turned their skills in destabilizing governments against the Soviets, as evidenced by the war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For all the hype that America is somehow to blame for the rise of Jihad, the actual skills and immediate motive for the movement began in the effort to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan.
Using terrorists to gain a political win, however, is historically a very poor strategy. A good example can be seen in Algeria, which employed terrorism to drive out the French. While successful in that objective, the terrorists then began to operate against the native Algerian government, and the result – even a generation later – is a weak central government rampant with corruption, with various factions running the country in a patchwork and fragile network of feudalistic feuds and personality cults. The same condition exists in other Middle East and North African nations, like the Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. Terrorist groups keep no allegiance to a government or nation, but only to their own advantage.
Some people compare the Global War on Terror to World War 2. This is not a very good fit, although Islamofascism does bear similarities to that Fascism embraced in Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan. Other people compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam, though that also fails to stand under close inspection. I would repeat an earlier contention of mine, that the present effort strives against international terrorist groups in ways similar to the fight against open-sea Piracy. Far too many Americans do not realize that the first major use of the Marine Corps, was to put down Libyan pirates, very like modern terrorists in that they found it amusing to attack innocents in order to get what they wanted from governments. It also occurs to me that the decision to grant Navy Captains the power to try pirates aboard their vessels and carry out sentences was one reason the British Navy was feared and respected worldwide at one time, though sadly recent events have shown just how far the Union Jack has fallen.
All that sets the stage for our present position. The United States, for a number of reasons, has a habit of getting into global conflicts. Our first war was multi-continental, and helped to set off the French Revolution, and several significant reforms in England. The U.S. also went across an ocean to take on a two-bit tyrant in Tripoli who thought he could extort the United States with threats and violence. In the past century, the United States has repeatedly been called upon to establish and enforce treaties and agreements for the protection of allies and their territory, and more than once has gone to war at great cost to help an ungrateful ally. Anyone familiar with American history would have expected the United States to eventually address the threat from Islamist Terrorism. Indeed, Osama bin Laden counted on that, believing that the United States would be ejected from the Middle East and collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. The crucial differences between the USA and USSR were lost on bin Laden, but then again we are talking about a psychotic nutcase under the influence of malignant narcissism, who could not even manage to properly understand the Quran. For here, it is important to understand that the conflict was inevitable; the only choices were the time, terms, and conditions. This was understood by military experts and many members of Congress as early as 1980. To pretend that the threat does not exist is both dishonest and harms the nation’s interest.
Here then, are the positions as I see them, with a certain amount of speculation necessary for each side, and the qualification that any large group will have a number of rogue agents:
I believe that the Democrats see Global terrorism as a local threat, to be addressed as a crime by the governments directly attacked. This is the standard “9/10” condition which has been discussed in many places. I also believe, however, that the Democrats want to see more and better participation by our allies in the effort, specifically to the point that each nation should be largely responsible for its own defense and protection, with allies acting only in international airspace and waters and only to the degree that a broader threat exists. That is to say, it seems that a large number of Democrats have come to believe that the United States will not be attacked if it leaves the terrorists alone. History, quite harshly at times, proves otherwise, but for here it is enough to understand the Democrats’ posture. They believe that Terrorism is not a Defense threat, and that we would do better to spend less money fighting Terrorism, and to pull back from foreign conflicts. The Republicans, while some have shown they lack the fortitude to stand in the face of cheap political tricks and a hostile media, generally seem to comprehend the strategic nature of the threat and advocate the continuing U.S. presence in force at critical locations.
The Republicans are generally determined to remove the threat, even if it is necessary for the United States to act alone in that mission. The primacy of American power is also a major consideration and ideal in Republican thought, as opposed to the Democrats’ belief in a devaluation of American power in order to create what might be called ’a community of equals’. The Republican mistakes begin with failing to explain the mission, to stay focused on the plan, and to maintain party discipline in votes and public statements, and in prioritizing the fight. Both parties make the mistake of addressing short-term costs and objectives ahead of long-term goals and needs.
What are those long-term goals and needs? I would consider this as a Best-Case/Worst-Case/Middle-Case scenario set. At one time in 2003, the “Best Case” was impressive; the Hussein regime had fallen, Al Qaeda was in disarray and many cells had been negated, killed, or captured. Surrounding nations scrambled to make peace with the United States, including Syria and Iran, who hastily promised their support for a peaceful Middle East with self-determination rights for everyone. That lasted about as long, however, as the Democrats’ support for the war, which is to say until they found a way to undermine the United States and return to their normal practices. This is not to compare the Democrats to terrorist regimes, but to explain that just as Teheran was never serious about letting Iraq’s citizens run their own nation, the Democrats were determined to never allow the Republicans the chance to claim a clear victory in Iraq. The Republicans allowed Iraq to become a political football, first by not keeping the focus on the long-term effort and second by becoming distracted from always supporting the party on the most vital points. As a result, the Best-Case scenario is one where Iraq is weaker than desired but self-sustaining, and the United States maintains the promise of financial and military help if and when it is needed. Such a condition will in large part depend on electing a Republican President in 2008, and one committed to the long mission.
The Worst-Case scenario may at first appear to be relatively mild; despite claims of failure, the campaign in Iraq has been significant in eliminating Al Qaeda’s infrastructure and many of its key leadership. The present Al Qaeda is dangerous, but not in the same way it was seven years ago, or at all to the same degree. If the United States deserts Iraq, the government there is likely to fall, but would be replaced with something not unlike what goes on in Syria or Lebanon; a pretense of democracy with several ‘strong men’ who rule on a promise of order, at the sacrifice of justice and civil rights. Terrorist operations would be scaled back for a time, largely to take advantage of propaganda opportunities, but also to plan for strategic objectives. The largest casualty in this scenario would be control of the initiative. Where for the past four years the terrorists have been largely reacting to American initiatives and the U.S. has made significant gains in the region, the sudden collapse of the effort through the withdrawal of troops would allow the terrorists the opportunity to consider their options and go on the offensive. As in the early 1990s, those goals would – early on – be designed to bring down vulnerable allies to the United States, and to harass the United States by striking targets of opportunity. Intelligence operations, already difficult for American agencies because of blunders from 1979 to 2000, would become effectively impossible in hostile nations, allowing sophisticated training and planning to resume. Several major strikes against the United States could therefore be expected no sooner than 2010, but no later than 2013. From statements made in the past, the objective would clearly be to stagger the American psyche with large casualty counts and multiple strikes. Given the sentiment among Democrats to scale down vigilance and reduce spending on Homeland Security, a wide range of possible targets and threats must be considered.
The Middle-Case scenario is difficult to set in scale, but can be guessed from actions by the leadership in both parties, the logistical limits of Al Qaeda and similar groups, and the national mood. Unfortunately, the American public has little stomach for long fights, when one of the two major political parties refuses to support it. This does not mean, however, that the American public will stand for anything. The Democrats have learned that the public demands better than token support for the military, that they are willing – even eager – to accept certain sacrifices if their families are safer for it, and that continuing to control Congress and to gain the White House will depend on confirming a resolve to address the threat from Terrorism. The statements made not so long ago that we should accept a certain loss to Terrorism will not be tolerated by decent people, enough that a threshold level for response will continue to exist. In addition, there is a real possibility that the Islamist terrorists are beginning to understand that direct attacks on Americans will provoke a strong response, one quite strong enough to make the attack a strategic failure. The Democrats have shown through words and actions, that they value American blood, but not Muslim blood. As a result, it should not surprise anyone if the main thrust of terrorist activity following the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, became the wholesale slaughter of pro-American Muslims, and the coordinated destabilization of non-Islamist governments. To the vulgar examination, American lives would be saved – for now – but at the cost of the future of the Middle East. It comes down, in the end, to the Calculus of whether risking several thousand American lives are worth saving a hundred fifty million Muslim lives.
For better or worse, President George W. Bush has engaged the United States in a war to address the strategic threat from Islamist Middle-East-based terrorism. The consensus from all the studies and publicly available intelligence of the past thirty years, is that Islamist Terrorism is essentially a loose network of groups with a common general goal or driving the United States out of the Middle East, after which a union of Islamic Republics will be established. Some of these groups are backed by governmental organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Others are nominally independent, such as Al Qaeda. The essential point to understand here, is that these groups cooperate to varying degrees for the common purpose of asymmetrical warfare, especially designed to pursue propaganda and financial goals, to weaken alliances between the West and where possible break them, and to destabilize any and all Western-style governments in the Middle East. Therefore, the United States must address the threat by creating effective counters to these goals.
The Middle East has not enjoyed a stable environment since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There is little disagreement to the statement that a number of European nations have treated rulers and nations of the Middle East like game tokens, and to a lesser degree the United States prior to 1968. As a result, the region has not enjoyed either political stability nor an atmosphere of trust with the West, except for the happy exceptions of Israel and Turkey, and to some degree Jordan after 1973. It may be said with some fairness, that the West was distracted from establishing a proper relationship with the Middle East, by interference from the Soviet Union; many Cold War-era terrorist groups received aid, training, and support from Moscow, especially in Soviet Client states such as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Some of these groups turned their skills in destabilizing governments against the Soviets, as evidenced by the war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For all the hype that America is somehow to blame for the rise of Jihad, the actual skills and immediate motive for the movement began in the effort to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan.
Using terrorists to gain a political win, however, is historically a very poor strategy. A good example can be seen in Algeria, which employed terrorism to drive out the French. While successful in that objective, the terrorists then began to operate against the native Algerian government, and the result – even a generation later – is a weak central government rampant with corruption, with various factions running the country in a patchwork and fragile network of feudalistic feuds and personality cults. The same condition exists in other Middle East and North African nations, like the Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. Terrorist groups keep no allegiance to a government or nation, but only to their own advantage.
Some people compare the Global War on Terror to World War 2. This is not a very good fit, although Islamofascism does bear similarities to that Fascism embraced in Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan. Other people compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam, though that also fails to stand under close inspection. I would repeat an earlier contention of mine, that the present effort strives against international terrorist groups in ways similar to the fight against open-sea Piracy. Far too many Americans do not realize that the first major use of the Marine Corps, was to put down Libyan pirates, very like modern terrorists in that they found it amusing to attack innocents in order to get what they wanted from governments. It also occurs to me that the decision to grant Navy Captains the power to try pirates aboard their vessels and carry out sentences was one reason the British Navy was feared and respected worldwide at one time, though sadly recent events have shown just how far the Union Jack has fallen.
All that sets the stage for our present position. The United States, for a number of reasons, has a habit of getting into global conflicts. Our first war was multi-continental, and helped to set off the French Revolution, and several significant reforms in England. The U.S. also went across an ocean to take on a two-bit tyrant in Tripoli who thought he could extort the United States with threats and violence. In the past century, the United States has repeatedly been called upon to establish and enforce treaties and agreements for the protection of allies and their territory, and more than once has gone to war at great cost to help an ungrateful ally. Anyone familiar with American history would have expected the United States to eventually address the threat from Islamist Terrorism. Indeed, Osama bin Laden counted on that, believing that the United States would be ejected from the Middle East and collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. The crucial differences between the USA and USSR were lost on bin Laden, but then again we are talking about a psychotic nutcase under the influence of malignant narcissism, who could not even manage to properly understand the Quran. For here, it is important to understand that the conflict was inevitable; the only choices were the time, terms, and conditions. This was understood by military experts and many members of Congress as early as 1980. To pretend that the threat does not exist is both dishonest and harms the nation’s interest.
Here then, are the positions as I see them, with a certain amount of speculation necessary for each side, and the qualification that any large group will have a number of rogue agents:
I believe that the Democrats see Global terrorism as a local threat, to be addressed as a crime by the governments directly attacked. This is the standard “9/10” condition which has been discussed in many places. I also believe, however, that the Democrats want to see more and better participation by our allies in the effort, specifically to the point that each nation should be largely responsible for its own defense and protection, with allies acting only in international airspace and waters and only to the degree that a broader threat exists. That is to say, it seems that a large number of Democrats have come to believe that the United States will not be attacked if it leaves the terrorists alone. History, quite harshly at times, proves otherwise, but for here it is enough to understand the Democrats’ posture. They believe that Terrorism is not a Defense threat, and that we would do better to spend less money fighting Terrorism, and to pull back from foreign conflicts. The Republicans, while some have shown they lack the fortitude to stand in the face of cheap political tricks and a hostile media, generally seem to comprehend the strategic nature of the threat and advocate the continuing U.S. presence in force at critical locations.
The Republicans are generally determined to remove the threat, even if it is necessary for the United States to act alone in that mission. The primacy of American power is also a major consideration and ideal in Republican thought, as opposed to the Democrats’ belief in a devaluation of American power in order to create what might be called ’a community of equals’. The Republican mistakes begin with failing to explain the mission, to stay focused on the plan, and to maintain party discipline in votes and public statements, and in prioritizing the fight. Both parties make the mistake of addressing short-term costs and objectives ahead of long-term goals and needs.
What are those long-term goals and needs? I would consider this as a Best-Case/Worst-Case/Middle-Case scenario set. At one time in 2003, the “Best Case” was impressive; the Hussein regime had fallen, Al Qaeda was in disarray and many cells had been negated, killed, or captured. Surrounding nations scrambled to make peace with the United States, including Syria and Iran, who hastily promised their support for a peaceful Middle East with self-determination rights for everyone. That lasted about as long, however, as the Democrats’ support for the war, which is to say until they found a way to undermine the United States and return to their normal practices. This is not to compare the Democrats to terrorist regimes, but to explain that just as Teheran was never serious about letting Iraq’s citizens run their own nation, the Democrats were determined to never allow the Republicans the chance to claim a clear victory in Iraq. The Republicans allowed Iraq to become a political football, first by not keeping the focus on the long-term effort and second by becoming distracted from always supporting the party on the most vital points. As a result, the Best-Case scenario is one where Iraq is weaker than desired but self-sustaining, and the United States maintains the promise of financial and military help if and when it is needed. Such a condition will in large part depend on electing a Republican President in 2008, and one committed to the long mission.
The Worst-Case scenario may at first appear to be relatively mild; despite claims of failure, the campaign in Iraq has been significant in eliminating Al Qaeda’s infrastructure and many of its key leadership. The present Al Qaeda is dangerous, but not in the same way it was seven years ago, or at all to the same degree. If the United States deserts Iraq, the government there is likely to fall, but would be replaced with something not unlike what goes on in Syria or Lebanon; a pretense of democracy with several ‘strong men’ who rule on a promise of order, at the sacrifice of justice and civil rights. Terrorist operations would be scaled back for a time, largely to take advantage of propaganda opportunities, but also to plan for strategic objectives. The largest casualty in this scenario would be control of the initiative. Where for the past four years the terrorists have been largely reacting to American initiatives and the U.S. has made significant gains in the region, the sudden collapse of the effort through the withdrawal of troops would allow the terrorists the opportunity to consider their options and go on the offensive. As in the early 1990s, those goals would – early on – be designed to bring down vulnerable allies to the United States, and to harass the United States by striking targets of opportunity. Intelligence operations, already difficult for American agencies because of blunders from 1979 to 2000, would become effectively impossible in hostile nations, allowing sophisticated training and planning to resume. Several major strikes against the United States could therefore be expected no sooner than 2010, but no later than 2013. From statements made in the past, the objective would clearly be to stagger the American psyche with large casualty counts and multiple strikes. Given the sentiment among Democrats to scale down vigilance and reduce spending on Homeland Security, a wide range of possible targets and threats must be considered.
The Middle-Case scenario is difficult to set in scale, but can be guessed from actions by the leadership in both parties, the logistical limits of Al Qaeda and similar groups, and the national mood. Unfortunately, the American public has little stomach for long fights, when one of the two major political parties refuses to support it. This does not mean, however, that the American public will stand for anything. The Democrats have learned that the public demands better than token support for the military, that they are willing – even eager – to accept certain sacrifices if their families are safer for it, and that continuing to control Congress and to gain the White House will depend on confirming a resolve to address the threat from Terrorism. The statements made not so long ago that we should accept a certain loss to Terrorism will not be tolerated by decent people, enough that a threshold level for response will continue to exist. In addition, there is a real possibility that the Islamist terrorists are beginning to understand that direct attacks on Americans will provoke a strong response, one quite strong enough to make the attack a strategic failure. The Democrats have shown through words and actions, that they value American blood, but not Muslim blood. As a result, it should not surprise anyone if the main thrust of terrorist activity following the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, became the wholesale slaughter of pro-American Muslims, and the coordinated destabilization of non-Islamist governments. To the vulgar examination, American lives would be saved – for now – but at the cost of the future of the Middle East. It comes down, in the end, to the Calculus of whether risking several thousand American lives are worth saving a hundred fifty million Muslim lives.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
MLP Round 017
Game Scores:
Van Buren at Washington, 36-27 Washington
Monroe at Ford, 35-29 Ford
McKinley at Polk, 37-32 McKinley
Arthur at GW Bush, 36-31 GW Bush
T Roosevelt at L Johnson, 31-21 TR
A Johnson at Lincoln, 37-19 Lincoln
Reagan at Jefferson, 37-34 Reagan
Harding at Fillmore, 31-24 Fillmore
Kennedy at Taylor, 30-29 Taylor
B Harrison at F Roosevelt, 33-24 FDR
J Adams at Hoover, 30-23 J Adams
Buchanan at Truman, 32-22 Truman
Cleveland at Clinton, 29-23 Cleveland
Jackson at Wilson, 28-25 Jackson
Hayes at Taft, 30-28 Taft
Madison at GH Bush, 28-21 GH Bush
Pierce at Eisenhower, 30-21 Ike
Carter at Garfield, 29-21 Garfield
Tyler at Coolidge, 31-22 Tyler
W Harrison at Nixon, 30-28 Nixon
JQ Adams at Grant, 27-25 JQA
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 2 Presidents are winless.
Van Buren at Washington, 36-27 Washington
Monroe at Ford, 35-29 Ford
McKinley at Polk, 37-32 McKinley
Arthur at GW Bush, 36-31 GW Bush
T Roosevelt at L Johnson, 31-21 TR
A Johnson at Lincoln, 37-19 Lincoln
Reagan at Jefferson, 37-34 Reagan
Harding at Fillmore, 31-24 Fillmore
Kennedy at Taylor, 30-29 Taylor
B Harrison at F Roosevelt, 33-24 FDR
J Adams at Hoover, 30-23 J Adams
Buchanan at Truman, 32-22 Truman
Cleveland at Clinton, 29-23 Cleveland
Jackson at Wilson, 28-25 Jackson
Hayes at Taft, 30-28 Taft
Madison at GH Bush, 28-21 GH Bush
Pierce at Eisenhower, 30-21 Ike
Carter at Garfield, 29-21 Garfield
Tyler at Coolidge, 31-22 Tyler
W Harrison at Nixon, 30-28 Nixon
JQ Adams at Grant, 27-25 JQA
Five Presidents have one loss, another 2 have 2 losses, another 1 has one win, and 2 Presidents are winless.
Monday, April 30, 2007
It's Monday, Just So You Know What To Expect
I wanted to write a brilliant article. The thought-provoking, starling, kind that changes the world.
Eh.
I also wanted to avoid wasting your time and attention. Let's see if I can meet that one...
Rough day at work. Got lectured by lawyers, badgered by bankruptcy filings, and I am still tired from the weekend. Nothing special there, but it occurs to me we all have days like that.
Funny thing, we all do our best day to day, and we try to cut each other some slack when it's obvious someone is having a rough go of it.
Or we should.
My doc told me that there is no good reason for me to continue having abdominal pain, and therefore it must be gas or psychosomatic.
Gas my ass.
Oh well, I guess this just proves that my imagination is very strong. That or my doctor is not all-knowing?
Hmm, that comes a little too clsoe to whining, so I will shut that down.
What else?
Oh yes, I forgot to put in my plug for Discount Tire. It's real simple, folks. For, hmm, round about 19 years now, they have had good prices and great service. GREAT service, as in, no surprises, good courtesy, they do what they promise and they get you done fast.
Why is that so rare?
Huh.
My sister is doing better, by the way. I have cancer which does not need surgery - right now, anyway - but she had to have her spine worked on, and 4 disks fused. Yes, that sucks every bit as much as it sounds. So far, her recovery is good but she needs money and prayers. Specifically, it wouldn't hurt to pray that her company decides to think about getting her back onto a regular schedule, while keeping her condition in mind. Not always easy, that, but they're a bit timid about giving her enough hours.
BY the way, I'm going back to school again this summer. 3 courses, which I am told may be rough in the summer, but I want to catch up after missing the spring. I'm registered for Accounting, Management, and Quant. Gotta get my books, though.
Sorry if this is all boring. I did warn you this was a Monday post ...
Eh.
I also wanted to avoid wasting your time and attention. Let's see if I can meet that one...
Rough day at work. Got lectured by lawyers, badgered by bankruptcy filings, and I am still tired from the weekend. Nothing special there, but it occurs to me we all have days like that.
Funny thing, we all do our best day to day, and we try to cut each other some slack when it's obvious someone is having a rough go of it.
Or we should.
My doc told me that there is no good reason for me to continue having abdominal pain, and therefore it must be gas or psychosomatic.
Gas my ass.
Oh well, I guess this just proves that my imagination is very strong. That or my doctor is not all-knowing?
Hmm, that comes a little too clsoe to whining, so I will shut that down.
What else?
Oh yes, I forgot to put in my plug for Discount Tire. It's real simple, folks. For, hmm, round about 19 years now, they have had good prices and great service. GREAT service, as in, no surprises, good courtesy, they do what they promise and they get you done fast.
Why is that so rare?
Huh.
My sister is doing better, by the way. I have cancer which does not need surgery - right now, anyway - but she had to have her spine worked on, and 4 disks fused. Yes, that sucks every bit as much as it sounds. So far, her recovery is good but she needs money and prayers. Specifically, it wouldn't hurt to pray that her company decides to think about getting her back onto a regular schedule, while keeping her condition in mind. Not always easy, that, but they're a bit timid about giving her enough hours.
BY the way, I'm going back to school again this summer. 3 courses, which I am told may be rough in the summer, but I want to catch up after missing the spring. I'm registered for Accounting, Management, and Quant. Gotta get my books, though.
Sorry if this is all boring. I did warn you this was a Monday post ...
Sunday, April 29, 2007
MLP Round 016
Game Scores:
Washington at Pierce, 35-18 Washington
Jefferson at Ford, 35-30 Ford
McKinley at Garfield, 35-29 McKinley
GW Bush at J Adams, 36-30 GW Bush
Nixon at T Roosevelt, 33-30 TR
Lincoln at JQ Adams, 33-27 Lincoln
Monroe at Madison, 26-25 Madison
L Johnson at Reagan, 31-23 Reagan
Truman at Fillmore, 31-30
Taylor at Harding, 29-27 Taylor
Polk at B Harrison, 30-22 Polk
Coolidge at Jackson, 29-28 Coolidge
Kennedy at W Harrison, 32-25 JFK
Eisenhower at Cleveland, 31-29 Cleveland
F Roosevelt at Hoover, 33-23 FDR
Wilson at Arthur, 26-23 Arthur
A Johnson at Hayes, 28-23 Hayes
GH Bush at Carter, 27-26 Carter
Taft at Buchanan, 25-20 Taft
Grant at Van Buren, 23-19 Van Buren
Clinton at Tyler, 28-23 Tyler
No President remains undefeated, 5 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 2 Presidents are winless.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Sixteen Rounds
.1. Washington (15-1) beats Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Pierce
.2. Ford (15-1) beats JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson
.3. McKinley (15-1) beats GW Bush, Hoover, B Harrison, Garfield
.4. GW Bush (15-1) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, loses to McKinley
.5. Teddy Roosevelt (15-1) beats Truman, Hard, Nixon, loses to JFK
.6. Lincoln (14-2) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.7. Reagan (14-2) beats Harding, JFK, Nixon, LBJ
.8. Jefferson (14-2) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.9. Fillmore (12-4) beats JQA, A Johnson, Taft, Truman
.10. Taylor (11-5) beats A Johnson, Truman, Taft, Harding
.11. Polk (12-4) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harrison, loses to GW Bush
.12. Kennedy (12-4) beats TR, W Harrison, loses to Ford, Reagan
.13. Monroe (12-4) beats Garfield, GH Bush, Carter, loses to Madison
.14. FDR (10-6) beats Coolidge, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.15. J Adams (11-5) beats Clinton, Cool, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.16. Truman (11-5) beats W Harrison, loses to TR, Taylor, Fillmore
.17. Cleveland (9-7) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.18. Jackson (9-7) beats Ike, Clinton, loses to Washington, Coolidge
.19. Hayes (8-8) beats Pierce, Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQA
.20. Arthur (7-9) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Eisenhower
.21. Madison (7-9) beats Nixon, LBJ, Monroe, loses to Jefferson
.22. Taft (7-9) beats W Harrison, Buchanan, loses to Taylor, Fillmore
.23. Eisenhower (8-8) beats Arthur, Tyler, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.24. Garfield (7-9) beats B Harr, loses to Monroe, GH Bush, McKinley
.25. Tyler (6-10) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Washington, Ike
.26. Nixon (7-9) loses to Madison, Ford, Reagan, TR
.27. Quincy Adams (6-10) beats Buch, Hayes, loses to Fill, Lincoln
.28. Carter (6-10) beats GH Bush, loses to LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.29. GH Bush (6-10) beats Garfield, loses to Jeff, Monroe, Carter
.30. W Harrison (5-11) beats Harding, loses to Taft, Truman, JFK
.31. Grant (5-11) beats Pierce, loses to Tyler, Cleveland, Van Buren
.32. Buchanan (4-12) beats Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft
.33. Harding (4-12) loses to Reagan, TR, W Harrison, Taylor
.34. Wilson (4-12) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.35. Coolidge (2-14) beats Jackson, loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.36. LBJ (3-12) beats Carter, loses to Madison, Ford, Reagan
.37. Clinton (3-13) loses to J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.38. Van Buren (1-15) beats Grant, loses to Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln
.39. Hoover (2-14) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.40. B Harrison (2-14) loses to Hoover, Garfield, McKinley, Polk
.41. Pierce (0-16) loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Grant, Washington
.42. A Johnson (0-16) loses to Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
Washington at Pierce, 35-18 Washington
Jefferson at Ford, 35-30 Ford
McKinley at Garfield, 35-29 McKinley
GW Bush at J Adams, 36-30 GW Bush
Nixon at T Roosevelt, 33-30 TR
Lincoln at JQ Adams, 33-27 Lincoln
Monroe at Madison, 26-25 Madison
L Johnson at Reagan, 31-23 Reagan
Truman at Fillmore, 31-30
Taylor at Harding, 29-27 Taylor
Polk at B Harrison, 30-22 Polk
Coolidge at Jackson, 29-28 Coolidge
Kennedy at W Harrison, 32-25 JFK
Eisenhower at Cleveland, 31-29 Cleveland
F Roosevelt at Hoover, 33-23 FDR
Wilson at Arthur, 26-23 Arthur
A Johnson at Hayes, 28-23 Hayes
GH Bush at Carter, 27-26 Carter
Taft at Buchanan, 25-20 Taft
Grant at Van Buren, 23-19 Van Buren
Clinton at Tyler, 28-23 Tyler
No President remains undefeated, 5 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 2 Presidents are winless.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Sixteen Rounds
.1. Washington (15-1) beats Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Pierce
.2. Ford (15-1) beats JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson
.3. McKinley (15-1) beats GW Bush, Hoover, B Harrison, Garfield
.4. GW Bush (15-1) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, loses to McKinley
.5. Teddy Roosevelt (15-1) beats Truman, Hard, Nixon, loses to JFK
.6. Lincoln (14-2) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.7. Reagan (14-2) beats Harding, JFK, Nixon, LBJ
.8. Jefferson (14-2) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.9. Fillmore (12-4) beats JQA, A Johnson, Taft, Truman
.10. Taylor (11-5) beats A Johnson, Truman, Taft, Harding
.11. Polk (12-4) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harrison, loses to GW Bush
.12. Kennedy (12-4) beats TR, W Harrison, loses to Ford, Reagan
.13. Monroe (12-4) beats Garfield, GH Bush, Carter, loses to Madison
.14. FDR (10-6) beats Coolidge, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.15. J Adams (11-5) beats Clinton, Cool, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.16. Truman (11-5) beats W Harrison, loses to TR, Taylor, Fillmore
.17. Cleveland (9-7) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.18. Jackson (9-7) beats Ike, Clinton, loses to Washington, Coolidge
.19. Hayes (8-8) beats Pierce, Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQA
.20. Arthur (7-9) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Eisenhower
.21. Madison (7-9) beats Nixon, LBJ, Monroe, loses to Jefferson
.22. Taft (7-9) beats W Harrison, Buchanan, loses to Taylor, Fillmore
.23. Eisenhower (8-8) beats Arthur, Tyler, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.24. Garfield (7-9) beats B Harr, loses to Monroe, GH Bush, McKinley
.25. Tyler (6-10) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Washington, Ike
.26. Nixon (7-9) loses to Madison, Ford, Reagan, TR
.27. Quincy Adams (6-10) beats Buch, Hayes, loses to Fill, Lincoln
.28. Carter (6-10) beats GH Bush, loses to LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.29. GH Bush (6-10) beats Garfield, loses to Jeff, Monroe, Carter
.30. W Harrison (5-11) beats Harding, loses to Taft, Truman, JFK
.31. Grant (5-11) beats Pierce, loses to Tyler, Cleveland, Van Buren
.32. Buchanan (4-12) beats Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft
.33. Harding (4-12) loses to Reagan, TR, W Harrison, Taylor
.34. Wilson (4-12) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.35. Coolidge (2-14) beats Jackson, loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.36. LBJ (3-12) beats Carter, loses to Madison, Ford, Reagan
.37. Clinton (3-13) loses to J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.38. Van Buren (1-15) beats Grant, loses to Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln
.39. Hoover (2-14) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.40. B Harrison (2-14) loses to Hoover, Garfield, McKinley, Polk
.41. Pierce (0-16) loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Grant, Washington
.42. A Johnson (0-16) loses to Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
Saturday, April 28, 2007
MLP Round 015
Game Scores:
T Roosevelt at Kennedy, 32-31 JFK
Cleveland at Washington, 36-31 Washington
Ford at L Johnson, 33-21 Ford
B Harrison at McKinley, 37-23 McKinley
Madison at Jefferson, 34-24 Jefferson
GW Bush at F Roosevelt, 35-33 GW Bush
Van Buren at Lincoln, 37-26 Lincoln
Carter at Monroe, 30-20 Monroe
Reagan at Nixon, 37-30 Reagan
Fillmore at Taft, 31-30 Fillmore
Truman at Taylor, 31-30 Taylor
Hoover at Polk, 32-23 Polk
J Adams at Wilson, 31-25 J Adams
Jackson at Clinton, 32-23 Jackson
JQ Adams at Hayes, 29-28 JQA
Garfield at GH Bush, 28-27 GH Bush
Tyler at Eisenhower, 30-29 Ike
Arthur at Coolidge, 29-22 Arthur
W Harrison at Harding, 29-27 W Harrison
Buchanan at A Johnson, 20-19 Buchanan
Pierce at Grant, 25-21 Grant
No President remains undefeated, another 6 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
T Roosevelt at Kennedy, 32-31 JFK
Cleveland at Washington, 36-31 Washington
Ford at L Johnson, 33-21 Ford
B Harrison at McKinley, 37-23 McKinley
Madison at Jefferson, 34-24 Jefferson
GW Bush at F Roosevelt, 35-33 GW Bush
Van Buren at Lincoln, 37-26 Lincoln
Carter at Monroe, 30-20 Monroe
Reagan at Nixon, 37-30 Reagan
Fillmore at Taft, 31-30 Fillmore
Truman at Taylor, 31-30 Taylor
Hoover at Polk, 32-23 Polk
J Adams at Wilson, 31-25 J Adams
Jackson at Clinton, 32-23 Jackson
JQ Adams at Hayes, 29-28 JQA
Garfield at GH Bush, 28-27 GH Bush
Tyler at Eisenhower, 30-29 Ike
Arthur at Coolidge, 29-22 Arthur
W Harrison at Harding, 29-27 W Harrison
Buchanan at A Johnson, 20-19 Buchanan
Pierce at Grant, 25-21 Grant
No President remains undefeated, another 6 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Stupidity As A Way of Life: Why The Democrats Will Lose In 2008
Humorist Dave Barry once guessed that there was a huge, secret “stupid ray” beamed at the White House. Barry said this, because throughout recent history, while the men who have attained the Oval Office have all been intelligent, thoughtful men, at some point all of them have said or done moronic things, so often that one begins to wonder about the cause. If such a beam exists, however, it would appear that its scope has increased. My case for today is that the Democrats, having regained control of both the House and Senate and enjoying good prospects for the Presidential race in 2008, appear to have arranged a meeting, wherein they agreed to compel their candidates to abandon reasoned debate and constructive planning, in favor of screeching hate speech and mindlessly rehashing of long-dead feuds. Having done their utmost to defeat our troops fighting in Iraq, the Democrats appear to be embracing defeatism in every aspect of their decisions.
It may come as a shock to Democrats to learn that President George W. Bush will not, in fact, be running again in 2008. I should not be surprised that the Democrats’ comprehension of the U.S. Constitution is so poor, given their illucid interpretation on what sort of rights Americans enjoy, indeed even who should be considered an American. Yet even so, it is remarkably thick-headed to establish the base issue of your campaign against the one person you know will not be an opponent. The utter hysteria of Bush-Hate which pervades every major campaign among Democrats, will prove in the end to be a waste of attention and noise, and drives away more reasonable voters than it gains by appeasing the vicious extremists on the Left. Not merely because the Democrats have forgotten that 62 million voters supported Bush in the 2004 election, but also because most Americans have an innate sense of balance, and when a major political party adopts the stance of its most vicious fanatics a lot of folks are going to balk.
The next point is Iraq. Democrats have a bad habit of lying, you know. They say they support the troops (Don’t question their patriotism!), but they won’t let them do their job. They had the same information as President Bush and in large numbers voted to approve military action in Iraq, yet they now want to pretend they were “misled”. They agreed, almost to a man, that a specific timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would only help the terrorists win, yet that is precisely what they voted for this week. So it should come as no surprise, that Democrats have also been lying to themselves about Iraq. They have told themselves that abandoning Iraq will somehow improve our allies’ confidence in our commitment and responsibilities. They have told themselves that the most outrageous lies screamed by Leftist extremists are somehow the national sentiment. They have told themselves that the 2004 election they lost was not about Iraq, while the 2006 election they won was clearly a referendum on Iraq. And now they believe that attacking America’s goals and work in the war in Iraq is somehow going to impress the mainstream voter in America, and that vicious attacks on Republican candidates because of Iraq will be the way to gain the public trust. This particular conceit is a bad decision, for many reasons, but the obvious fact lost on the Democrats is that conditions in Iraq a year from now, and the relevance of that issue to the 2008 election will be very different then than it is now. The Democrats’ plan to focus attention to Iraq is therefore desperate and ill-considered, since it is unlikely that conditions will gravitate towards an optimal result by chance. If things in Iraq succeed, Democrats may suffer from their obvious attempts to derail U.S. efforts now. If things in Iraq fail, however, the current defeatism by the Left may also come back to haunt them. This is not to say that Republicans are doing everything right or that Iraq will not present problems for them as well politically, but the Republicans have not set Iraq as their base issue, nor are the leading 2008 candidates other than McCain seen as directly linked to the Iraq war. The Democrats have signed on, therefore, to a high-risk-low-yield gamble.
Up next, poor math skills. The two leading Democrats in the ‘I Wanna Be President’ rally, 2008 edition, are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The reasons these two lead the pack are varied, but one important reason often cited by “strategists” is that Hillary and Barack hail from states with large Electoral Vote counts. This is true, but really, does anyone expect the Democrats to lose either New York or Illinois? If not, why emphasize those states when the last several elections have shown that other states, specifically those in the Midwest and South, are often more critical battlegrounds. Yet we see Hillary and Barack continue to push as if they would win the nation by winning their “home” states, even though it should be obvious that what sells in New York may fail in Florida, that what people in Illinois find right on the mark, may not be anywhere close to what people in Missouri expect. For all the best evidence that winning the election comes down to winning the 270 Electoral Votes threshold, there is scant attention in the Left to battlegrounds of historical significance. At first glance, the Republican candidates may appear to be making the same mistake, yet all of the GOP candidates seem to me to have noted salient issues on more levels than the Democrats have cared to do. And the field of Republicans in the race is far more varied in state size and regional source than the Democrats can claim.
That’s not to say, of course, that the Republicans have locked up the 2008 election. Republicans have said and done any number of stupid, venal things (yes McCain, that includes you!), and it’s likely that more than one leading Republican will destroy his POTUS chances through sheer arrogance (yes McCain, even you), but in the main it appears that the Democrats have been working far more feverishly at trying to lose. The “leadership” we have seen from Pelosi, Reid, and Dean, the absolute ignorance of Middle America by the likes of Clinton and Edwards, and the spirit of Class Warfare embraced by the core decision-makers at the DNC, combine to make it all too simple for any reasonable person to reject the Jackass in ’08, even if that means accepting a certain amount of pachyderm poop (yes McCain, that includes you).
It may come as a shock to Democrats to learn that President George W. Bush will not, in fact, be running again in 2008. I should not be surprised that the Democrats’ comprehension of the U.S. Constitution is so poor, given their illucid interpretation on what sort of rights Americans enjoy, indeed even who should be considered an American. Yet even so, it is remarkably thick-headed to establish the base issue of your campaign against the one person you know will not be an opponent. The utter hysteria of Bush-Hate which pervades every major campaign among Democrats, will prove in the end to be a waste of attention and noise, and drives away more reasonable voters than it gains by appeasing the vicious extremists on the Left. Not merely because the Democrats have forgotten that 62 million voters supported Bush in the 2004 election, but also because most Americans have an innate sense of balance, and when a major political party adopts the stance of its most vicious fanatics a lot of folks are going to balk.
The next point is Iraq. Democrats have a bad habit of lying, you know. They say they support the troops (Don’t question their patriotism!), but they won’t let them do their job. They had the same information as President Bush and in large numbers voted to approve military action in Iraq, yet they now want to pretend they were “misled”. They agreed, almost to a man, that a specific timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would only help the terrorists win, yet that is precisely what they voted for this week. So it should come as no surprise, that Democrats have also been lying to themselves about Iraq. They have told themselves that abandoning Iraq will somehow improve our allies’ confidence in our commitment and responsibilities. They have told themselves that the most outrageous lies screamed by Leftist extremists are somehow the national sentiment. They have told themselves that the 2004 election they lost was not about Iraq, while the 2006 election they won was clearly a referendum on Iraq. And now they believe that attacking America’s goals and work in the war in Iraq is somehow going to impress the mainstream voter in America, and that vicious attacks on Republican candidates because of Iraq will be the way to gain the public trust. This particular conceit is a bad decision, for many reasons, but the obvious fact lost on the Democrats is that conditions in Iraq a year from now, and the relevance of that issue to the 2008 election will be very different then than it is now. The Democrats’ plan to focus attention to Iraq is therefore desperate and ill-considered, since it is unlikely that conditions will gravitate towards an optimal result by chance. If things in Iraq succeed, Democrats may suffer from their obvious attempts to derail U.S. efforts now. If things in Iraq fail, however, the current defeatism by the Left may also come back to haunt them. This is not to say that Republicans are doing everything right or that Iraq will not present problems for them as well politically, but the Republicans have not set Iraq as their base issue, nor are the leading 2008 candidates other than McCain seen as directly linked to the Iraq war. The Democrats have signed on, therefore, to a high-risk-low-yield gamble.
Up next, poor math skills. The two leading Democrats in the ‘I Wanna Be President’ rally, 2008 edition, are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The reasons these two lead the pack are varied, but one important reason often cited by “strategists” is that Hillary and Barack hail from states with large Electoral Vote counts. This is true, but really, does anyone expect the Democrats to lose either New York or Illinois? If not, why emphasize those states when the last several elections have shown that other states, specifically those in the Midwest and South, are often more critical battlegrounds. Yet we see Hillary and Barack continue to push as if they would win the nation by winning their “home” states, even though it should be obvious that what sells in New York may fail in Florida, that what people in Illinois find right on the mark, may not be anywhere close to what people in Missouri expect. For all the best evidence that winning the election comes down to winning the 270 Electoral Votes threshold, there is scant attention in the Left to battlegrounds of historical significance. At first glance, the Republican candidates may appear to be making the same mistake, yet all of the GOP candidates seem to me to have noted salient issues on more levels than the Democrats have cared to do. And the field of Republicans in the race is far more varied in state size and regional source than the Democrats can claim.
That’s not to say, of course, that the Republicans have locked up the 2008 election. Republicans have said and done any number of stupid, venal things (yes McCain, that includes you!), and it’s likely that more than one leading Republican will destroy his POTUS chances through sheer arrogance (yes McCain, even you), but in the main it appears that the Democrats have been working far more feverishly at trying to lose. The “leadership” we have seen from Pelosi, Reid, and Dean, the absolute ignorance of Middle America by the likes of Clinton and Edwards, and the spirit of Class Warfare embraced by the core decision-makers at the DNC, combine to make it all too simple for any reasonable person to reject the Jackass in ’08, even if that means accepting a certain amount of pachyderm poop (yes McCain, that includes you).
Thursday, April 26, 2007
HR – Hell’s Little Gift to the Working Man
I enjoy reading my weekly issue of BusinessWeek, although from time to time they present a story which displays obvious bias, poor investigation, or which simply makes one wonder what universe the writer inhabits. All three traits showed up in a recent article gushing with praise for Bill Conaty at GE. The article was a strange and perverse mix of self-praise, hypocrisy, and flatulently unctuous pontification. In short, the article was an accidentally useful guide – on things to avoid if you want your company to find and keep the best people.
The first warning sign in the article was a loud and obvious one; Conaty praised himself almost non-stop. Conaty presented himself as some kind of wise, all-knowing sage, without once considering the universal facts that no one knows everything, we all make mistakes, and no organization is built by just one person’s effort. The BW article seemed to just take Conaty’s perspective as Gospel, without a single criticism of even obvious errors and contradictions.
One of those contradictions, was Conaty’s admonition not to get too close to the CEO; “Don’t Be Friends With the Boss”, he warns in bold print. Yet the only two specific sources noted in the article besides Conaty, were CEOs, and quite obviously close buddies of Conaty. Conaty did not just break his own rule; he completely ignored it, then tried to pretend he was some kind of ‘Working Man’s Friend’.
Enough about Conaty, he’s frankly just one more overpaid narcissist. But his arrogance highlights a major problem in American Business; how the heck do you find, train, reward, and keep the best people? And if you are a regular employee, how do you deal with workplace questions and situations, without getting labeled as a troublemaker? The problem is based in employment law, in poor training of managers in many businesses, and in the arrogance of the Boardroom. The solution begins with those companies willing to scrap what does not work, and who rebuild an effective employee development program with a functional and realistic approach.
The development of the Human Resources department came about initially, as a way to standardize employee hiring, development, and transition. This provided a legal defense against claims of personal bias or subjective treatment, allowed – in theory – operations managers to focus on running their departments, and provided company executives with performance metrics and costs. However, as time passed the process became increasingly bureaucratic and ossified, and a cult of empire-building within a company’s HR department also became a common problem. The HR managers found they could influence, even control, the hiring and development of staff in other departments. Operations Managers were denied participation in the recruiting and selection of key employees. The HR department in many businesses became obsessed with documentation, with detailed requirements for even routine requests, and the cumbersome process delayed and even derailed key projects. The close cooperation between HR and the top executives generated mistrust of company motives by employees, and the actual process of cutbacks and layoffs were often performed in a manner which disrespected loyal and hardworking employees, making the remaining staff even more cynical and suspicious of intentions, preventing effective cooperation. In many companies, the brightest and most effective employees deliberately avoid any contact whatsoever with HR, and many effective managers deliberately circumvent HR practices when they seek out new talent or have to address a personnel issue. I must emphasize that after a quarter-century working low-to-middle management, my experience tells me that in the heavy majority of cases, the problem begins and lives with HR, which generally refuses to acknowledge its responsibility, much less work to reform. Operations must exist in the real world, while HR usually exists in a completely artificial construction.
I want to stop here and make clear, the very great difference between Human Resource professionals and the monster which HR as a whole has become. An HR professional would be that person who seeks to simplify processes, to meet the needs of operations departments and advance the company’s goals and ideals, and who understands the need to sometimes stay out of situations unless asked for assistance. And who understands that assisting people is not the same thing as taking over. When I mentioned earlier that companies often fail to train their managers for some of their duties, that includes HR managers who learn rigidity instead of flexibility, who become unwilling to understand where their own authority and expertise ends and they must trust other people’s professional standards and experience, and who cannot adjust their perspective to see the different needs of separate departments.
So, what to do? My answer is admittedly radical, yet I think it would work well, given effective planning and cooperation. First, get rid of the HR department, per se. That doesn’t mean get rid of the HR people, though, but that they should be given orientation and then assigned to work as Administrative people, physically located in their departments of responsibility. Doing so would accomplish three key goals:
- HR people would have direct contact with the people who are affected by their decisions, and they could be approached informally for minor questions;
- HR people would have direct access to and control of all relevant documentation;
- HR people would, through discussions and ordinary course of work, learn the priorities and needs of the department long before an issue came to need attention.
That ordinary course of work for HR people would also allow them a key advantage they do not know enjoy; they would be more able to coach managers in the skills needed to avoid the sorts of problems which vex companies the most. That is, direct and regular communication with floor personnel and the direct management would help provide early consensus on how many employees need to be hired, what qualities should be sought, and in what time-frame. Managers could be taught and reminded how to effectively document employee performance, exemplary recognition and disciplinary actions, training, career development, and – when necessary – exit interviews and department resource allocation. The physical location of an HR officer in each department would also prevent the appearance/reality of too close contact with high executives, would equip HR managers to report accurate working conditions to the Board when necessary, and would encourage employees to treat HR as an ally rather than an enemy.
I have a lot of ideas, actually, on how HR should be reformed to better serve the needs of the company and the employees. But each case is distinct and unique, and unlike Bill Conaty, I know to stop when I reach the limit of my knowledge.
The first warning sign in the article was a loud and obvious one; Conaty praised himself almost non-stop. Conaty presented himself as some kind of wise, all-knowing sage, without once considering the universal facts that no one knows everything, we all make mistakes, and no organization is built by just one person’s effort. The BW article seemed to just take Conaty’s perspective as Gospel, without a single criticism of even obvious errors and contradictions.
One of those contradictions, was Conaty’s admonition not to get too close to the CEO; “Don’t Be Friends With the Boss”, he warns in bold print. Yet the only two specific sources noted in the article besides Conaty, were CEOs, and quite obviously close buddies of Conaty. Conaty did not just break his own rule; he completely ignored it, then tried to pretend he was some kind of ‘Working Man’s Friend’.
Enough about Conaty, he’s frankly just one more overpaid narcissist. But his arrogance highlights a major problem in American Business; how the heck do you find, train, reward, and keep the best people? And if you are a regular employee, how do you deal with workplace questions and situations, without getting labeled as a troublemaker? The problem is based in employment law, in poor training of managers in many businesses, and in the arrogance of the Boardroom. The solution begins with those companies willing to scrap what does not work, and who rebuild an effective employee development program with a functional and realistic approach.
The development of the Human Resources department came about initially, as a way to standardize employee hiring, development, and transition. This provided a legal defense against claims of personal bias or subjective treatment, allowed – in theory – operations managers to focus on running their departments, and provided company executives with performance metrics and costs. However, as time passed the process became increasingly bureaucratic and ossified, and a cult of empire-building within a company’s HR department also became a common problem. The HR managers found they could influence, even control, the hiring and development of staff in other departments. Operations Managers were denied participation in the recruiting and selection of key employees. The HR department in many businesses became obsessed with documentation, with detailed requirements for even routine requests, and the cumbersome process delayed and even derailed key projects. The close cooperation between HR and the top executives generated mistrust of company motives by employees, and the actual process of cutbacks and layoffs were often performed in a manner which disrespected loyal and hardworking employees, making the remaining staff even more cynical and suspicious of intentions, preventing effective cooperation. In many companies, the brightest and most effective employees deliberately avoid any contact whatsoever with HR, and many effective managers deliberately circumvent HR practices when they seek out new talent or have to address a personnel issue. I must emphasize that after a quarter-century working low-to-middle management, my experience tells me that in the heavy majority of cases, the problem begins and lives with HR, which generally refuses to acknowledge its responsibility, much less work to reform. Operations must exist in the real world, while HR usually exists in a completely artificial construction.
I want to stop here and make clear, the very great difference between Human Resource professionals and the monster which HR as a whole has become. An HR professional would be that person who seeks to simplify processes, to meet the needs of operations departments and advance the company’s goals and ideals, and who understands the need to sometimes stay out of situations unless asked for assistance. And who understands that assisting people is not the same thing as taking over. When I mentioned earlier that companies often fail to train their managers for some of their duties, that includes HR managers who learn rigidity instead of flexibility, who become unwilling to understand where their own authority and expertise ends and they must trust other people’s professional standards and experience, and who cannot adjust their perspective to see the different needs of separate departments.
So, what to do? My answer is admittedly radical, yet I think it would work well, given effective planning and cooperation. First, get rid of the HR department, per se. That doesn’t mean get rid of the HR people, though, but that they should be given orientation and then assigned to work as Administrative people, physically located in their departments of responsibility. Doing so would accomplish three key goals:
- HR people would have direct contact with the people who are affected by their decisions, and they could be approached informally for minor questions;
- HR people would have direct access to and control of all relevant documentation;
- HR people would, through discussions and ordinary course of work, learn the priorities and needs of the department long before an issue came to need attention.
That ordinary course of work for HR people would also allow them a key advantage they do not know enjoy; they would be more able to coach managers in the skills needed to avoid the sorts of problems which vex companies the most. That is, direct and regular communication with floor personnel and the direct management would help provide early consensus on how many employees need to be hired, what qualities should be sought, and in what time-frame. Managers could be taught and reminded how to effectively document employee performance, exemplary recognition and disciplinary actions, training, career development, and – when necessary – exit interviews and department resource allocation. The physical location of an HR officer in each department would also prevent the appearance/reality of too close contact with high executives, would equip HR managers to report accurate working conditions to the Board when necessary, and would encourage employees to treat HR as an ally rather than an enemy.
I have a lot of ideas, actually, on how HR should be reformed to better serve the needs of the company and the employees. But each case is distinct and unique, and unlike Bill Conaty, I know to stop when I reach the limit of my knowledge.
MLP Round 014
Game Scores:
Harding at T Roosevelt, 33-24 TR
Tyler at Washington, 36-27 Washington
Nixon at Ford, 35-25 Ford
McKinley at Hoover, 33-23 McKinley
Jefferson at Carter, 35-26 Jefferson
Polk at GW Bush, 36-33 Dubya
Pierce at Lincoln, 37-19 Lincoln
Monroe at GH Bush, 31-28 Monroe
Kennedy at Reagan, 31-29 Reagan
A Johnson at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
Truman at W Harrison, 32-25 Truman
Taft at Taylor, 30-28 Taylor
F Roosevelt at Wilson, 30-25 FDR
J Adams at Coolidge, 31-22 J Adams
Jackson at Eisenhower, 32-30 Jackson
Cleveland at Grant, 29-25 Cleveland
Van Buren at Hayes, 28-26 Hayes
B Harrison at Garfield, 29-25 Garfield
L Johnson at Madison, 25-22 Madison
JQ Adams at Buchanan, 269-20 JQA
Arthur at Clinton, 29-23 Arthur
1 President remains undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
Harding at T Roosevelt, 33-24 TR
Tyler at Washington, 36-27 Washington
Nixon at Ford, 35-25 Ford
McKinley at Hoover, 33-23 McKinley
Jefferson at Carter, 35-26 Jefferson
Polk at GW Bush, 36-33 Dubya
Pierce at Lincoln, 37-19 Lincoln
Monroe at GH Bush, 31-28 Monroe
Kennedy at Reagan, 31-29 Reagan
A Johnson at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
Truman at W Harrison, 32-25 Truman
Taft at Taylor, 30-28 Taylor
F Roosevelt at Wilson, 30-25 FDR
J Adams at Coolidge, 31-22 J Adams
Jackson at Eisenhower, 32-30 Jackson
Cleveland at Grant, 29-25 Cleveland
Van Buren at Hayes, 28-26 Hayes
B Harrison at Garfield, 29-25 Garfield
L Johnson at Madison, 25-22 Madison
JQ Adams at Buchanan, 269-20 JQA
Arthur at Clinton, 29-23 Arthur
1 President remains undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Harry Reid School of “Governance”
(some of this article taken from my original post under the title, “Smart Alek or Wise Guy?” on 11/22/04)
Some years back, I was talking about intelligence with my wife, who was unhappy because I said she was “smart". You see, she thought I was patronizing her, saying things I didn’t mean to make her feel better. I finally helped her see what I was saying; that there are different classes of intelligence and ability. The gourmet chef uses different skills and knowledge than a courtroom lawyer or a retail executive or a musician or anyone else. A person should not be considered ‘below’ someone else, because they are not accomplished in one particular area. It occurs to me, that the Democratic Party has yet to learn this critical lesson.
John Kerry’s facade in 2004 was the epitome of the Potemkin Village, all image and no substance. For a time, I worried that voters might buy into the lie, and miss the man as he really measures. Now I know, Americans are generally able and willing to spot out the fakes and reject them, especially when they have the genuine article for comparison. While President Bush had his own issues of false persona to address, they were not nearly as egregious as Kerry’s, and Americans recognized that fact.
It struck me as strange, for all of that, that the Democrats would not have recognized how thin Kerry’s image was, or that a critical number of voters would see through it. But seeing the reactions to the election from the likes of Edwards and Daschle, Pelosi and Dowd, Gore and Rather, I also realize that the Democrats’ leadership had blocked out any focus but their own narrow vision, so that corrective advice was pre-emptively rejected.
The Democrats grabbed control of Congress in 2006, in part because they continue to dominate minorities with scare tactics and demagoguery. The Democrats continue to control most of the major cities in the United States, where excessive bureaucracy and taxation are accepted without the rebellion which occurs in most of the nation. This means that the Liberal message (speaking connotatively) will continue for the forseeable future, and Democrats will continue to get elected wherever Socialism and Class Warfare are considered reasonable positions.
The Democrats have rejected any strategy which relies on common sense and a unified America. They rely on factions, hoping to prevail on the activism of select portions of the voters, while the Republicans try to apply broader, national, messages. The 2006 election resulted, in part, from the GOP trying to copy the Democrats’ tactics while ignoring voter worries and questions. The GOP failed to deliver a consistent message, and so lost control of the agenda. But this is, if history continues as it has for the past five decades, an aberration in the tide. The Democrats are rigidly controlled by their leadership, their consensus is more difficult to develop and continue; it’s one of the reasons why Democrats accomplish small victories in a long period of time, while Republicans tend to win large battles, but intermittently - since the GOP allows for dissent and debate within its ranks, Democrats can use this debate to break consensus and kill legislation. Americans have seen this, no matter how it was hidden, and taken note.
Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made a number of regrettable statements. Not only that any decent American would regret such sentiments, but that at some point in the future I believe the Democrats will be quite sorry Harry got hold of a microphone. For now, however, the extremists in the Democratic Party have hijacked the war and are doing their worst to drive the campaign to the nearest hole. It may be plainly said that the Democrats seriously intend to bring about U.S. casualties in Iraq by encouraging terrorist resistance, in the hope that they can use the slaughter for their personal political gain. The voice from the Left has gone full course from supporting the war and the men fighting it, to spiteful hate against everyone trying to win in Iraq or finish the job begun in 2003. There is no honorable debate among Democrats anymore on this point – they have established the defeat of the United States as their primary objective. What Democrats of honor remain, such as Senator Joe Lieberman, are silenced and suppressed, made outcasts and warned not to interfere with party objectives. Scarcely in human history has a major political party hoped such vile desires against its soldiers, and schemed such traitorous plots against the nation of their birth and heritage.
The Democrats will continue to exist as a major political party for decades to come. But by their own hand, they are committing themselves to second-tier status. Americans understand and respect traditional liberal values, but they won’t tear down their moral values to advance liberal ideals. Democrats continue to misunderstand what those moral values are; values which transcend part, which the voters expect, frankly, any serious candidate to embrace, like not undermining authority in wartime, or sticking to the issues in an election and eschewing personal attacks by the candidate or his staff, or recognizing the honor in a candidate, even an opponent. It seems that when a candidate displays these qualities, Democrats regard it as a sign of weakness rather than strength, and this badly mis-judges the American sense of honor.
Some years back, I was talking about intelligence with my wife, who was unhappy because I said she was “smart". You see, she thought I was patronizing her, saying things I didn’t mean to make her feel better. I finally helped her see what I was saying; that there are different classes of intelligence and ability. The gourmet chef uses different skills and knowledge than a courtroom lawyer or a retail executive or a musician or anyone else. A person should not be considered ‘below’ someone else, because they are not accomplished in one particular area. It occurs to me, that the Democratic Party has yet to learn this critical lesson.
John Kerry’s facade in 2004 was the epitome of the Potemkin Village, all image and no substance. For a time, I worried that voters might buy into the lie, and miss the man as he really measures. Now I know, Americans are generally able and willing to spot out the fakes and reject them, especially when they have the genuine article for comparison. While President Bush had his own issues of false persona to address, they were not nearly as egregious as Kerry’s, and Americans recognized that fact.
It struck me as strange, for all of that, that the Democrats would not have recognized how thin Kerry’s image was, or that a critical number of voters would see through it. But seeing the reactions to the election from the likes of Edwards and Daschle, Pelosi and Dowd, Gore and Rather, I also realize that the Democrats’ leadership had blocked out any focus but their own narrow vision, so that corrective advice was pre-emptively rejected.
The Democrats grabbed control of Congress in 2006, in part because they continue to dominate minorities with scare tactics and demagoguery. The Democrats continue to control most of the major cities in the United States, where excessive bureaucracy and taxation are accepted without the rebellion which occurs in most of the nation. This means that the Liberal message (speaking connotatively) will continue for the forseeable future, and Democrats will continue to get elected wherever Socialism and Class Warfare are considered reasonable positions.
The Democrats have rejected any strategy which relies on common sense and a unified America. They rely on factions, hoping to prevail on the activism of select portions of the voters, while the Republicans try to apply broader, national, messages. The 2006 election resulted, in part, from the GOP trying to copy the Democrats’ tactics while ignoring voter worries and questions. The GOP failed to deliver a consistent message, and so lost control of the agenda. But this is, if history continues as it has for the past five decades, an aberration in the tide. The Democrats are rigidly controlled by their leadership, their consensus is more difficult to develop and continue; it’s one of the reasons why Democrats accomplish small victories in a long period of time, while Republicans tend to win large battles, but intermittently - since the GOP allows for dissent and debate within its ranks, Democrats can use this debate to break consensus and kill legislation. Americans have seen this, no matter how it was hidden, and taken note.
Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made a number of regrettable statements. Not only that any decent American would regret such sentiments, but that at some point in the future I believe the Democrats will be quite sorry Harry got hold of a microphone. For now, however, the extremists in the Democratic Party have hijacked the war and are doing their worst to drive the campaign to the nearest hole. It may be plainly said that the Democrats seriously intend to bring about U.S. casualties in Iraq by encouraging terrorist resistance, in the hope that they can use the slaughter for their personal political gain. The voice from the Left has gone full course from supporting the war and the men fighting it, to spiteful hate against everyone trying to win in Iraq or finish the job begun in 2003. There is no honorable debate among Democrats anymore on this point – they have established the defeat of the United States as their primary objective. What Democrats of honor remain, such as Senator Joe Lieberman, are silenced and suppressed, made outcasts and warned not to interfere with party objectives. Scarcely in human history has a major political party hoped such vile desires against its soldiers, and schemed such traitorous plots against the nation of their birth and heritage.
The Democrats will continue to exist as a major political party for decades to come. But by their own hand, they are committing themselves to second-tier status. Americans understand and respect traditional liberal values, but they won’t tear down their moral values to advance liberal ideals. Democrats continue to misunderstand what those moral values are; values which transcend part, which the voters expect, frankly, any serious candidate to embrace, like not undermining authority in wartime, or sticking to the issues in an election and eschewing personal attacks by the candidate or his staff, or recognizing the honor in a candidate, even an opponent. It seems that when a candidate displays these qualities, Democrats regard it as a sign of weakness rather than strength, and this badly mis-judges the American sense of honor.
MLP Round 013
Game Scores:
T Roosevelt at Truman, 33-32 TR
GW Bush at McKinley, 38-37 McKinley
Ford at Kennedy, 33-32 Ford
Washington at Jackson, 37-28 Washington
GH Bush at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
Lincoln at Cleveland, 33-31 Lincoln
Garfield at Monroe, 30-26 Monroe
Wilson at Polk, 32-21 Polk
Harding at Reagan, 31-28 Reagan
Fillmore at JQ Adams, 31-27 Fillmore
Taylor at A Johnson, 28-19 Taylor
Coolidge at F Roosevelt, 33-23 FDR
Clinton at J Adams, 30-25 J Adams
Nixon at Madison, 25-24 Madison
Eisenhower at Arthur, 32-26 Ike
W Harrison at Taft, 30-25 Taft
Carter at L Johnson, 22-21 LBJ
Hayes at Pierce, 25-18 Hayes
Tyler at Grant, 29-25 Tyler
Hoover at B Harrison, 25-22 Hoover
Buchanan at Van Buren, 27-23 Buchanan
1 President remains undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
T Roosevelt at Truman, 33-32 TR
GW Bush at McKinley, 38-37 McKinley
Ford at Kennedy, 33-32 Ford
Washington at Jackson, 37-28 Washington
GH Bush at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
Lincoln at Cleveland, 33-31 Lincoln
Garfield at Monroe, 30-26 Monroe
Wilson at Polk, 32-21 Polk
Harding at Reagan, 31-28 Reagan
Fillmore at JQ Adams, 31-27 Fillmore
Taylor at A Johnson, 28-19 Taylor
Coolidge at F Roosevelt, 33-23 FDR
Clinton at J Adams, 30-25 J Adams
Nixon at Madison, 25-24 Madison
Eisenhower at Arthur, 32-26 Ike
W Harrison at Taft, 30-25 Taft
Carter at L Johnson, 22-21 LBJ
Hayes at Pierce, 25-18 Hayes
Tyler at Grant, 29-25 Tyler
Hoover at B Harrison, 25-22 Hoover
Buchanan at Van Buren, 27-23 Buchanan
1 President remains undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 1 has one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
Monday, April 23, 2007
MLP Round 012
** Note - BLOGGER is not allowing new posts on my site, so I am forced to create new posts by editing old posts with new dates and information. **
Game Scores:
Jefferson at Monroe, 30-28 Monroe
Taft at T Roosevelt, 33-28 TR
B Harrison at GW Bush, 36-23 Dubya
Arthur at Washington, 36-25 Washington
Truman at Reagan, 32-31 Truman
Harding at Ford, 35-23 Ford
McKinley at Wilson, 33-21 McKinley
Tyler at Lincoln, 37-26 Lincoln
Kennedy at Madison, 33-25 JFK
Polk at Coolidge, 30-22 Polk
JQ Adams at Taylor, 30-27 Taylor
Van Buren at Fillmore, 31-25 Fillmore
Cleveland at Hayes, 32-28 Cleveland
Jackson at Grant, 32-25 Jackson
F Roosevelt at Clinton, 30-23 FDR
Nixon at Carter, 26-24 Carter
J Adams at Eisenhower, 31-30 J Adams
A Johnson at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Hoover at Garfield, 29-25 Garfield
L Johnson at GH Bush, 28-22 GH Bush
Pierce at Buchanan, 20-19 Buchanan
2 Presidents remain undefeated, another 4 have one loss, another 2 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twelve Rounds
.1. Teddy Roosevelt (12-0) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
.2. GW Bush (12-0) beats Wilson, Garfield, Hoover, B Harrison
.3. Washington (11-1) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.4. Ford (11-1) beats A Johnson, Taft, Truman, Harding
.5. McKinley (11-1) beats Eisenhower, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.6. Jefferson (11-1) beats Nixon, LBJ, Nixon, loses to Monroe
.7. Lincoln (10-2) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.8. Kennedy (10-2) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.9. Polk (9-3) beats Eisen, Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Washington
.10. Monroe (9-3) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, loses to JFK
.11. Truman (10-2) beats Carter, Madison, Reagan, loses to Ford
.12. Reagan (10-2) beats JQA, A Johnson, Taft, loses to Truman
.13. Fillmore (8-4) beats Tyler, Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleveland
.14. Taylor (7-5) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.15. Cleveland (7-5) Beats Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Taylor
.16. Jackson (7-5) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.17. FDR (7-5) beats Grant, Eisenhower, Clinton, loses to Washington
.18. John Adams (8-4) beats Grant, Eisen, loses to Lincoln, Wash
.19. Nixon (7-5) beats GH Bush, loses to Jefferson, Monroe, Carter
.20. Garfield (6-6) beats LBJ, Hoover, loses to GW Bush, Jefferson
.21. Eisenhower (6-6) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.22. Taft (5-7) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.23. Harding (4-8) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.24. Wilson (4-8) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.25. Carter (5-7) beats Nixon, loses to Truman, Harding, JFK
.26. W Harrison (4-8) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.27. Hayes (5-7) beats Arthur, Tyler, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.28. GH Bush (5-7) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.29. Arthur (4-8) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Washington
.30. Madison (4-8) loses to Taft, Truman, Harding, JFK
.31. Tyler (4-8) beats Buchanan, loses to Fillmore, Hayes, Lincoln
.32. Grant (4-8) loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur, Jackson
.33. Quincy Adams (4-8) loses to Reagan, TR, W Harrison, Taylor
.34. Clinton (3-8) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.35. Buchanan (2-10) beats Pierce, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.36. B Harrison (2-10) beats Coolidge, loses to Clinton, Wilson, W Bush
.37. Coolidge (1-11) beats Hoover, loses to B Harrison, McKinley, Polk
.38. Hoover (1-11) loses to Coolidge, Wilson, GW Bush, Garfield
.39. LBJ (2-10) loses to Garfield, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.40. Van Buren (0-12) loses to T Roosevelt, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.41. Pierce (0-12) loses to W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan
.42. A Johnson (0-12) loses to Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
Game Scores:
Jefferson at Monroe, 30-28 Monroe
Taft at T Roosevelt, 33-28 TR
B Harrison at GW Bush, 36-23 Dubya
Arthur at Washington, 36-25 Washington
Truman at Reagan, 32-31 Truman
Harding at Ford, 35-23 Ford
McKinley at Wilson, 33-21 McKinley
Tyler at Lincoln, 37-26 Lincoln
Kennedy at Madison, 33-25 JFK
Polk at Coolidge, 30-22 Polk
JQ Adams at Taylor, 30-27 Taylor
Van Buren at Fillmore, 31-25 Fillmore
Cleveland at Hayes, 32-28 Cleveland
Jackson at Grant, 32-25 Jackson
F Roosevelt at Clinton, 30-23 FDR
Nixon at Carter, 26-24 Carter
J Adams at Eisenhower, 31-30 J Adams
A Johnson at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Hoover at Garfield, 29-25 Garfield
L Johnson at GH Bush, 28-22 GH Bush
Pierce at Buchanan, 20-19 Buchanan
2 Presidents remain undefeated, another 4 have one loss, another 2 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Twelve Rounds
.1. Teddy Roosevelt (12-0) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
.2. GW Bush (12-0) beats Wilson, Garfield, Hoover, B Harrison
.3. Washington (11-1) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.4. Ford (11-1) beats A Johnson, Taft, Truman, Harding
.5. McKinley (11-1) beats Eisenhower, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.6. Jefferson (11-1) beats Nixon, LBJ, Nixon, loses to Monroe
.7. Lincoln (10-2) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.8. Kennedy (10-2) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.9. Polk (9-3) beats Eisen, Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Washington
.10. Monroe (9-3) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, loses to JFK
.11. Truman (10-2) beats Carter, Madison, Reagan, loses to Ford
.12. Reagan (10-2) beats JQA, A Johnson, Taft, loses to Truman
.13. Fillmore (8-4) beats Tyler, Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleveland
.14. Taylor (7-5) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.15. Cleveland (7-5) Beats Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, loses to Taylor
.16. Jackson (7-5) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.17. FDR (7-5) beats Grant, Eisenhower, Clinton, loses to Washington
.18. John Adams (8-4) beats Grant, Eisen, loses to Lincoln, Wash
.19. Nixon (7-5) beats GH Bush, loses to Jefferson, Monroe, Carter
.20. Garfield (6-6) beats LBJ, Hoover, loses to GW Bush, Jefferson
.21. Eisenhower (6-6) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, J Adams
.22. Taft (5-7) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.23. Harding (4-8) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.24. Wilson (4-8) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.25. Carter (5-7) beats Nixon, loses to Truman, Harding, JFK
.26. W Harrison (4-8) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson
.27. Hayes (5-7) beats Arthur, Tyler, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.28. GH Bush (5-7) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.29. Arthur (4-8) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Washington
.30. Madison (4-8) loses to Taft, Truman, Harding, JFK
.31. Tyler (4-8) beats Buchanan, loses to Fillmore, Hayes, Lincoln
.32. Grant (4-8) loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur, Jackson
.33. Quincy Adams (4-8) loses to Reagan, TR, W Harrison, Taylor
.34. Clinton (3-8) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.35. Buchanan (2-10) beats Pierce, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.36. B Harrison (2-10) beats Coolidge, loses to Clinton, Wilson, W Bush
.37. Coolidge (1-11) beats Hoover, loses to B Harrison, McKinley, Polk
.38. Hoover (1-11) loses to Coolidge, Wilson, GW Bush, Garfield
.39. LBJ (2-10) loses to Garfield, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.40. Van Buren (0-12) loses to T Roosevelt, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.41. Pierce (0-12) loses to W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan
.42. A Johnson (0-12) loses to Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
Sunday, April 22, 2007
On Death
Yesterday, I went to the funeral of my old church choir director, the sort of man who achieved greatness the old-fashioned way; he changed the lives of countless people around him by helping them find character strengths and skills they did not know they possessed, and he helped them grow from uncertain youth to a more confident adulthood. Today also happens to be the one-year anniversary of the death of my father. Also, in the past year I have been diagnosed with Cancer, been to several other funerals, and had some unpleasantly direct experience with how the present media culture treats the families of violent crime, so I am a bit more aware of death in my thoughts and ponderings than normal.
We live, we die. These are immutable facts in the human condition. I could make some profound religious or philosophical observation on what happens after we die, I suppose, but it would likely not be original, even if it was worth the effort. And it would be poor, cold comfort to the people left behind to mourn the loss. It’s nice to be told that our loved ones are happy and doing well on the other side of the grave, and we might even take some comfort in the hope that we can believe in something more after the death of the body, but in the present we all have to face that death is right here, everywhere all the time. Dying means pain, the grotesque internment of the body as garbage, and the undesired change in reality for everyone connected to the deceased. C.S. Lewis, the Oxford Don and famous as a great apologist for Christianity in the modern age, wrote about the pain he endured when his wife Joy died from Cancer. It was, he felt, grossly unfair and painful to everyone, and it also seemed that everything someone said to him showed how little they understood the situation. If so great an optimist as Lewis felt this way during the passing of his wife, we should not be surprised that anyone else would feel the same suffering.
Yet for all of that, I cannot accept the notion that death should be the focus of a person’s life. We are born and we must die, yes, but all that happens in between those events is of tremendous importance. Indeed, all of History comes down to men and women choosing ways to use their opportunities to act in ways that change Reality. Even when they sometimes had to die to do so. And many times, the people who changed the world the most, were far more than they seemed on the outside.
It’s no great wisdom to say it, but I think it’s a good idea to repeat the fact that living matters more than dying. Anyone can die, and we all get there eventually. Living, and living to a good end, is much much harder and significant. People mourn a person’s death, specifically because the way they lived mattered.
We live, we die. These are immutable facts in the human condition. I could make some profound religious or philosophical observation on what happens after we die, I suppose, but it would likely not be original, even if it was worth the effort. And it would be poor, cold comfort to the people left behind to mourn the loss. It’s nice to be told that our loved ones are happy and doing well on the other side of the grave, and we might even take some comfort in the hope that we can believe in something more after the death of the body, but in the present we all have to face that death is right here, everywhere all the time. Dying means pain, the grotesque internment of the body as garbage, and the undesired change in reality for everyone connected to the deceased. C.S. Lewis, the Oxford Don and famous as a great apologist for Christianity in the modern age, wrote about the pain he endured when his wife Joy died from Cancer. It was, he felt, grossly unfair and painful to everyone, and it also seemed that everything someone said to him showed how little they understood the situation. If so great an optimist as Lewis felt this way during the passing of his wife, we should not be surprised that anyone else would feel the same suffering.
Yet for all of that, I cannot accept the notion that death should be the focus of a person’s life. We are born and we must die, yes, but all that happens in between those events is of tremendous importance. Indeed, all of History comes down to men and women choosing ways to use their opportunities to act in ways that change Reality. Even when they sometimes had to die to do so. And many times, the people who changed the world the most, were far more than they seemed on the outside.
It’s no great wisdom to say it, but I think it’s a good idea to repeat the fact that living matters more than dying. Anyone can die, and we all get there eventually. Living, and living to a good end, is much much harder and significant. People mourn a person’s death, specifically because the way they lived mattered.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
MLP Round 011
Game Scores:
Garfield at Jefferson, 34-29 Jefferson
T Roosevelt at A Johnson, 34-19 TR
GW Bush at Hoover, 35-23 Dubya
Washington at J Adams, 35-30 Washington
Reagan at Taft, 37-30 Reagan
Ford at Truman, 34-32 Ford
Coolidge at McKinley, 37-25 McKinley
Lincoln at Jackson, 33-28 Lincoln
Carter at Kennedy, 32-21 JFK
Clinton at Polk, 32-23 Polk
Taylor at Van Buren, 28-23 Taylor
Monroe at L Johnson, 29-21 Monroe
Fillmore at Pierce, 32-18 Fillmore
Buchanan at Cleveland, 31-21 Cleveland
Eisenhower at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
GH Bush at Nixon, 30-28 Nixon
Madison at Harding, 27-21 Harding
Hayes at Tyler, 29-28 Hayes
W Harrison at JQ Adams, 28-27 W Harrison
Wilson at B Harrison, 23-22 Wilson
Grant at Arthur, 26-22 Arthur
3 Presidents remain undefeated, another 4 have one loss, another 3 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless
Garfield at Jefferson, 34-29 Jefferson
T Roosevelt at A Johnson, 34-19 TR
GW Bush at Hoover, 35-23 Dubya
Washington at J Adams, 35-30 Washington
Reagan at Taft, 37-30 Reagan
Ford at Truman, 34-32 Ford
Coolidge at McKinley, 37-25 McKinley
Lincoln at Jackson, 33-28 Lincoln
Carter at Kennedy, 32-21 JFK
Clinton at Polk, 32-23 Polk
Taylor at Van Buren, 28-23 Taylor
Monroe at L Johnson, 29-21 Monroe
Fillmore at Pierce, 32-18 Fillmore
Buchanan at Cleveland, 31-21 Cleveland
Eisenhower at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
GH Bush at Nixon, 30-28 Nixon
Madison at Harding, 27-21 Harding
Hayes at Tyler, 29-28 Hayes
W Harrison at JQ Adams, 28-27 W Harrison
Wilson at B Harrison, 23-22 Wilson
Grant at Arthur, 26-22 Arthur
3 Presidents remain undefeated, another 4 have one loss, another 3 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Begone to Nothingness
The mass murder this week at Virginia Tech was a horrible, inhuman act by a madman. The suffering was made worse, however, by the mercenary and stone-hearted decision by the media at large to broadcast everything they could find about the killer. What started as a reasonable effort to provide news and relevant information, soon devolved into a vulgar circus to see who could make the victims' families experience the worst anguish. It must be said, before I say anything further, that the decision by NBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and CNN to flood the airwaves with sounds and images from the malignant narcissist, is effectively to promote the worst kind of voyeurism, and to display as cruel an indifference to the pain already endured by the victims' families, as to be worthy of criminal charges in any just society. I firmly believe that on the day when all men are judged, there will be a grim reckoning for the likes of Brian Williams, Steve Capus, Dan Abrams, Roger Aisles, and their cronies.
But for all the crude behavior by the media, the fault for the massacre rests with the gunman. Him alone. For all the efforts made to blame the crime on Gun Control or the lack of it, on administrators or the police, the hate and the decision to destroy so many innocent lives lies on the person who made the choice. I don't know, or care, whether or not he was "mentally ill"; even the mentally ill often know how to keep from hurting other people, and in the end there is no excuse, whatsoever, which justifies murder.
This particular monster wanted attention. He sent out photos, a "manifesto", a video comparing himself to every person he ever considered great, though he was - at best - a pathetic failure who wasn't man enough to accomplish anything more than to blame everyone and everything else for his failures. He is not worth remembering.
You have probably noticed I have not mentioned his name. So far as I am concerned, every evil act he committed took away something of what was left of him, and after so many murders there is nothing left to speak. A man, a real man anyway, is the sum of the good he does, and he establishes his name through honorable and virtuous acts. Heaven is by the grace of God, but a man's honor and name is something he can build and know might have a chance of surviving him. Like Dr. Liviu Librescu, or Jacob Russell Ryker. Maybe like Todd Beamer or Paul Ray Smith.
You don't have to do something bold and daring to earn your name, though. Millions of truly great men and women made their name by being good parents, by coaching or teaching kids, by helping neighbors and looking out for folks in need. Some earned their name through simple hard work, and the record of years of honest integrity. These kinds of people did not get the breaks others did, they didn't get plush jobs or easy lives, but instead of blaming others they persevered and made something of their lives, in some cases succeeding against all odds. A solid work ethic, compassion for the needy, and a focus on providing for their family and loved ones. Just such people, real people worth knowing, worked and saved so their kids could go to college. Virginia Tech, maybe.
You want to know how you can help? Look up these families, maybe send them a note saying you are sorry for them and will pray for them, maybe you look to your community and your schools, and you ask them how you can make a difference for kids. What you do not do, is give even an ounce of attention to the evil soul who did the murders. He wanted fame and attention, so he must be denied these things; he has earned none of it. He, and the jackals who feed off his malice, are nothing but waste. In his case, a wasted life and in theirs, a waste of effort and focus. What you do with waste, is flush the toilet and move on, never thinking about what was never worth a thing beyond its passing.
But for all the crude behavior by the media, the fault for the massacre rests with the gunman. Him alone. For all the efforts made to blame the crime on Gun Control or the lack of it, on administrators or the police, the hate and the decision to destroy so many innocent lives lies on the person who made the choice. I don't know, or care, whether or not he was "mentally ill"; even the mentally ill often know how to keep from hurting other people, and in the end there is no excuse, whatsoever, which justifies murder.
This particular monster wanted attention. He sent out photos, a "manifesto", a video comparing himself to every person he ever considered great, though he was - at best - a pathetic failure who wasn't man enough to accomplish anything more than to blame everyone and everything else for his failures. He is not worth remembering.
You have probably noticed I have not mentioned his name. So far as I am concerned, every evil act he committed took away something of what was left of him, and after so many murders there is nothing left to speak. A man, a real man anyway, is the sum of the good he does, and he establishes his name through honorable and virtuous acts. Heaven is by the grace of God, but a man's honor and name is something he can build and know might have a chance of surviving him. Like Dr. Liviu Librescu, or Jacob Russell Ryker. Maybe like Todd Beamer or Paul Ray Smith.
You don't have to do something bold and daring to earn your name, though. Millions of truly great men and women made their name by being good parents, by coaching or teaching kids, by helping neighbors and looking out for folks in need. Some earned their name through simple hard work, and the record of years of honest integrity. These kinds of people did not get the breaks others did, they didn't get plush jobs or easy lives, but instead of blaming others they persevered and made something of their lives, in some cases succeeding against all odds. A solid work ethic, compassion for the needy, and a focus on providing for their family and loved ones. Just such people, real people worth knowing, worked and saved so their kids could go to college. Virginia Tech, maybe.
You want to know how you can help? Look up these families, maybe send them a note saying you are sorry for them and will pray for them, maybe you look to your community and your schools, and you ask them how you can make a difference for kids. What you do not do, is give even an ounce of attention to the evil soul who did the murders. He wanted fame and attention, so he must be denied these things; he has earned none of it. He, and the jackals who feed off his malice, are nothing but waste. In his case, a wasted life and in theirs, a waste of effort and focus. What you do with waste, is flush the toilet and move on, never thinking about what was never worth a thing beyond its passing.
MLP Round 010
Game Scores:
L Johnson at Jefferson, 34-25 Jefferson
T Roosevelt at JQ Adams, 33-27 TR
GW Bush at Garfield, 36-29 Dubya
F Roosevelt at Washington, 36-34 Washington
A Johnson at Reagan, 31-21 Reagan
Taft at Ford, 35-26 Ford
Truman at Madison, 30-25 Truman
McKinley at Clinton, 37-23 McKinley
Arthur at Lincoln, 37-30 Lincoln
Kennedy, at GH Bush, 29-28 JFK
Fillmore at Cleveland, 31-30 Cleveland
Jackson at Hayes, 29-28 Jackson
J Adams at Grant, 31-25 J Adams
Polk at Eisenhower, 32-30 Polk
Taylor at Pierce, 30-18 Taylor
Nixon at Monroe, 30-29 Monroe
Harding at Carter, 28-26 Harding
Tyler at Buchanan, 26-20 Tyler
W Harrison at Van Buren, 28-23 W Harrison
Hoover at Wilson, 25-23 Wilson
B Harrison at Coolidge, 25-22 B Harrison
3 Presidents remain undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 3 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
L Johnson at Jefferson, 34-25 Jefferson
T Roosevelt at JQ Adams, 33-27 TR
GW Bush at Garfield, 36-29 Dubya
F Roosevelt at Washington, 36-34 Washington
A Johnson at Reagan, 31-21 Reagan
Taft at Ford, 35-26 Ford
Truman at Madison, 30-25 Truman
McKinley at Clinton, 37-23 McKinley
Arthur at Lincoln, 37-30 Lincoln
Kennedy, at GH Bush, 29-28 JFK
Fillmore at Cleveland, 31-30 Cleveland
Jackson at Hayes, 29-28 Jackson
J Adams at Grant, 31-25 J Adams
Polk at Eisenhower, 32-30 Polk
Taylor at Pierce, 30-18 Taylor
Nixon at Monroe, 30-29 Monroe
Harding at Carter, 28-26 Harding
Tyler at Buchanan, 26-20 Tyler
W Harrison at Van Buren, 28-23 W Harrison
Hoover at Wilson, 25-23 Wilson
B Harrison at Coolidge, 25-22 B Harrison
3 Presidents remain undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 3 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
There is Hope for Journalism
In the wave of the horror at Virginia Tech, we should still not forget other important news. Jemele Hill, who writes for ESPN The Magazine, has a compelling column addressed directly, and honestly, to Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann, the three men falsely accused of rape at Duke University.
Her words are neither trite nor easy. They are exactly what needs to be said, and it shows promise for the future of Journalism. Ms. Hill has done a good thing, and not for her own advancement, nor for a cause, but in simple obedience to Justice and Decency.
Thank you, Ms. Hill. Especially since it would be easy for people to forget these young men, now that the spotlight has moved on.
Her words are neither trite nor easy. They are exactly what needs to be said, and it shows promise for the future of Journalism. Ms. Hill has done a good thing, and not for her own advancement, nor for a cause, but in simple obedience to Justice and Decency.
Thank you, Ms. Hill. Especially since it would be easy for people to forget these young men, now that the spotlight has moved on.
MLP Round 009
Game Scores:
Jefferson at Nixon, 31-30 Jefferson
Van Buren at T Roosevelt, 33-25 TR
Wilson at GW Bush, 36-22 Dubya
Washington at Polk, 34-32 Washington
JQ Adams at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Ford at A Johnson, 31-19 Ford
Carter at Truman, 32-22 Truman
Eisenhower at McKinley, 37-30 McKinley
Lincoln at J Adams, 33-30 Lincoln
Monroe at Kennedy, 32-29 JFK
Fillmore at Tyler, 31-28 Fillmore
Madison at Taft, 30-25 Taft
Buchanan at Jackson, 28-24 Jackson
Grant at F Roosevelt, 33-20 FDR
Garfield at L Johnson, 29-21 Garfield
Cleveland at Taylor, 30-29 Taylor
Hayes at Arthur, 28-26 Hayes
GH Bush at Harding, 28-27 Harding
Clinton at B Harrison, 25-22 Clinton
Coolidge at Hoover, 24-23 Coolidge
Pierce at W Harrison, 25-21 W Harrison
3 Presidents remain undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 5 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
Jefferson at Nixon, 31-30 Jefferson
Van Buren at T Roosevelt, 33-25 TR
Wilson at GW Bush, 36-22 Dubya
Washington at Polk, 34-32 Washington
JQ Adams at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Ford at A Johnson, 31-19 Ford
Carter at Truman, 32-22 Truman
Eisenhower at McKinley, 37-30 McKinley
Lincoln at J Adams, 33-30 Lincoln
Monroe at Kennedy, 32-29 JFK
Fillmore at Tyler, 31-28 Fillmore
Madison at Taft, 30-25 Taft
Buchanan at Jackson, 28-24 Jackson
Grant at F Roosevelt, 33-20 FDR
Garfield at L Johnson, 29-21 Garfield
Cleveland at Taylor, 30-29 Taylor
Hayes at Arthur, 28-26 Hayes
GH Bush at Harding, 28-27 Harding
Clinton at B Harrison, 25-22 Clinton
Coolidge at Hoover, 24-23 Coolidge
Pierce at W Harrison, 25-21 W Harrison
3 Presidents remain undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 5 have one win, and 3 Presidents are winless.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The White House 2009
Less than a year before the first primary races, and yet far too early in most people’s minds, the election race for the Presidency is accelerating to full speed, and we are beginning to get a clear picture of the field. There may be a horse or two which are still at the gate, but unless they start very soon they may be too far behind to have a chance at the nomination.
The race appears to be surprisingly predictable, given the unusual conditions. The sitting President ran for re-election in 2004, 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980, 1976 (Ford running for his first election), 1972, 1964 (LBJ running for his first election), and 1956. The sitting Vice-President ran for his party’s nomination in 2000, 1988, 1968, and 1960. Not since 1952 have we seen a race where the President was not running, nor was the Vice-President.
There is, therefore, a question of which model will be the winning one. Most modern Presidents ran successfully as a Southern Governor. That gives hope to Bill Richardson among the Democrats, and Jeb Bush among the Republicans, although Richardson is largely unknown and Jeb says he does not plan to run. This time, anyway.
The Vice-President is not running, so while that is a historically good choice, it won’t happen here. Obama is pinning his hopes on the Charismatic-if-Clueless-Senator-From-the-North-Wowing-Folks-So-Much-That-They-Don’t-Ask-Any-Hard-Questions plan, which worked so well for JFK. Of course, Obama never served so he can’t play up his service the way Kennedy did, and he won’t be running against Nixon.
For some reason, the Shrill-Scream-of-Outrage still sells well among Democrats, and Tom Tancredo seems to think such a plan could advance his own ambitions. Forgive my bluntness please, but God Forbid. Seriously.
As I mentioned the odd little Dance In Three Acts which is the Presidential campaign continues along generally predictable lines in both camps. The Third Party possibilities are even less impressive than in the last few years, which clears the field from having to deal with the annoying drone of a Perot or a Nader. The current leader among the Democrats is Hillary, although Obama is closing fast. An interesting contrast, the crafty veteran and student of Macchiavelli, and the man who would be JFK II. And the Donk base seem conflicted on who would be better. I do not believe they will join on the same ticket. Wanna-be's like John Kerry and Joe Biden have already faded to the point that they seem completely irrelevent to the race, so the Democrat contention appears to come down to Clinton, Obama, or a late entry with serious financial backing and a wedge issue. John Edwards is right out.
Among the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads the pack just now, and the GOP field appears quite crowded, but again in actual fact the number of serious contenders is already dwindling. After Giuliani, the race for the Republican nod comes down to McCain, Romney, and Fred Thompson. Tommy Thompson and Newt Gingrich are simply not going to grab the kind of support to contend. As with the Democrats, of course, the possibility of a late entry must be considered, but again that will require serious money and something to flash-start the campaign. And John McCain, while he is considered a 'front-runner' in the media, is losing more and more momentum. Unless he repudiates his former anti-freedom of speech stands, by next spring he will be less exciting than topsoil.
So for now, we are limited to a small group, basically Hillary and Obama on the Democrat side, and Rudy, Romney, and Fred for the Republicans. Given historical lessons (Bill Clinton, for instance, jumped in late in the 1992 race and came from behind to nab the party nod), we must consider the late possible entry of a dark horse, but at the moment it's difficult to imagine who would find the resources for the sprint needed to win; modern primaries are front-loaded, so that early victories canm become insurmountable, and candidates are judged more heavily on the mythical quotient of "electability" - the fictional depiction of appearing to be like Reagan or FDR to the party faithful. That filter will undoubtedly have its impact. For instance, Obama is closing fast on Hillary at the moment, but he - perversely - is likely to be held back by Democrats because of his race. Why? It has already been suggested that Obama is primarily successful with blacks, which could earn him the "black vote", another myth which presumes that an entire race can be swayed to vote for someone on primarily on the basis of skin color. The reason this would be held against Obama in garnering the party nomination, is the impression that blacks represent a much larger portion of the Dmeocratic Party machine, than of voters in the country overall. Therefore, goes the thought, if a candidate appears to be tremendously strong with blacks, that support must somehow be diluted when calculating the national vote. And therefore, unless Obama starts winning stronger support in places like Seattle or Miami or Norman, he will be presumed by party leaders to be suspect in his strength, so that even popularity will not be enough. Some of this talk is undoubtedly whisper campaigning by Hillary's network, but it is also aligned with past behavior of national political parties. As a result, Obama is likely to influence the statements and promises made by Hillary, but she is in a better strategic position for the Democrat's nod than the media suggests.
As for the Republicans, I have said many times that the biggest mistake made by the GOP in the last couple years, is the wholesale defection of party egos from support of the President. It's not just that I think President Bush is generally correct in his stance, especially on the most important issues, it's also the image projected to the nation, the difference between consensus and chaos, between a team and a bar fight. In the end, the race for the GOP nomination will not matter unless a candidate emerges who can re-unify the party. Fortunately, any of the group from Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson is capable of the task, but I wonder whether they will get the chance.
In closing for here, both parties have a large task ahead of them in claiming the General Election. The national mood seems to lean towards the Democracts, but the fact remains that they are only going to win the White House if they can claim states which Bush won the last two go-rounds. And both parties should be well aware that there are a number of electorally important states which could go either way, depending on a number of factors.
The race appears to be surprisingly predictable, given the unusual conditions. The sitting President ran for re-election in 2004, 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980, 1976 (Ford running for his first election), 1972, 1964 (LBJ running for his first election), and 1956. The sitting Vice-President ran for his party’s nomination in 2000, 1988, 1968, and 1960. Not since 1952 have we seen a race where the President was not running, nor was the Vice-President.
There is, therefore, a question of which model will be the winning one. Most modern Presidents ran successfully as a Southern Governor. That gives hope to Bill Richardson among the Democrats, and Jeb Bush among the Republicans, although Richardson is largely unknown and Jeb says he does not plan to run. This time, anyway.
The Vice-President is not running, so while that is a historically good choice, it won’t happen here. Obama is pinning his hopes on the Charismatic-if-Clueless-Senator-From-the-North-Wowing-Folks-So-Much-That-They-Don’t-Ask-Any-Hard-Questions plan, which worked so well for JFK. Of course, Obama never served so he can’t play up his service the way Kennedy did, and he won’t be running against Nixon.
For some reason, the Shrill-Scream-of-Outrage still sells well among Democrats, and Tom Tancredo seems to think such a plan could advance his own ambitions. Forgive my bluntness please, but God Forbid. Seriously.
As I mentioned the odd little Dance In Three Acts which is the Presidential campaign continues along generally predictable lines in both camps. The Third Party possibilities are even less impressive than in the last few years, which clears the field from having to deal with the annoying drone of a Perot or a Nader. The current leader among the Democrats is Hillary, although Obama is closing fast. An interesting contrast, the crafty veteran and student of Macchiavelli, and the man who would be JFK II. And the Donk base seem conflicted on who would be better. I do not believe they will join on the same ticket. Wanna-be's like John Kerry and Joe Biden have already faded to the point that they seem completely irrelevent to the race, so the Democrat contention appears to come down to Clinton, Obama, or a late entry with serious financial backing and a wedge issue. John Edwards is right out.
Among the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads the pack just now, and the GOP field appears quite crowded, but again in actual fact the number of serious contenders is already dwindling. After Giuliani, the race for the Republican nod comes down to McCain, Romney, and Fred Thompson. Tommy Thompson and Newt Gingrich are simply not going to grab the kind of support to contend. As with the Democrats, of course, the possibility of a late entry must be considered, but again that will require serious money and something to flash-start the campaign. And John McCain, while he is considered a 'front-runner' in the media, is losing more and more momentum. Unless he repudiates his former anti-freedom of speech stands, by next spring he will be less exciting than topsoil.
So for now, we are limited to a small group, basically Hillary and Obama on the Democrat side, and Rudy, Romney, and Fred for the Republicans. Given historical lessons (Bill Clinton, for instance, jumped in late in the 1992 race and came from behind to nab the party nod), we must consider the late possible entry of a dark horse, but at the moment it's difficult to imagine who would find the resources for the sprint needed to win; modern primaries are front-loaded, so that early victories canm become insurmountable, and candidates are judged more heavily on the mythical quotient of "electability" - the fictional depiction of appearing to be like Reagan or FDR to the party faithful. That filter will undoubtedly have its impact. For instance, Obama is closing fast on Hillary at the moment, but he - perversely - is likely to be held back by Democrats because of his race. Why? It has already been suggested that Obama is primarily successful with blacks, which could earn him the "black vote", another myth which presumes that an entire race can be swayed to vote for someone on primarily on the basis of skin color. The reason this would be held against Obama in garnering the party nomination, is the impression that blacks represent a much larger portion of the Dmeocratic Party machine, than of voters in the country overall. Therefore, goes the thought, if a candidate appears to be tremendously strong with blacks, that support must somehow be diluted when calculating the national vote. And therefore, unless Obama starts winning stronger support in places like Seattle or Miami or Norman, he will be presumed by party leaders to be suspect in his strength, so that even popularity will not be enough. Some of this talk is undoubtedly whisper campaigning by Hillary's network, but it is also aligned with past behavior of national political parties. As a result, Obama is likely to influence the statements and promises made by Hillary, but she is in a better strategic position for the Democrat's nod than the media suggests.
As for the Republicans, I have said many times that the biggest mistake made by the GOP in the last couple years, is the wholesale defection of party egos from support of the President. It's not just that I think President Bush is generally correct in his stance, especially on the most important issues, it's also the image projected to the nation, the difference between consensus and chaos, between a team and a bar fight. In the end, the race for the GOP nomination will not matter unless a candidate emerges who can re-unify the party. Fortunately, any of the group from Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson is capable of the task, but I wonder whether they will get the chance.
In closing for here, both parties have a large task ahead of them in claiming the General Election. The national mood seems to lean towards the Democracts, but the fact remains that they are only going to win the White House if they can claim states which Bush won the last two go-rounds. And both parties should be well aware that there are a number of electorally important states which could go either way, depending on a number of factors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
