The Root of Polarization

I looked at Pollingpoint.com, and found this chart. Every wondered why our country is so polarized? This seems to be the answer.

Strategy of Indictment

So I just finished reading the indictment for Scooter Libby. If you're one of those who has bought the line Democrats are spreading about widespread corruption in the White House, plus the whole idea that it proves Joe Wilson's claim that there was no truth to the Iraq uranium story out of Niger, that's all completely bogus.

What actually happened is right there in the indictment. The original editorials sourced to Wilson, then later written by Wilson himself, caused Scooter and others in the White House to say, "What the heck is this all about, and who is this clown going around saying we sent him to Niger?"

So he found out, and along the way discovered that Wilson was sent by the CIA (not the White House) to see if he could corroborate reports that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger. And he was sent at the recommendation of his wife, who worked in the CIA. And he lied about the mission, who sent him, what he found out, and how he delivered his report upon returning. How does that translate into Libby getting indicted for trying to get the truth out?

So Libby's being charged, not with purposely disclosing the name of a covert CIA agent, but with misleading the press and the FBI about it. Because, you see, Valerie Plame-Wilson, the CIA agent who got her husband the job in Niger, wasn't and isn't covert. So the entire premise of the original investigation turns out to be bogus.

From my reading of the indictment, it isn't completely clear whether Libby was even the original source of the information about Valerie's involvement. It suggests that he may have been. The indictment also can't state for a certainty that Libby knew whether or not her status was classified when he discussed her with reporters. What it does suggest is that Libby may have slipped the initial whisper about Mrs. Wilson to Judith Miller, then pretended to be hearing it for the first time when other reporters called as the story began to spread.

So, the guy may or may not have lied to reporters and the FBI. Or he may just have had a slip in memory about exactly what he said to whom and when. And that's what got him indicted. Again, lying is not good, assuming he lied on purpose. But it certainly is strange that Libby's about to face a firing squad for lying about who he told when about somebody who works for the CIA, when Wilson told a series of whoppers and nobody even seems to notice.

He has to resign. Big deal. Even if he's 100% guilty, the actual offense seems so minor as to not be worthy of more than a slap on the wrist. So he got the whole story started on Valerie Plame and the fact that she was responsible for sending her husband, an avowed enemy of the administration, on a mission that gave him an opportunity to try to discredit his hated presidency. So what? As far as I can see, his only mistake is in either trying to cover up his involvement in the story or in failing to take good notes to make sure he can be perfectly accurate when answering people's questions about the whole ordeal.

Everyone calm down and go home. There's no story here.

The Truth about Lies

Recent events on the political landscape have brought to light the larger issue of truth and lies and politicians. Cynics like to say that politicians and lying go together like peanut butter and jelly. They lie for a living.

But what makes me crazy these days is the lies told to try to make us believe someone else lied. Let me see if I can untangle the web of deceit just a bit.

Anti-war activists and the Democrats who pander to them have been pounding the daily message to the great unwashed that President Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. The reasoning goes, Democrats voted approval for the war based on reports of WMD, which we have subsequently been unable to find. Ergo, Bush lied about the WMD and there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place.

So let's analyze this piece of spin by going back in time. Facts: Saddam was openly defying all the UN's sanctions. He was known to have WMD, which he used both in the war with Iran and against Iraqi Kurds in the past. He harbored terrorist fugitives and supported terrorist training camps within his borders. He also financed terrorist activities against the west. He spent millions, or perhaps billions of dollars through the UN's own "Oil for Food" program to pay off highly placed officials in the UN, France, Germany, and possibly other influential countries to support the removal of sanctions against Iraq, not to mention any resolution that might authorize force to remove his regime.

After 9-11, the United States people were outraged and wanted action. We wanted to stop the terrorists once and for all. Clearly the home base for Al Quaeda was Afghanistan, where they were supported and protected by the Taliban. No-brainer. We went to Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban, thinned the ranks of Al Quaeda, and forced bin Laden into hiding.

Then Iraq was admittedly not as clear-cut. Reasonable people could and did disagree about the necessity of using force to remove Saddam from power. But in the end, the authorization for war was passed with a significant majority in congress, which committed us to see it through. And no WMD were found after Saddam was ousted, but when the whole world believed he had them prior to the invasion, it's infair to accuse Bush of lying without also accusing everyone else - Republicans, Democrats, the British, French, Germans - of lying about the same thing.

So, here we are today, with the big story about whether or not Valerie Plame was "outed" by high white house officials in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who claimed the administration lied about a story that Saddam tried to purchase Uranium from Africa.

The facts as to whether the white house aides, focusing on Carl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, purposely disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Plame, are not yet known. But from what is known, but well covered-up by our so-called "watchdog" media are some other related facts.

First, Joseph Wilson lied about nearly every point related to his trip to Niger to investigate the stories of Saddam attempting to buy uranium. It turns out he did get confirmation on that point, but lied about that, about who sent him to Niger, and about the form and substance of his report upon his return.

Second, Valerie Plame had been a covert operative for the CIA in the past, but had not served in that role for several years. So the point of the original investigation into the "leak" was moot.

But for some reason, the investigation continued and expanded beyond the original question. And now the press is eagerly reporting that the involved white house officials might be indicted as early as this week, not for releasing Valerie Plame's name to the press, but for lying about leaking it to the press.

So let me try to get this straight: Political enemies of Bush have been trying for years to convince everyone that he lied about the Iraq war. Joseph Wilson actually did lie about his mission to Niger in order to try to help the effort to paint Bush as a liar. When some staffers at the white house try to give reporters some background on Wilson to help them understand that he was lying about his story, they become the subjects of a tw0-year investigation that ends up (possibly) with indictments alleging they lied about where the press got Wilson's wife's name.

Did Rove, Libby, or anybody else at the white house lie? Did they just forget a detail or two after 3 years? Did they try to cover themselves from accusations of being the original source for the "leak"? I have no idea. But if they are to be indicted for lying, wouldn't it necessarily follow that Wilson be indicted as well? If they did lie about the "leak", which was the bigger lie, theirs or Wilson's?

It seems this entire non-incident is being played for a solely political purpose. And for me, it makes those Democrats behind the whole scheme appear to lack any ethical foundation, with an end-justifies-the-means and win-at-all-costs mentality that should give us all pause.

Geena Davis is Just a Tall Hillary Clinton

There wasn't much of interest on TV last night, so I gave in to curiosity and watched the new ABC show, "Commander in Chief". From the ads I had seen for the show, I suspected that it most likely was part of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

I was right.

The evil, Machiavellian Republican caricature in the show played very aptly by Donald Sutherland is shown scheming and pulling out all the stops to undermine the presidency of Geena Davis' character. Although the occasional reference is made to "enemies from both parties", last night's episode didn't introduce a single Democrat character. The implicit message is that Republicans are the evil political party.

In a poorly disguised move to pretend the show is non-partisan, Geena is neither Republican nor Democrat, but an Independent. The issues she is given to deal with are either forced upon her by Sutherland's scheming or manufactured fantasies of incredibly simplistic policy issues designed to show the new woman president as tough and decisive.

For a propaganda piece intended to prepare the American public for President Hillary, the show is even more vapid than even I expected. I suppose the producers are counting on a demographic of shallow and gullible viewers who will somehow associate Hillary with Gina in an enthusiastic voter turnout, where they will see Hillary repeat such foreign policy coups as giving Russia fast-track entry into the WTO in exchange for the release of jailed journalists.

And the so-called "Liberal Elite" so enjoy calling conservatives stupid.

What Frightens Me

What frightens me?

I don't fear crime, wild animals, death or injury, or pretty much anything that could happen to me as an individual. I've led a reasonably full life, and if the reaper comes knocking tomorrow, I think I could face it without much fear.

But I do have feelings approaching fear as I hear more about the craziness out there in the political world. I also know my fears are quite different from those the TV talking heads would have most people believe.

I fear that we will lose the political will to finish the terror war, leaving Iraq and Afghanistan to fend for themselves in the misguided belief that such withdrawal will mollify terrorists.

I fear that the billions spent on rebuilding after Katrina will put such a burden on taxpayers that it will send the economy into a recession or depression.

I fear that there may be too many followers of Louis Farrakan who truly believe his dangerous claims: Like Bush and Israel were responsible for 9/11, that Bush and his admininstration blew up the dikes in New Orleans in hopes that thousands of blacks would drown, that blacks should rise up and throw off their shackles from the oppressive white-dominated government, etc. The flames of hatred he is fanning I fear could lead to massive violence from his disaffected and misled followers.

I fear that nothing will be done about illegal immigration. That a massive influx of immigrants of all kinds, both skilled and unskilled, will depress the American standard of living and suppress our unique American culture. That English may no longer be the national language and Christian Americans will become repressed and oppressed.

I fear that the Supreme Court will become stacked with liberal justices who will "interpret" the American Constitution out of existence.

I fear that Global Corporations will become de-facto rulers of the country, and possibly the world. That Anti-Trust principles will be abandoned entirely and all commerce in America becomes the domain of corporations beholden to no governments or laws.

I fear that one day a government representative will show up at my door with orders to vacate my little farm for whatever reason a bureaucrat somewhere dreamed up, and I will have no recourse for justice.

I fear that abortion and sterilization will be mandated by the government in a Chinese-style population control policy.

I fear that elderly people or people with debilitating diseases or physical handicaps will be euthanized by a government-sponsored "right to die" policy.

I fear that being a Christian and attempting to worship in a church will become outlawed by the "diversity" police and friends or family will be jailed for violating laws on "respecting diversity".

I fear that gays will be given full marriage rights, followed by relaxed laws on child molestation and rape. That such rights may lead to lawful adoption of teenagers for the sexual use of their adoptive gay "parents".

Mostly I fear that the greatest country in the history of the world will fall soon, just like the great civilizations of the past, Rome and Greece, and for pretty much the same reasons. And we are about to enter another great Dark Age.

So What About the Poor?

Up until recently, I would have to admit to being fairly uninformed about the trials and tribulations of the poor in America. My volunteer work has opened my eyes to our country's permanent underclass, and given me lots of insight into how they got there and why they stay there.

The primary cause of our permanent underclass, of course, is LBJ's "Great Society". I remember being shown films touting these terrific welfare programs when I was in elementary and jr. high (no, not "middle") school. The reasoning went something like, "how can the richest country on the planet neglect our own poor?" Thus, the welfare state as we know it.

So now we're in the 3rd or 4th generation of the Great Society, and in that generation we have a huge and growing class of government-created children. They drop out of school as soon as they can, or get kicked out, having learned no real life skills. They have babies so they can get easier access to social services, nearly all of which are focused on children. They get subsidized or free housing, free medical care, food stamps, even free transportation. And local charities keep them well clothed, give them free access to food pantries, and provide very nice toys for the children at Christmas.

Sometimes things get a little tough for them, but overall it's not a bad life. You can get everything you need without anyone asking you to do anything for yourself. Is it any wonder there were so many helpless poor people stranded in New Orleans after Katrina, just waiting for someone from the government to come and save them? Our society now has millions upon millions of illiterate children that cannot care for themselves, and I don't mean literal children but adults who are as helpless as children.

If that were all we had to deal with, it wouldn't be so bad. But now we have to admit to the horrible additional factor that affects this underclass: drugs. They're taking them, selling them, cooking them in their kitchens, selling their food stamps for them, selling their own bodies for them. They're neglecting their children while constantly seeking that next fix.

So what can be done? Should we keep giving them handouts or lock them up while hoping the problem goes away? Gee, if you look at the current social services structure, that has to be your conclusion, because that's exactly what the system is doing today.

Famous actors, athletes, and rock stars just check into the Betty Ford clinic or another like it whenever they're addictions get out of control. They can afford the extremely high cost of treatment. But what about the poor addict who just lost her children because she got caught cooking or taking meth?

This woman (or man) has no options. Sure, she made a stupid choice in starting with drugs in the first place, but can you really expect much else from a product of the government dole who has not even the most basic education? She is told by social services to clean up her act or her children will be taken away permanently. So how, exactly, does she do that? She's a 4th generation welfare mom who has no concept of work and has never known any lifestyle outside the dole. She has no education, in fact can barely read, has never held a "real" job, is hooked on drugs, and probably lives with other people just like her. Even if she succeeds at getting drug-free for awhile, what happens when she moves back in with her old pals who are still cooking, selling, and using?

It's inexcusable for government to create creatures like these millions of wards of the state, but that's the effect of these poorly conceived social programs. It absolutely floors me that there seems to be a total lack of understanding, even by the social welfare workers on the front lines, of how governmental welfare policies have created and maintained these terrible problems among the poor of America.

What is the solution? In my opinion, the entire social services mission should be radically changed. Rather than handing out free housing, food stamps, welfare checks, medical care, etc., Change the system into a safety net system.

Are you broke, can't feed and house your family? Come in, and first we'll see about finding you a job. If we can't find you one in the private sector, we'll put you to work in public jobs. Anybody can pick up trash, mow grass, sweep floors, paint, whatever. For an honest day's work you can get an honest day's pay. We'll even give you counseling on budgeting your income and paying your bills. If you don't like menial tasks the local government has for you, it will motivate you to find something better in the private sector. But bottom line, if you're physically able to work and refuse to work, you get nothing.

While you're at work, need day care? We'll take care of it, no charge. In fact, some of the daycare workers will be former welfare moms just like you.

OK, so let's move on to the drug addicted. They've obviously got a problem that won't be solved by simply putting them to work. Not that they shouldn' t be put to work anyway; that should be part of the solution. But, those struggling with addictions should be enrolled in drug therapy programs, whether run by the state or contracted to private providers can be decided based on best use of resources. The most difficult cases could be housed in secure facilities if necessary for intensive treatment aimed at helping them kick the habit and once again become productive.

Yes, I know: drug addicts won't willingly enroll in such programs, unless they have big incentives to do so. Some will become homeless and even willingly give up rights to their own children to maintain the habit that controls their lives. Fine. I don't believe this is harsh, even though it sounds so, but they should be given no assistance unless they voluntarily check themselves into the rehabilitation program that was proscribed. If they choose to go the homeless, panhandler route, they are subject to arrest and jail time for drug possession and vagrancy. That may be the only way to get through to some of them.

There are those who are actually incapable of working or caring for themselves. Most of them were turned out of the state hospitals in recent years, which is quite a mystery to me. These people have to be cared for in an institutional setting, precisely because they cannot care for themselves. Now if charitable organizations want to form group homes, great! But the "low functioning" people who are out there floundering in a society they are not equipped to surive must be taken care of by someone.

All this only really scratches the surface of my ideas on these issues. These ideas go much deeper and more detailed, but would take too long to write in the context of this blog. But the bottom line is that I am appalled at the ineptitude of our government in failing to even begin to understand the problem they keep throwing our tax dollars away trying to solve.

Harriet Who?

Probably like many others, I'm pretty confused about the choice of Harriet Miers for Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. At first blush, it looks like the president chose a completely unknown woman to satisfy the clamoring for a woman and make it difficult to oppose her on her unknown philosophy.

The twilight zone moments are present in the fact that, right now, there are more conservatives opposing the nomination than liberals. Stranger still is that you have both Harry Reid and James Dobson endorsing her.

Conservative opposition takes a couple of forms. Some oppose Harriet because they really wanted the huge fight that was promised over this nomination. They wanted to go head to head with the Democrats over a well known strict constructionist, partly just because they love a good fight but more because they want to force the Senate to remove the filibuster rules being used so ably by the Dems to block all sorts of planks in the conservative platform from becoming law. Other conservatives just wanted someone appointed who fits perfectly in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Bring back Bork!

Reporting on Harriet is just as confusing. She contributed to the Gore campaign. No, she didn't, the press got her mixed up with someone else who contributed to Gore. She's a pro-life Sunday school teacher. No, she's got a history of supporting a woman's "right to choose". Bush, Cheney, and even Mitch Daniels are reassuring all of us that Harriet is a great choice for the court, based on their extensive knowledge of her through working closely with her for years. So why, then are important liberals supporting her?

Charges from both sides of cronyism seem to be justified in a way, but who ever said a president could not nominate a friend, or crony? That in itself should not disqualify an otherwise capable nominee. But that's the bottom line question - how can we know how well qualified Harriet is for the job? And we won't know her true judicial philosophy until she takes her seat on the court and begins to cast votes in important cases.

My Visit to the Dark Side

So I had an interesting conversation with a committed Democrat, not my Dad, this weekend. You see, it's different talking to a "modern" Democrat than to the FDR/Truman Democrat represented by my father. Because Dad remains loyal to his party because he believes they remain true to the old populist ideals of the 40's and 50's, and tries not to see the radicalism of today's Democrat party.

Conversations with "modern" Democrats, as with this weekend, seem always to be in social situations that involve a group of people standing around, so I mostly keep my mouth shut or maybe ask a leading question here and there, as my goal is to learn more about how the dark side thinks rather than engage them in fruitless debate.

So in this case, the speaker was, of course, first and foremost a Bush hater. That he buys the lines about Bush being a liar about the reasons for going to war in Iraq about enriching his buddies at Halliburton was immediately evident and tiresome for me, because part of the Democrat mindset is that a Republican president is inherently evil and could never have any redeeming qualities.

Naturally, he went on to admit to having a "better Red than Dead" attitude over the years, which he said he felt fortunate it never came to that. And to my complete lack of surprise, he offered without prompting that he is an atheist and really can't stand evangelical Christians - especially Baptists.

So this guy fits the template perfectly: An atheist, attracted to socialist ideals, pacifist, and not unfriendly toward communism. He thinks Republican and right-wing campaigns against moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage are ginned up to keep the religious right on the reservation. He himself doesn't really care about those issues, even though he supports his party's views on them, because of course, he doesn't view them from a moral perspective. Because to him, morality is relative and situational, not a black-and-white absolute that closed-minded religious fanatics believe.

The only areas I found I could agree with him, or at least understand his point of view, were economic. There was a discussion of Wal-Mart, and their ever-increasing mistreatement of thier workforce. If true (and I never accept things as true without researching for myself), I would agree that Wal-Mart's practices of firing people for discussing union organizing, coming down with an expensive illness, or just having 10 years with the company and maxing out on the salary scale, is reprehensible. His point is that even though there are laws on the books against these types of practices, the Bush administration chooses not to enforce those laws, or at least mires the cases in so much bureaucratic red tape that the complaints go nowhere.

Generally, I also agreed with a general discussion that the Bush administration favors big business. That has seemed pretty evident to me for some time, as someone who believes government should give special treatment to no individual or organization. We see its results in the current energy prices, the outsourcing and offshoring of American jobs, and the outrageous trade deficits with China. None of these issues are even acknowledged by our president as things that merit any review or adjustment in policy, and illegal immigration ties very closely into the pattern.

The conversation was enlightening, not that I learned a great deal of new information about the left-wing mentality, but that it reinforced my own strongly-held beliefs on what the role of government should be. Of course, that old label for my beliefs still holds true - I'm an economic moderate and a social conservative. Always have been, and always will be.

Maybe all of those who see things my way should unite and form a new political party. The Common Sense Party - not very catchy, but it says it all.