Truth or Politics

Slow and Steady

2009-07-23T14:51:00.000-07:00

Breaking through the doldrums of plateaus in a weight loss program is probably the most common cause of failure for most people. It certainly has been responsible for my own past history of falling off the wagon.

What happened to me in the past went something like this:

The program starts out and is really tough, because I miss those great-tasting sugary and fatty foods I've been addicted to all my life. But I'm motivated by really fast results at first, where I see the scale dropping pounds every single week.

After awhile, I sort of fall into the routine, and although I still might look longingly at that chocolate shake or brownie, it becomes less of an obsessive craving and a bit easier to resist. But hey, as long as the weight's still coming off, I can live with that.

But then the plateaus set in. First I don't lose anything for a couple of weeks. It makes me angry. It seems unfair - here I've been keeping the calories down faithfully, but for some reason I'm stuck. But I hang in there, and after awhile I drop a couple more pounds.

Then the major plateau arrives. That's where I sat through June - a whole month with nothing to show for my sacrifice. My body has held onto every calorie, become super-efficient and refusing to let a single pound fall off.

When you've gone a month staying faithful to a diet and get no love from the bathroom scale, it can make you crazy. It also can lead to a tumble off the wagon. I've done it before; I reach a point where I make some sort of decision that I've had enough of this sacrifice. It doesn't mean I immediately abandon the whole program and start binging. Instead, it's gradual; a piece of cake here, a candy bar there, an ice cream sundae on Sunday. Before I know it, I've forgotten all about the diet and stop getting on the scale at all. The realization I've fallen off the wagon doesn't hit until my clothes get too tight. By then, I'm demoralized and discouraged, so I just go ahead and buy bigger clothes and forget the whole thing. Until the next time.

This time I've decided to refocus and hang in there. After a month-long plateau, I suddenly dropped 5 pounds in a single week. It taught me that patience is a virtue. It reminded me that this is a marathon, not a sprint. That my ideal weight may be a destination, but the adventure only begins when I get there. And whether I get there in 3 months or 6 months or a year or even 2 years doesn't really matter as much as staying focused on getting there.

Another thing I've come to learn is related to exercise. Exercise as a weight loss tool really doesn't work, at least for me. Whether or not I exercise really doesn't impact the speed of weight loss at all for me, as far as I can tell. I've had stretches where I've exercised vigorously and faithfully 3 to 4 times a week for a few weeks. I've also had stretches (like right now) where I've been working 10 to 12 hour days and just don't want to take the time to exercise.

The only difference between exercise periods and non-exercise periods in terms of weight lost? If anything, I think I lose less weight when I'm exercising than when I'm not. For one thing, exercise gives me a ravenous appetite, which entices me to increase my volume of food at mealtime. Another effect of exercise may be that it builds muscle, which of course weighs more than fat, which I think may slow down the weight loss a bit.

Not that I don't think exercise is important - just the opposite. I think it's critical for toning and building strength and stamina and all that. It's also really important in helping me reach a major goal of this whole project for me - to be able to join an adult basketball league, hopefully this coming winter, and be able to hold my own on the court.

So I'm soldiering on. And I'll keep soldiering on indefinitely - no stopping even when I get to that magical ideal weight.

Progress Report

2009-06-23T13:25:00.000-07:00

In case anyone is interested in the weight loss project, this is a brief update.

Things have slowed to a crawl. Every ounce is hanging on for dear life, but I've accepted that as long as the scale isn't going up, that's OK.

The things that are probably hampering my progress are events that are very hard to control.

First and foremost, I've gotten very busy lately. That means lots of travel, which also means the routine goes out the window. Not that I'm being "bad" on the road; actually, I'm generally pretty consistently making good food choices. But travel means changes to the mealtime schedules, eating at restarants most of the time, and simply being unable to get those fruits & vegetables that help me stay on track.

One client I've been working with treats me to lunch every day. And they like things like pizza and sub sandwiches and the like. One day for lunch we went to a pizza joint where basically I had to order a pizza or go hungry. So I got the thin crust personal pizza, and was so ravenous I ate the whole thing. I'm guessing that wasn't good for the weight-loss project.

Then there's eating at restaurants in general. I order the entrees that I should order, like the grilled chicken or the salad, etc. But the portion sizes are very large, and it's difficult to know when I've had enough. I try to always leave some on the plate, but still have a feeling that even though I've made good food choices, the volume isn't helping.

Otherwise, when I'm home, my routine is unchanged in the last 6 months. My meals are pretty consistent. And I know my caloric intake is pretty consistently in the 1600-1800 range.

Theoretically that should mean I continue to drop pounds. But being very busy with work lately has meant I get very little of the physical exercise I had been doing previously. Because many days are 10, 12, even 14 hour workdays. I have to admit that with that schedule, finding an hour to exercise becomes a pretty low priority.

I'm not too worried. All I need to do is watch the intake at restaurants, find ways to offset the distruptions caused by travel days, and force myself to find that hour 3 or 4 times a week to work up a sweat.

After all, I'm in a marathon, not a sprint. And the finish line isn't really the end of the race.

I May be Doing it Wrong

2009-05-06T08:36:00.000-07:00

I've been stuck in another plateau. My reaction has been to cut back even further on food intake, which just frustrates me more as the number on the scale continues to refuse to budge.

Now I have some information that suggests I might be doing it wrong. Literally starving myself in the attempt to break the logjam may be killing my metabolism. It looks like I may need to change direction slightly.

See, I have a basic problem. I really don't like rabbit food. And that's at the root of my metabolism problem. Apparently, I should be filling my stomach with raw vegetables that supposedly burn more calories to digest than they cost. Somehow that is supposed to boost metabolism and help burn the fat faster.

Since I have an aversion to lettuce and carrots and celery and cucumbers, I prefer to just eat the protein and fruit allowed on my diet. And that appears to be what's causing these long, frustrating plateaus.

I guess I'll have to force myself to fill up on the rabbit food. We'll see how that works.

The Weight Loss Update

2009-04-22T09:44:00.000-07:00

There are some interesting things happening lately, now that I've lost enough to begin to notice.

My arms are smaller. My watchband has cinched two notches since the project started. My fingers seem longer.

Looking in the mirror, I have a neck again. I can see my chin and the outline of my jaw. My nose and ears seem larger. My face is less round. I wonder whether the skin under my chin will end up hanging, or if it will eventually tighten up. I wonder the same about my belly and chest.

My ankles are noticeably smaller. My socks don't make an indentation anymore. Even my toes seem longer.

The gut's still there, but I can tell there's a lot less of it. I can actually feel my ribs. I've dug out older, smaller clothes, and bought a cheap pair of jeans. The pants are 3 sizes down in the waist; technically I should be down 4, but I don't want to invest in new clothes for every reduction in size. I'll buy just enough to get by when I go down one more size, then make do with those until I get the last 2 (maybe 3) sizes.

I have to hold up the pants when I walk, and can't walk very far with both hands full or they might fall down. A new belt or cutting more holes in the current belt is overdue. Shirts aren't that big of a deal, because if a shirt's a little too big it doesn't matter all that much.

It's easier to put on my socks and shoes in the morning.

And perhaps most importantly, all my statistics are getting really good; blood pressure, cholesterol. glucose. etc., are all looking great.

And I feel pretty good too. I don't feel tired like I did before, don't seem to need as much sleep, and have at least an illusion of being a bit sharper at work.

Starting to Understand

2009-04-20T10:41:00.000-07:00

The big question on my mind recently has been centered around how a seeming majority of people could support the frightening things happening as our single-party rulers move rapidly forward with their agenda.

I've begun to get a sliver of insight through some recent conversations.

The reason these people don't find the new political direction frightening is they don't know they're taking place.

The reasons:

They get all their news from the network nightly news programs, which of course studiously avoid the "whole" story. They focus on the Obama celebrity, what Michelle's wearing today or their favorite presidential sound bite of the day. The only hard news permitted is whatever new slams against the evil Bush administration were issued from the White House today.

They either don't really know about the socialist agenda, or believe it's nothing more than right-wing radio talk shows spewing divisive rhetoric toward Obama.

They haven't heard anything about the Homeland Security report suggesting surveillance on conservative groups they've labeled "domestic terrorists". It is dismissed as just another right-wing talk radio invention.

They favor government intervention for people in trouble with their mortgage, and believe government healthcare is past due.

They figure the government's been racking up debt for decades, so it's no big deal if some more debt happens as Obama tries to spend money on infrastructure to help rescue the economy.

They have bought the story that only the rich will pay more in taxes.

They think the greedy oil companies are finally going to be reined in. They don't understand what will happen to every citizen when Cap & Trade is passed into law. In fact, they don't even know what Cap & Trade means.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who once suggested that the American Republic depends on an educated citizenry, or it will fail. He was absolutely right.

Vignette

2009-04-17T15:29:00.000-07:00

My earliest childhood memories go back to approximately age 3. We lived in a small house with the back yard directly adjoining the school playground, which happened to be the very school in which my father was a teacher and coach.

We had a kind retired couple next door, and they may be responsible for my lifelong addiction to ice cream. They gave me some ice cream, and from then on I wanted to visit them every day, just for the chance at another bowl of that elixir from the gods. It was sort of messy, and I got it all over my face and clothes, but I did not care.

I enjoyed the playground, spending plenty of time on the swings and slide. My little sister, about 18 months younger, seemed to like climbing the stairs and sitting at the top of the slide, but then would become frightened. She would sit on the slide, wailing, until I retrieved our mother to rescue her. It seemed just a big bother to me.

My favorite playground activity was basketball. Now I was way too small to put a basketball through those regulation hoops. But I had a small orange toy basketball, which I tried valiantly to hoist through that unfathomably high hoop. Whether my memory is legitimate on this point can be debated, but I still believe that I was able to heave that little toy basketball through that hoop successfully at least once. That memory has me running excitedly into the house to tell my mother, "I made a basket!".

I don't think she believed me.

But my technique must have been interesting, if not humorous. I would fling the little orange ball underhanded with both hands up toward the basket, then quickly duck and cover my head with both hands. Because that little ball could hurt when it landed on top of my head.

The basketball thing might have taken root in a visit I still recall to one of my father's high school basketball practices. I was in awe of those high school players, who seemed so adept at dribbling and shooting. I so badly wanted to be able to do that.

One of the players caught my attention because of his unique jump shot. As I picture him in my head today, he would start with a conventional jump shot, but just as he released the ball, he would sort of kick up his feet behind him. For some reason, I found that to be a fascinating and memorable shooting technique. I don't believe I've ever seen anything quite like it since.

Today I still enjoy basketball, and have recently been trying to dust off my game at the local gym. I'm hoping to be fit enough to start playing in a recreation league for older adults by next winter. So far, so good.

More on Weight Loss Experience

2009-03-23T12:06:00.000-07:00

Just in case anybody's wondering how things are going with my little weight-loss adventure, here's an update.

I've been stuck at the same weight for about a month now. It's been somewhat discouraging, but I feel a bit better about it after visiting the doctor for a checkup. He not only raved about how much weight I've been able to lose since starting this little project (25 lbs since my last visit, between 35-40 total), but told me it's quite common to hit plateaus along the way.

If I keep watching the calories and exercising, the weight will continue to come off. Unfortunately, it's not likely to come off as fast as it did initially. I can't count on losing 10 or 15 pounds per month, but should reset my expectations to maybe dropping about 5 per month.

That's kind of hard to accept, but if I continue to keep the attitude that this isn't a short-term "diet", but a permanent lifestyle change, the weight will come off eventually. Patience is key.

The sugar cravings are much less intense. I still think about my favorite treat (ice cream) from time to time, but have been able to steer clear so far.

I still struggle somewhat with another favorite, pizza. It's hard to avoid completely, and I have stumbled on a couple of occasions where pizza was served in social situations. I had to have one. And I wasn't sorry.

So the biggest enemies to keeping on track these days are down to these:

1. Hunger. When I get hungry, watch out! It's often unavoidable, but it's far more difficult to stop myself from eating stuff I shouldn't or stuffing myself if I'm ravenous. Such times really test my will.
2. Boredom. It's tough on weekends when I'm home all day with nothing in particular to do. It takes real focus to stop from walking into the kitchen in search of something on which to graze. Cheese & crackers are a particular problem there.
3. Social situations. I have to be careful in social settings, especially where pizza is being served. However, this category is less dangerous to me than the first two.

So my original hope of reaching my ideal weight in a year looks like it may not be possible. But as long as I keep moving in the right direction, I think I can stay patient.

We shall see how the next 3 months go. I plan to stay "on the wagon".

What I've Learned About :Weight Loss

2009-03-02T09:59:00.001-08:00

I've been working on the weight loss thing going on 3 months now, and have learned a few basic facts. It occurred to me to just post them, just in case anybody else might benefit from them.

1. The first month is critical. Weight loss is about changing habits. I heard once that it takes about 30 days to establish new habits; that's proven very true. After about a month I settled into a routine, my cravings for sweets became less urgent, and my stomach capacity shrank. It becomes easier to diet after about 30 days.
2. Patience isn't just a virtue - it's absolutely required. You'll get stuck. Even thought you're doing everything right in terms of diet and exercise, the weight will plateau on a number. I'm currently starting my third week at the exact same number. I might be able to break the logjam if I ramp up the frequency and intensity of my exercise, but have to realize this isn't a short-term process.
3. The #1 enemy for a dieter is hunger. When I get hungry, I become ready to chow down on whatever is available. So far I've been able to avoid going nuts and totally blowing it, but I have given into temptation and downed some stuff I shouldn't have because of times I was very hungry and the fattening stuff happened to be available.
4. You have to learn how to deal with social eating situations. People will offer you food you shouldn't eat. You'll feel obligated to take the food rather than disappoint your host(ess). I don't have a great answer to this one, but personally try to go ahead and accept what's offered, but only eat a little and quietly dispose of the rest. Takes a great deal of self-control if the offered delicacy tastes fantastic.
5. You can never think of your goal weight as the end of the process. You have to think of the process as a life-long commitment. For me, I'm working to train my brain to look upon this whole thing as a permanent lifestyle change. Achieving my goal weight will certainly be cause for celebration, but it cannot be a license to revert back to old habits.
6. Do not deny yourself your favorite foods indefinitely. As a follow-on to #5 above, you should never get it in your head that you absolutely can't have certain foods you've loved all your life. You're merely cutting back on those favorites that keep you from getting to the weight and fitness level you need. You can have them, but only in small quantities.
7. Don't make the process about looking like some athlete or model. Shallow focus on your looks misses the point. I'm making this process about things like having more energy to be more successful in business, being around to play with grandchildren someday, getting back to doing the active things I love to do (like basketball, golf, bicycling, swimming, amusement parks, etc.) If someday I actually look good as a result of the process, it's only a fringe benefit - not the ultimate goal.
8. Keep it to yourself. Despite the fact I'm writing this post, I don't talk about it. Nobody wants to know about my diet or exercise or how much I've lost or anything else about this process. It is my own personal quest, and I'm bored and irritated by people who obsess about their own diet programs in my presence. When people begin to notice and comment on the weight loss, I prefer to thank them for noticing, then change the subject.
9. Motivation must be internal. Lots of people talk about the need for "support" from others when they're in such a program. Maybe that helps, but I'm not one of those people. The last thing I want to do is sit around with a "counselor" or "support group" talking about my emotional state or personal reasons for being overweight. Most of that is psychological BS. I need to lose weight because I ate too much and didn't exercise enough. Period. Nobody needs to be burdened with my "problems", and I'm afraid I'm not all that interested in being burdened with theirs. So my motivation comes from within. I'm doing this for myself, not to please anyone or get attention from anyone or any other external reason.
10. Set goals and track progress. One of the most powerful things that keeps me going is the setting of short and long term goals and tracking progress against those goals. I have goals for weight, blood sugar, blood pressure, and fitness and am tracking progress against each of those goals. That helps me stay on track as much as any other single motivating factor.

There's always the risk of failure. Most overweight people fail in their weight-loss programs, either by quitting the program at some point or by gaining it all back after reaching their goal weight and considering themselves "done". I might fail, as I have in all of my previous weight loss initiatives. Every time I've done this in the past, I've eventually rebelled and returned to the old bad habits with a vengeance.

Is this time different? The most honest answer to that question is, "I don't know, but I'm giving it my best shot."

The Divide is Cultural

2008-09-08T08:15:00.000-07:00

Listening to some Democrats talk recently helped clarify the political divide in America. I learned that Democrats really can't understand why anybody outside the country club set could possibly support the party that is harmful to their own economic self-interest.

These Democrats have completely missed the point with where average conservative Americans are coming from. Economically, I think many average Americans are upset with the wage depression happening because of outsourcing and illegal immigration. But all they hear from Democrats to deal with that is "tax the rich". And Democrats repeatedly show themselves to be somewhere between unconcerned to promoting illegal immigration.

So economically, conservatives stay with the Republican candidates despite their coziness with big business, because they simply fear the socialist high regulation and taxes on the other side. If Democrats would simply promise to reduce subsidies and perks to big business and talk about "fair trade" in contrast to unfettered "free trade", they might win many on the conservative side who can't find such candidates.

But the big divide isn't over economic issues; Democrats drive away conservative voters who can't stomach their social agenda.

Conservatives are generally pro-life. The Democrat candidate is not just pro-choice. He made the stomach-turning comment about not wanting his daughter to be "punished with a baby" if she made a mistake and got pregnant. He also has been clear in his radical position that babies born alive in botched late-term abortions should be killed. That's a position even nominal pro-choice people find abhorrent. Abortion is not the removal of a glob of tissue that might otherwise develop into a human being; it is a judicially invented "right" for women to have sex with men with whom they don't want to have a baby. (to paraphrase Ann Coulter)

Conservatives believe strongly in self sufficiency and responsibility. The basic idea that money should be confiscated from those who have and given to those who don't after much of it is skimmed by government bureaucrats is abhorrent. Conservative Christians especially feel an obligation as individuals to help the poor, but in a way that helps them get on their feet and self-sufficient, not in the government welfare model that encourages them to become dependent on the State.

Conservatives are upset at the Democrat-supported and ACLU-enforced takeover of public education. It is one thing for schools to implement reasonable policies that limit influence on the students by any particular religion or denomination; it is quite another to implement extreme policies that persecute any form of religious speech in schools while favoring an atheist agenda throughout the curricula.

Conservatives believe the United States is the best country ever founded in the history of the world. They take seriously the founding documents and the constitution, especially valuing freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, to keep and bear arms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Democrats, and particularly their current presidential candidate, would appoint judges who promise to ignore the Constitution and make law according to their own ideas of "justice".

If Democrats really want to connect with the common man, they need to descend from their elitist circles and find out who the common man is.

Cutting Through the Clutter

2008-08-22T06:22:00.000-07:00

The campaigning that continues over the airwaves majors in the minors. Political coverage on the TV networks is remarkably thin on actual candidate positions and biographies. Instead the coverage focuses on the back-and-forth between the campaigns on which candidate is more out of touch or runs the more unfair ads.

The surface comparisons are easy. McCain has more experience in politics, foreign policy, and life. Those facts can't be argued. He is out of touch with ordinary Americans by virtue of the fact he's spent most of his adult life in the Ivory Tower called the US Senate.

Obama is certainly inexperienced in all the ways McCain is experienced. He's also out of touch with ordinary Americans, with his Ivy League liberal education and adult life working in Chicago politics. His undeniable associations with the Chicago Democrat Machine, Bill Ayers (Weather Underground), and Reverend Wright leave no doubt as to his socialist/communist affiliations.

But the bottom line is policy. For those issues that matter most to me, the only choice is McCain.

Abortion Rights. I'm pro-life. Partly because of my Christian beliefs, but also because of the practical implications. The unvarnished truth of abortion is that it's used as a license for promiscuity. The license suggests that if two people find themselves attracted to each other, there's nothing stopping them from "hooking up". If the woman (or girl) gets pregnant, oops, just suck out that little fetus and pretend it never happened. That's wrong. And so is the related consequence of the spread of STD's in what may be epidemic proportions. McCain shares my pro-life views. Obama is not only on the other side of the issue, there is clear evidence of his actual support for infanticide if an infant happens to be born alive by mistake. That stand is pure evil.

National Security. The Russian invasion of Georgia and their threats to escalate their aggressive moves to rebuild the old Soviet empire showed a clear difference between the candidates. McCain showed a clear understanding and a toughness that shows he can deal with the issue. Obama proved he is uninformed and weak. Obama's popular campaign stand based on moving troops out of Iraq has become moot, as due to the success of the surge he opposed, plans are already going forward to pull the troops, effectively removing Obama's centerpiece issue.

Energy. I think we should do everything to provide cheap and effective energy to our economy. McCain supports exploiting all possible sources of energy, including domestic oil production, natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, and anything else that can provide our economy with cheap sources of energy and independence from foreign oil. Obama says wind and solar only, while somehow eliminating all oil in 10 years. He's either jaw-droppingly naive or lying.

Gay Rights. This issue is all about forcing the government and employers to provide expensive benefits to domestic partners of homosexuals. It means employers will have to cover gay "spouses" under their life and healthcare benefit plans at a greatly increased cost. This means that gays will get special treatment, with the only standard for qualification of a "spouse" being sexual relations. This facet of the agenda is discriminatory against all other non-sexual domestic relationships. The other outcome of full implementation of the gay marriage agenda is persecution of churches who do not support marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. They will be forced to either perform those ceremonies and hire homosexuals as teachers or become subject to revocation of their tax exempt status or possibly criminal prosecution. Obama supports that, so the clear choice on this issue is McCain.

Healthcare. Admittedly a sticky issue. I understand firsthand the difficulties involved for the self-employed or those working for small businesses who can't possibly afford today's health insurance premiums. Like college tuition, the poor are covered by the government, the rich can afford to pay for themselves, and those who work for companies with good health benefits are fine. It's everybody else left out in the cold. I think that if all health and prescription insurance were to be cancelled and replaced with only a major medical coverage, everyone but the poorest of the poor would be able to afford their own care. But Obama's solution of government-run healthcare means the government also controls who gets care. McCain's solution of moving toward a market-based system may not be the best solution, but it is certainly superior to Obama's.

Illegal Immigration. I believe if you're in the country illegally you should go home. I believe enforcement of immigration law and the border should be improved. My solution to the current mess is to seal the borders and give all people in the country illegally 90 days to return to their country of origin. They can then apply for legal admission to the USA, which would require sponsorship by their US employer and proof of English literacy. Those people can then be re-admitted with a temporary green card. Anybody that doesn't leave the country in the 90 day grace period is subject to deportation when they are discovered. Employers also are subject to punitive fines for employing illegal workers. Neither candidate shares my view here, but McCain is slightly better than Obama.

Judges and the Constitution. I believe our country is the greatest in history, largely because of the unique Constitution framed by our founders. Obama does not. Obama views the constitution as an obstacle to implementing his "change" agenda. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Property to Keep and Bear Arms, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are all endangered by Obama's promised Supreme Court appointments. McCain will protect the Consitution, Obama will not.

McCain isn't the guy I would choose for president if I could choose anybody. But in a choice between McCain and Obama, there is no contest.

Who Votes for These People?

2008-07-29T07:35:00.001-07:00

When I watch different politicians speak on television, I often wonder how it's possible that some of them manage to get re-elected to office time and again? Some of these people in our national House and Senate are so obviously sleazy and disgusting in first (and ongoing) impressions that I find it extremely puzzling how they keep their seats.

I've tried to step back and analyze whether my distaste comes from my own political perspective, and I suppose that has to be a component. Because I'm hard pressed to identify a prominent Republican that fills me with revulsion when they appear in the media.

The most creepy politicians on my list are these:

Ted Kennedy. I don't wish him harm, and hope he recovers from his brain tumor. But knowing what he did at Chappaquidic and the over-the-top outrageous behavior he has exhibited over the years as a senator makes me cringe. I figure Massachusetts keep him around because they really are pretty far left there and he's JFK and RFK's brother.

Harry Reid. Could his party have appointed a more creepy, weaselly, obviously corrupt Vegas Democrat to be the Senate majority leader? Maybe, but it would be a close call.

Barney Frank. A gay prostitution ring run by his boyfriend, and he continues to hold his seat? He's a disgusting figure, and not just because he's openly gay.

Dick Durbin. This guy strikes me as the schoolyard bully, a natural by-product of the corrupt Chicago machine.

Russ Feingold. A chilling character that seemingly would be comfortable in the Third Reich.

Dennis Kucinich. The insane guy from Ohio who spends all his time trying to impeach Bush and runs for president every cycle with the weird belief he could actually become America's own communist dictator version of Hugo Chavez.

John Murtha. Another schoolyard bully that is transparently focused on his own power and is another Ohio guy who is unquestionably corrupt but still gets returned to congress by his district.

Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. I put them together because they're basically the same. Radical feminist Californians with way too much power given their frightening ignorance and vapidity.

There are several others, but the above list are the all-stars. It's funny how these folks are easily detestable, while the worst I could say about Republicans is that they're out of touch cowards. Because Republicans have an aversion to lowering themselves into the mud with their Democrat counterparts.

It seems to me that if Republicans could somehow find a bit of courage and actually practice the conservatism that the party used to believe in, it would be pretty easy for them to win back control of congress. But they've already capitulated.

Truth Missing from Campaign

2008-07-23T07:06:00.000-07:00

The rhetorical pretzel Obama tied himself into over the question of the success of the "Surge" in Iraq was almost comical.

Given the undeniable fact that Iraq has been largely pacified, Al Quaeda defeated, and the government taking over the country's security, Obama found himself in the uncomfortable position of acknowledging the success of the surge without appearing to give any credit to those who implemented it, namely President Bush and General Petraeus.

Because Obama himself was a vocal opponent to the surge strategy, while McCain was an ardent supporter who also claims to have been a key architect.

Thus the pretzel. Violence may be down, but there are still fundamental problems in Iraq. There's no way to know what would have happened had his (Obama's) ideas been implemented. The reduction in violence is due to the Sunni efforts to stop the insurgents in their areas and Al Sadr standing down his Mahdi militias and the leadership of Maliki. Not because of the aggressive strategy change implemented by American troops in cooperation with Iraqi troops under the leadership of General Petraeus, who was given the tools to accomplish the mission by President Bush.

So the whole marketing image of Barack Obama continues to crumble. He is not a new kind of politician. He is not interested in uniting the country. His version of unity says those who support him are united, while those who don't are divisive and maybe a bit racist.

Reminds me of Communist China. The Chinese are taught from birth that the government is their daddy and momma. As long as they follow the rules and are good little socialists, they will enjoy peace and harmony. Those who disobey the government are disrupting that harmony and must be re-educated until they understand.

Obama's rhetoric often sounds disturbingly Chinese.

Counting on Ignorance

2008-07-01T07:02:00.000-07:00

The fascinating phenomena that continues in the form of the Obama campaign represents the most striking example of a campaign relying on the ignorance of the population to win the most powerful office in the land.

All that is required is the suspension of preconceptions and biases, simply listening to Obama talk, and reading about his policy positions. It doesn't take long to discover that the Democrat's Messiah is nothing close.

In his own speeches he will tout his commitment to bringing civility and respect back to the political process. Then he trashes President Bush in almost the next sentence, surprisingly even doing so when the Bush bash has nothing to do with the topic of his speech.

On the big issues of the day, he crafts his message based on his audience. Just a few examples I've noticed:

He proposed sweeping new taxes to fund his Univeral Healthcare plan. Then he said that only the rich will pay them.

One of the few issues you can find where he has held a consistent position is on gun control. He has always opposed private ownership of guns, and supports outright bans on handguns and assault rifles. Suddenly after the Supreme Court overturned DC's ban, he seemed to reverse himself.

He gives a speech on patriotism, apparently in an attempt to reassure people he really does like America. He promises never to question his opponent's patriotism, even though a day before his speech, a key member of his campaign did just that. When he was campaigning for the support of the Democrat Left, he announced that he would not wear a flag pin because, well, I still don't really know what he meant - something about it might be viewed as a pander. Then suddenly when he all but sealed his nomination, he began wearing one, which looks pretty much like a pander.

Ultimately, I can't figure out how so many are excited to elect a guy who will make their lives miserable. How does it make sense to elect somebody who has promised to raise taxes, restrict trade, cap energy supplies, pacify our enemies, dismantle the military, let the United Nations levy taxes on us, and give away our national sovereignty?

Yet the lemmings sprint toward the cliff.

When Choices are Bad and Terrible

2008-06-16T07:34:00.000-07:00

Since I was off the road for a week, I had a chance to listen to the presidential candidates. We're told by the press that we have two candidates who are honest and trustworthy, and both are doing their best to lay claim to the "Uniter" title.

My analysis of the two resulted in the conclusion that the choices are between bad and terrible.

First the bad. John McCain seems to be strong on defense issues, which is the realm where he is ultimately more serious and competent than Obama. McCain also steadfastly promises to appoint federal judges who will strictly interpret the constitution and won't follow the arrogance of liberal justices who make their own laws based on their personal views in opposition to the constitution.

McCain can legitimately make the case that he's got the best record between the two candidates in reaching across the aisle to work with compromise legislation with Democrat cooperation. Even though most of those bills are liberal in nature and infuriated conservatives.

But McCain is woefully ignorant on other issues. He's on the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue. He has swallowed the Global Warming religion hook, line, and sinker. He hasn't got a clue about energy policy. And he seems woefully ignorant on many domestic issues, primarily healthcare and environment.

But in case you're thinking McCain's bad side justifies voting for the other guy, sorry, he's much worse.

Barack Obama is a socialist liberal. He promises a new brand of politics, but if you actually listen to him speak, it's almost comical to hear him speak of a transcendent politics where everyone works together, then in the next sentence engage in the same old Bush-bashing everyone else in his party engages in whenever they have a chance.

Obama doesn't really believe we have a problem with terrorism, and if he just reasons with the leaders of places like Iran and Syria and North Korea, somehow they'll find out what a great guy he is and play nice. Obama promises he'll find bin Laden and the war on terror will be over. He'll withdraw troops from Iraq, then dismantle the military.

Then Obama will take the money he saved by dismantling the military and pour it into socialist transfer payments. He promises to be an American Robin Hood, taking from the rich and the oil companies and giving to the poor.

Somehow under Obama we suddenly won't need oil anymore, because we will be running our cars on some undefined "alternative" fuels that are cheap and environmentally friendly. He actually admitted that he's pleased the gas prices have skyrocketed, but would have preferred it happened a bit more gradually.

He's a classic academic liberal, with a mostly Marxist agenda. It is a far more accurate prediction that says Obama represents the second Jimmy Carter term than his own prediction that McCain represents the third George W Bush term.

Neither candidate is the right man for the job. All that can be said at this point is that McCain will be bad for the country, but Obama will be disastrous. The pain we're all feeling now will only get worse over the next few years, but the degree is greater with Obama.

Demoralized Conservatives

2008-05-16T10:18:00.001-07:00

The emergence of the Democrats can be attributed to their successful 8-year campaign to demonize George W. Bush and the utter lack of leadership and courage by the GOP.

The Dems and their media megaphone have managed to convince the majority of citizens through sheer repetition that Bush is the cause of all our country's ills. The drumbeat continues daily, painting the president as a puppet of big oil who went to war in Iraq to profit his corporate bigshots. Everything the president does is assumed to be out of some devious plan to enrich his friends, scoffing at the very idea that he might be actually trying to protect the country from terrorism.

Their mud-throwing rhetoric has so cowed the Republican party that they've nominated the most nominal of Republicans for President, John McCain. The party leadership seems paralyzed, made increasingly obvious by the complete lack of any publicized agenda for America.

The Congressional Republicans recently announced a new slogan, borrowing the tired old "Change" mantra from the Democrats in "Change we Deserve". It's not only an obvious rip-off of the Democrat's mantra and a stupid use of a trademark phrase for a depression medication, it's a meaningless phrase even for Republicans.

The GOP has a huge problem. They took control of two branches of government and had control of all three within their sights. Then they lost their majorities in congress, and seem well on their way to losing the Executive branch, which will result in the loss of the Judiciary within the next few years.

Did they lose that power because their conservative policies didn't work for the people? Not at all. They lost power because they got greedy. Rather than working hard to implement the conservative policies that people enthusiastically support, they instead focused on bringing home the bacon.

The republican majority became known for, well, acting like Democrats. Earmarks and irresponsible spending were their hallmarks, while they allowed Dems to continue bashing the president and demagoguing stupid and harmful anti-war, energy, environmental, healthcare and education policies. They failed to assist the president with even a debate with the Democrats on Social Security Reform. They passed a horribly designed Medicare Prescription Drug program. They passed "No Child Left Behind". All Democrat priorities for which they were of course hammered by Democrats for not being socialist enough and by Republicans for abandoning their principles and being stupid.

The president certainly carries his share of the blame. He should have been talking candidly with the American people every single week about the progress and challenges in Iraq, while directly responding to the constant barrage of unfair and untrue statements about the war from the Dems. He should have pushed his party to pass a sound energy policy instead of the meaningless pork and special interest spending bills the congress pushed through with more Democrat than Republican support. He should have rallied the country around his ideas for social security reform and tax reform and responsible spending.

Instead he partnered with Democrats for "No Child Left Behind", then got vilified by those same Dems for the unpopular and not very successful program. He partnered with Democrats for the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, which cost much more than projected and was also vilified by those same Dems as a sop to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. He tried to appease opponents of the Iraq war, causing it to be unnecessarily extended throughout his presidency.

The only way the Republicans can recover seems to have already passed them by. As the presumptive nominee, John McCain is more Democrat than Republican. So the only leadership we'll get from McCain is the wishy-washy Democrat-lite. His appeal seems to be, "Elect me, because at least I'm not as Marxist as Obama".

The elites in Washington haven't got a clue. If they had, we would see them energizing conservatives with a set of fundamental promises:

Winning in Iraq and bringing soldiers home, but keeping pressure on Iran to give up their Nuke ambitions and warning them to stop meddling with Iraq "or else".

Aggressive pursuit of all energy alternatives to help ease the pain of the failed energy policies of the last two administrations. Drill for oil wherever it exists in our own borders. Bring back synthetic oil production, from coal and shale deposits so abundant. Build nuclear power plants. Build refineries. Encourage continued research on hydrogen, wind, solar, hydro, and whatever sources of energy look promising. Stop the stupidity of ethanol.

Affirm the values on which the nation was built. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, and so on - see the Bill of Rights. Broadcast the importance of appointing federal judges that interpret the law rather than make the law.

There's so much more, but most conservatives already know what they stand for and are troubled that their presidential candidate is the prototype of the Washingon insider who doesn't share those values.

My prediction is dire. Obama will be elected in the fall along with a larger congressional majority as Americans vote for "Change". Within the first 2 years, Americans will finally realize what I've known for several months: Obama is the second term of the Jimmy Carter administration. His administration and willing accomplices in the congress and the press will bring a disaster for the economy and foreign policy, just as Jimmy Carter did.

If, and only if, a true leader emerges from the Republican Party for the 2012 election, things could eventually turn around, like they did under Ronald Reagan.

Or maybe that's just my own ideas of "hope" and "change" whistling in the wind.

Obama Falls Off the Wire

2008-04-29T14:00:00.001-07:00

Building over the last several weeks were Barack Obama's albatrosses; Reverend Wright, Weatherman Ayers, and the Religion and Guns comment.

Obama was notable in the fact that he never fully distanced himself from any of the three, choosing to perform a high wire act. Because he didn't want to offend his base, which is represented by Wright, Ayers, and the San Francisco elites hearing his remarks. But he also didn't want mainstream America to think he actually shared those radical views.

So his supporters are divided into two camps. The first is the Wright/Ayers/Elites camp, who shout "Amen" to the wild ideas expressed by those Obama compadres. They don't have a problem with an unrepentant Ayers, who still holds and refuses to apologize for the political views that led him to bomb government buildings back when he was younger. They agree with Reverend Wright, who believes the government is complicit in ongoing oppression of American blacks, including introducing AIDS to cull the black population. (I wonder if he's every heard of Eugenics and Planned Parenthood?) They agree that those gun-toting, church-attending rednecks need to be suppressed.

The second camp are those who have bought Obama's messianic ad campaign hook, line, and sinker. They are so invested in the savior Obama that they will stick their fingers in their ears and yell "LaLaLaLa" to keep anyone from pointing out these evidences that Obama probably isn't the person he represents himself to be.

It's very simple to find the logical conclusion about candidate Obama and these associations. He's an academic, which means he comes from a world that is steeped in the philosophies of these associates. He attended Reverend Wright's church for many years, and admitted the pastor has been his mentor. Despite his denials, evidence seems pretty clear that he's had an ongoing relationship with the academic radical Ayers.

Obama is who he is. He is friendly with the radical left. He can't run away from that fact. But he understands that this can't be allowed to get out, because if it does he cannot possibly win the general election. He hoped that he could deny the radicalism of his associates with a wink and a nod, helping him win both the radical and the mainstream elements of the voting population. Clearly that is falling apart.

It's not over yet, and he may yet pull his campaign out of the firestorm. But this certainly opens the door a bit wider for Hillary.

Talking to the Wind

2008-04-28T12:58:00.000-07:00

Things are getting rather frightening out there.

Folks frustrated with George Bush and Iraq and the economy and gas prices and immigration and so on and so on seem to be willing to make matters worse by voting in politicians who promise to make things worse under the guise of "change".

I feel like I'm talking to the wind. Sometimes I think I just might be the only sane and reasonable person in the country. So, wind, here's my message for today. I implore that you blow it into the ears of reasonable people who might grasp its simple logic.

Oil prices are through the roof for lots of reasons. So what are the "change" candidates promising to do about it? Punish the oil companies with confiscatory taxes. Withdraw all troops from Iraq. "Negotiate" with Iran. Increase restrictions on oil exploration and continue to oppose any development of oilfields that are untapped within our own country. Charge everyone for their "carbon footprints" and give the money to Al Gore and his friends, who opportunistically are creating a whole new industry that produces nothing but wealth for Al. Please explain to me how these policies by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are going to ease the pain we all feel when we fill up our vehicles at the gas pump.

Iraq is winding down due to the efforts of General Petraeus and the troops implementing a hugely successful surge strategy. There are still challenges there, mostly caused by Iran and its agent Muqtada Al Sadr. Sure it's frustrating and difficult and expensive. Who doesn't want to get out of the Iraq entanglement as soon as possible? But to just stop everything suddenly and bring troops home before Iraq is stable enough to protect itself? Insanity. Iran will cross the border the very next day. Iraq will join Iran and Syria as the world headquarters of Islamic terrorism. Nuclear conflict will follow while Ahmadinejad laughs at Barack's naievete.

Taxes are going up. Big time going up. Sure, the federal budget is out of control. But our presidential "change" agents don't think it's because the government spends too much money. They actually think the government doesn't spend enough money - except for military expenditures, of course. So explain to me how it makes sense to decimate the military in these dangerous times, ratchet up taxes on everybody (if you think only the "rich" will pay more, you're a fool), and increase spending by hundreds of billions a year on socialist transfer payments is going to help anybody? OK, it will help solidify power for the politicians, so I suppose it benefits them. But nobody else.

Finally, please think straight about this: Do you really want a government that takes away more than half of what you earn and gives it to bureaucrats, tells you what you can and cannot do with your property, tells you what doctors you can see, what hospitals you can use, and what prescription drugs you are allowed to take? Do you really want a government that can fine or throw you in jail if you refuse to participate in the new universal healthcare plan? Do you really want to lose your freedom to choose where your children go to school and what sorts of indoctrination they get in their classrooms? Do you really want the government to fine you for using too much energy to heat your home or power your SUV or truck? Do you think it fair that business owners who won't hire gays or churches who won't marry them will be arrested and prosecuted, and bankrupted by civil lawsuits? Do you want to see your church shut down or replaced by a place that only reads poetry and preaches platitudes about "tolerance" from the pulpit because Christianity in its true form is no longer permitted? Is it OK with you that an illegal immigrant can replace you at your workplace, then one day crash into your car, injuring or killing you or a family member without insurance or consequence?

Do you even know what Marxism is, or the fact that two of the three presidential candidates are openly campaigning on Marxist philosophies? Or that the third candidate skates on the border of some of those same philosophies?

Insanity, you are American Politics.

Candidate Questions

2008-03-26T13:28:00.000-07:00

Suppose I got the chance to meet each presidential candidate and was told I could ask two questions of each. What would my two questions be?

Let's see.

Barack Obama:

You have made the fundamental messages of your campaign on two simple words: "Hope" and "Change". Can you give me some specifics about the "Hope" part? Whose hope? What hopes? How will you deliver on those hopes?

You clearly state a primary objective of your presidency is a rapid end to the war in Iraq and return of the troops. I think most everyone in America would be happy to see an end to the conflict. But if you deliver on your promise, it is almost certain that Al Quaeda, Iran and their agent Al Sadr, and other factions hoping to gain power in Iraq will combine to cause a major conflagration and instability that will cost Iraqi citizens their lives. So my question is, are you suggesting that the consequences of precipitous withdrawal from the region are not our concern?

Hillary Clinton:

Your healthcare plan requires every citizen to have insurance coverage, and most will be required to purchase such coverage. It sounds similar to the laws in most states that require everyone to have automobile insurance in order to license their vehicles. If someone prefers to pay their medical expenses out of pocket or simply cannot afford the cost of their health insurance policy, what precise penalty would the Federal government impose upon that individual?

You have claimed to have the experience to hit the ground running after you are elected. Can you clarify for me what experience has qualified you to be Commander in Chief?

John McCain:

You have made it clear that you favor free trade policies, which sounds like you support continuing substantially all the trade policies and agreements in place today. In light of the many problems with safety and fairness that have arisen in our trade imbalance with China and other countries, do you think our trade agreements with them should be reviewed and perhaps tightened to address those abuses?

You sponsored the bill that would have given effective amnesty to virtually all illegal immigrants now living in our country. Since then, you have slightly changed your position during the campaign to acknowledge that the borders must be secured before the amnesty issue is addressed again. Why exactly do you think requiring employer enforcement and implementing a reasonable plan that requires illegal immigrants to return to their home country and get in line for legal re-entry is not a compassionate option?

Sure, I know. I'll never get a chance to ask these questions. And even if someone does, the answers will be meaningless double-talk and spin. But I think these questions should be asked so people with an ounce of common sense can analyze the candidates' answers and make better decisions about their voting choices.

The Mud Sticks to Obama

2008-03-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

The Obama campaign has hit some rather big potholes of late, and the candidate is finding himself plastered with a bit of mud.

Two problems have surfaced for Obama that have had an immediate negative impact on his polling. The extreme rhetoric of his Pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, has been widely played. Obama's close ties to Tony Rezko have also surfaced to suggest the candidate isn't the scandal and corruption free leader he has tried to portray.

The questions are rightly asked of Obama, does he subscribe to the racial grievances expressed by Reverend Wright? Was he involved with, or knowledgeable about, the illegal and corrupt activities by his friend Rezko?

We all know Hillary's got more than her share of mud left over from her years with Bill in the White House. Many of Hillary's issues would have landed someone else in jail, but somehow she managed to escape scrutiny. Even a casual reading of Hillary's resume would lead to the conclusion that her overwhelming ambition will bulldoze over anything standing in her way. The law for Hillary is nothing but an inconvenience.

John McCain has less skeletons in his closet, and they're all pretty old and moldy. His involvement in the Keating Five, back in the days of the Savings & Loan scandals, is probably his most embarrassing gaffe. But one could reasonably see his involvement with Frank Keating as similar to Obama's more recent associations with Tony Rezko. McCain's also guilty of adultery, which broke up his first marriage, but again it happened a long time ago.

So nobody's squeaky clean. So how about we put that aside for the moment and consider the bigger questions of the upcoming presidential election?

It's a stark choice between two very different paths, neither of which most of us will find palatable.

McCain can be reasonably seen as a guy who will mostly continue Bush's policies. For the rather large segment of Bush haters, that's not very good news. Here's what I think is McCain's bottom line:

He will finish the job in Iraq. McCain promises to be a stronger and more decisive Commander-in-Chief, and is claiming credit for pushing the president to implement the Surge.
He will try to keep Bush's tax cuts, but also demand spending restraints from congress - something Bush hasn't done. Can he enforce that restraint on congress when pretty much no president in our era has been able to do so? Doesn't seem likely.
He's a free trader. Not much of substance would change over Bush's pro-business and free trade policies.
He favors market-based solutions to healthcare. He'd focus on policies aimed at lowering costs and granting tax credits to people that help them buy the insurance they need. He would permit companies to create nationwide clinics and healthcare chains and push for lower prescription drug costs.
He's a traditional Republican on most social issues. Pro Life, against gay marriage, for school choice, etc. But he's not pushing hard on those issues because he hopes to attract moderates and independents who might be ambivalent or believe otherwise on those issues. I don't see him being a strong advocate on these issues as President, one way or the other.
He's bad on illegal immigration. Sure, he claims to have seen the light and promises to do what Bush has steadfastly refused to do; enforce the borders. But I'm skeptical.
He doesn't seem to have a clue on solving the current economic downturns. We'll just have to wait and see.
He may be the strongest candidate to address the overall issue of security and terrorism.

Whether it's Hillary or Barack on the Dem side, we can be assured of the polar opposite of McCain on most everything:

Out of Iraq: Both promise to withdraw troops quickly. But Hillary especially seems to hedge her bets by indicating she wouldn't beat a hasty retreat that caused disaster in the region. Since a hasty retreat is certain to do just that, she'll probably keep the troops there and blame Bush. She'll claim that she had no idea what a mess Iraq was, and unfortunately she's going to have to leave troops there awhile longer to clean up Bush's mess.
Dismantle the military and redirect tax money to social programs: That's what Bill tried to do throughout his presidency, and certain to be Hillary's policy as well. She hates the military, and will do whatever she can to dismantle it. All indications are that Obama would do the same.
Both claim to desire putting the brakes on free trade, at least to some degree. Both would also "punish" big oil by tagging the companies with confiscatory taxes.
Neither has a clue about how to solve the current economic problem. Unless you consider higher taxes across the board a solution.
Both are liberals on social issues. They're both pro choice, don't see why anybody has a problem with gay marriage, and have a selective view of free speech for religion that says it's OK for churches to be politically active only when they support Democrats.
Both claim a top priority to universal healthcare. They simply envision a federal government run and taxpayer funded system that guarantees coverage for everyone. Hillary would criminalize people who refuse to participate in her idealized national healthcare system.
Of course, both are terrible on illegal immigration. At least McCain's promising to do something about the problem; Clinton and Obama embrace illegals and would open the borders even wider.
Both will certainly weaken our country's ability to protect its citizens against terrorists.

If you're like me, and not very happy with any of the choices, the only way to go is the lesser of the evils. So I'll go cast an unenthusiastic vote for McCain.

Root Causes

2008-03-07T06:28:00.001-08:00

I'm generally amazed at how the entire world seems to miss an obvious point. That the root cause of most of the conflict and instability that boiled over to become 9-11 and the war on terror is the existence of the state of Israel.

Why is it so hard for the press and politicians to be honest about the fact that 9-11 was ultimately an expression of Muslim anger at the ongoing presence and the United States' support for Israel? Al Quaeda is a Muslim organization with a radical mission to eliminate Israel from the planet and frighten the United States into withdrawing its support and friendship with that country. Added to that primary goal of course is their long-term goal of consolidating their particular brand of Islam as the ruler of the entire middle east and removing all western influence from the region, then perhaps using the wealth of the region's oil reserves to launch their conquest of the rest of the planet.

So Israel's muslim neighbors have long despised the jewish state and those in the United Nations who helped establish it. It's somewhat remarkable that Israel has survived the many attempts by their hostile neighbor countries and their surrogates to destroy them. These days there's this bizarre perspective running around the leftist media that if Israel somehow stopped mistreating the Palestinians and allow them to carve out their own country inside Israel's boundaries that all can live in peace.

Ask Bill Clinton how that idea worked. He was able to get Israel to accept Yassir Arafat's demands in principle a few years back, and Arafat walked away. The Palestinians have no intention of making peace with Israel; that's not just my characterization, but the consistently stated position of their representatives. The terror will continue in Israel until the Jews leave or are slaughtered and the country no longer exists.

How can the Israel problem, and by association the terrorism problem for America, be resolved? Think about it for a moment, and the answer should be obvious.

Pacification. Strong, forceful, no-nonsense enforcement of peace. Yeah, I know, the left can't stand any sort of war, and would be viciously opposed (interestingly enough for people who claim to be pacifists) to bringing peace to the middle east by force. But there is simply no other solution.

How do we solve the problem? As if it were even possible, which I know it is not, the following is the only solution.

First, a coalition of like-minded countries, like NATO, creates a united front and tells the Palestinians this:

You may have your own state next to Israel. Perhaps locking in the borders as they currently exist. Take it or leave it. These borders will be enforced heavily. Nobody crosses without authorization from the other government. Palestinians in Israel may choose to stay or move to the new Palestine. If they stay in Israel and are caught participating in terrorist activities, they will be subject to capital punishment.

If, however, the Palestinians want to continue to avail themselves of the jobs and benefits they can enjoy as citizens of Israel, they must lay down their arms and vigorously prosecute any terrorist groups among them.

If the Palestinians do not agree to the terms of either their new state or the offer of freedom to be peaceful and prosperous citizens of Israel, the separate state solution will be forced on them by NATO troops, who will disarm them by any means necessary until the area is pacified.

Very simple, really. Unfortunately, the religious nature of the conflict denies and hope for peaceful negotiation. So force will be required, and the terrorist areas will have to come under strict martial law until pacified.

Too bad it will never happen.

Man without a Candidate

2008-03-05T06:10:00.001-08:00

For me, the statement is true for both President and the Senate. The states that have their primaries early settled on the presidential candidates long ago, and when Indiana finally has its primary there won't be much point in casting a primary ballot for that office.

Nobody in the field appeals to me.

I'm closest in agreement in principle with McCain on the war and national security, tax and spending policy, healthcare, and education.

But I'm not at all happy with his aggressive support of amnesty for illegal aliens, campaign finance reform, and other issues where he's been on the wrong side. Many things he's said and issues he's supported suggest strongly that he's one of the first senators we could point to when discussing the out-of-touch beltway mentality that rules DC.

On the subject of the economy he seems weak. He hasn't yet articulated a meaningful policy to address the current problem, and on energy he sounds disheartenly like a Democrat.

Naturally, Clinton and Obama present very little in common with my views. From a policy perspective, both are pretty far left socially. Hillary is a bit more moderate than Obama on national security, but both are a bit frightening in their naievete in that area.

Both are open borders proponents, and the cynic in me believes it is based simply on their desire to consolidate power by naturalizing so many immigrants as to permanently outnumber conservative voters.

It's somewhat tempting to agree with them on trade issues. I'm one that thinks we should be tougher on trading partners like China, which for years has been violating even existing trade agreements and getting away with it. I still believe we should be just as open to goods from other countries as they are to ours.

Finally, I'm very concerned about the social and moral issues, where McCain is the only candidate worthy of consideration. He may not be the strongest candidate on those issues, but he's running against people who don't even believe there is such a thing as morality. Then again, they like to redefine morality in socialist terms.

The socialist agenda that would be implemented by either Democrat can't imagine any solution other than government control to problems of access to healthcare and college education. True, there are many people who can't afford exhorbitant health insurance premiums. And it's terrible that college students are racking up mountains of debt to finish their degrees simply because the higher education institutions continue to raise tuition and fees while lenders happily step in to cover the deficits with loans the students may need a lifetime to repay.

Democrats "solve" these problems by raising taxes on everybody else and redirecting that money to the patients and students who "need" it. Conservatives say no, let's actually solve the problem without socialism by addressing the root causes of the high costs of healthcare and education. Those root causes, of course, coming directly from the biggest constituents of the Democrats - trial lawyers and academia.

Conservatives have their noses out of joint with McCain's wrapup of the nomination because he's not a "pure" conservative. Then again, strictly speaking I'm not a "pure" conservative myself. So I can wish all I want for a candidate who both inspires me and mirrors all of my personal stands on issues of the day. But wishing has never made it true, so as I usually do, I'll dutifully show up on election day in November and vote for the better candidate.

Even though the best candidate isn't on the ballot.

Issues or Personality Voter?

2008-02-15T14:32:00.000-08:00

I was channel surfing in a hotel room last week, and just happened across a lecture being given on politics. Staying with it for awhile, I was impressed with the professor's clear and concise delivery of the fundamentals of modern politics.

He gave very good and concise characterizations of the philosophies of the two major political parties, then asked the students a very insightful question:

Are you an issues voter or are you a personality voter?

Issues voters care about major issues facing the country, and seek out the candidate who most closely matches their own attitudes about those issues.

Personality voters find themselves attracted to a candidate and trust that candidate to do the right thing, but couldn't really tell anyone where that candidate stands on specific issues.

I think he's absolutely right. The so-called base of each party are issues voters. They strongly believe in a cause, and define themselves based on a set of principles embraced by their party of choice.

So most know that Republicans strongly believe in fundamental ideas like freedom, morality, a free market, and a small unobtrusive government.

Democrats, of course, are either uncomfortable with capitalism and hope to control or even punish those who dominate the free market. They don't like morality discussions, and strive to remove religion and morality from all public life. They also believe government is the solution to pretty much every problem that can be identified in the society.

How is a president chosen in most campaigns? I think by the personality voters. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, even George W. Bush were put over the top based on their personality.

Carter won over Gerald Ford because he came across as a likeable peanut farmer from the south who was as far removed from the scandals of the Nixon administration as he could be.

But Carter was a terrible president, and Reagan could have beaten him without his great personality and superior communication skill. But for Reagan's second term, he easily outshone his opponent, who was a humorless and rather dull fellow who promised to raise taxes.

Clinton repeated Carter's personality-based success, but in a different way. Clinton attracted women voters in droves with his looks and southern charm, baffling men everywhere who thought women should be offended by a guy who was a known womanizer, and most likely a predator and may have even been a rapist.

Clinton won a second term with those same women swooning and running against Bob Dole. Dole was a war hero and a genuinely nice fellow, but was aging and could not match Bill's attractiveness to the female population.

By the time George W. Bush took on Gore, enough people were weary of the constant white house scandals to narrowly choose the regular guy from Texas. And that election led to the murderous anger among the Democrat base, who think the electoral college system should not (in that election anyway) override the popular vote. That popular vote went by a statistically small margin to Gore, mostly on the strength of liberal base voters and the emergence of the "red" and "blue" state divisions so prevalent these days.

But where Bush won on personality was his second term, when he ran against the wooden, arrogant and condescending John Kerry. Even so, the red-faced conspiracy anti-war folks from the left almost succeeded in getting angry left-wing voters to the polls; not to elect Kerry, but to defeat Bush.

If the majority of Americans were issues voters instead of personality voters, I suspect our presidential choices this year would be completely different.

But speaking of personality voters, in a race between John McCain and Barack Obama, who is most likely to win?

If you don't think the answer is obvious, just ask, well, anybody.

Handicapping Presidential Candidates

2007-12-20T06:18:00.000-08:00

Time and debates have been enough to get a pretty good feel for the Presidential candidates. Each party has a group of candidates that are pretty similar to each other in rhetoric, notwithstanding an outlier in each (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich).

Among the Democrats, you don't find much difference between them on the big issues of the day. They all want socialized medicine; Canada-style government-controlled healthcare. They all want to raise taxes; they say just on the rich, but if you dig a bit deeper you'll find they want to raise them for everybody. They all want out of Iraq, damn the consequences; or do they? I think I sense a bit of prevarication happening on that issue.

Hillary's been slipping a bit lately, and I sense the press is rooting for Obama. But it still looks like she's the one to beat. Obama is making his campaign about saying as little as possible, beyond the standard Democrat party line. Kucinich once again plays the role of the crazy paranoid who, unlike Hillary, is at least honest about his communistic principles. Biden is the most traditional Democrat in the race, but his bizarre looks with the strange hair plugs probably turns off the party faithful. Why Dodd is running is beyond my comprehension, maybe it's just so they have approximately as many candidates onstage at the debates as the Republicans? It's said that Richardson is running for VP, maybe so.

Clearly the Dems are choosing between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Republican side is much more interesting, at least from the standpoint of a race that remains too close to call. The early front-runners, Giuliani and Romney, have recently found themselves getting a strong challenge from the other guy from Hope, Arkansas, Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee has caught the imagination of conservatives who find his style refreshing. I also have been impressed by his performances in the debates, where he comes across as open and honest, distictly different from most of the other candidates (on both sides) by skipping the careful phrasing and double-speak so favored by those who want to play both sides of many issues.

But along the way, Huckabee has been stumbling at an increasing rate. Not in debates, but in various interviews along the way, he says stupid things. Sure, the media's famous for taking things out of context and even misquoting, but it was certainly stupid of him to make the quip to a reporter about Romney and Mormonism, (Don't they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?)

It sounds like something one might say in jest to illustrate the stupidity of focusing on Romney's Mormonism. But I never heard Huckabee try to put the comment into context or correct the quote or even explain where he was going with it. So it sort of makes him look foolish and ignorant.

Other statements he's made make him sound naive and lacking the judgement or intelligence to be able to formulate and implement policies in areas like crime and foreign policy. But so far, his gaffes haven't hurt him too much - many of his supporters just view them as attacks by his opponents.

I think the GOP race remains wide open. The eventual nominee could be just about anyone in the top 5: Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Thompson. Ron Paul is loved by college students and Libertarians, and he will do better than the Democrat outlier Kucinich, but he's not mainstream enough to get a serious shot at the nomination. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo haven't been able to attract enough attention to break into serious consideration, and they'll probably drop out very soon.

Let's see if I can make some good predictions on the GOP race.

Giuliani can't get the nomination. People respect what he did for NYC and his 9-11 leadership, but are getting a bit tired of hearing about it. He's also got big liabilities in his support for gay rights and abortion, not to mention the baggage of his personal skirt-chasing history.

Romney has a shot, but fair or not, there are too many people who have a problem with Mormonism. So many Christian sects view the Mormons as more of a cult, and have what might be somewhat an unfounded fear of how that would effect Romney's policies. Then of course there's the contradiction of Romney's liberal-leaning policies that got him elected governor in leftist Massachusetts and his apparent conversion to more conservative ideas now that he's running for President.

Thompson's put forth some very good ideas and solidly conservative policy statements. But people don't see passion from him, and in turn are not able to get passionate about supporting his candidacy. But he could still break through, if he can begin to get the base to see him as the true conservative in the race, with his apparent qualities of straight talk, no nonsense adult supervision.

Huckabee may remain attractive, but the GOP establishment doesn't want him as the nominee. So ultimately the only way he gets the nomination is if he holds and builds upon the grassroots support he's been able to attract. I'm going to predict he'll make one too many stupid comments along the way, and will drop out of contention sort of like Howard Dean did last time.

McCain can't be counted out yet. He lost a lot of ground with his support and sponsorship of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, which to most conservatives could have been named the Illegal Alien Amnesty Bill. But the media loves him for his moderate rhetoric, and he's been pretty good in the recent debates.

If I had to predict the candidates today, I'll say Hillary vs. Romney. I'm much more confident in the Hillary prediction than the Romney prediction. But the reason I'm predicting Romney is that I think he's a competent campaigner, has the looks and bearing of a President, and is less likely to stumble in the coming months than Giuliani and Huckabee.

If I could vote in the GOP Primary today, which candidate would I pick? That's a hard question, because I really don't have a clear favorite at the moment. But if I had to pull the lever this instant, I think I'd pick Thompson.

Political Obfuscation

2007-10-18T11:05:00.000-07:00

The SCHIP reauthorization vote just went down, with the House failing to get the supermajority needed to override the President's veto.

This issue is a perfect example of political obfuscation and misinformation.

To hear the Dems tell the story, you would have to believe that a heartless President Bush wants children to go without healthcare. Advertisements and floor speeches sponsored by Democrats shamelessly and falsely state that the President refuses to reauthorize a program that guarantees healthcare to millions of low-income children.

If you don't know this already, you may be shocked to discover the truth of this particular issue.

SCHIP is a program designed to help states provide health insurance coverage for people near the poverty line. It hasn't gone away, and in fact is still in force. Nobody has seriously proposed ending the program. (It's actually unconstitutional, but Congress hasn't cared about that since FDR.)

What really happened is this: The Democrats decided to substantially expand the program to provide coverage up through the middle class. Pardon me for not recalling the exact numbers, but it would provide government health insurance for families with annual earnings in the $60's. New York asked for an exception that would cover families into the upper $80's.

Therefore, the President pulled out his veto stamp.

Republicans ascribe special political motives to the Democrats for passing this bill, and the evidence seems to back them up: The Dems wanted to create a campaign issue for 2008 by pushing a socialized medicine program they knew Republicans wouldn't like. Now with the veto they can demagogue this issue with even greater gusto in their attempt to convince those who don't pay attention that they care about people with healthcare problems, while the Republicans don't.

Now I, for one, think the Republicans have done a horrible job in not taking the lead in addressing the healthcare issue in general. Aside from a few platitudes about health savings accounts, they have failed to even communicate that they understand the major problems that exist with the healthcare system today. That makes them easy targets for Democrats, who now can get people saying, "at least they're trying to do something about the problem!".

Clearly, the Democrat party desires socialized government healthcare, and this bill was a major step in that direction. Instead of allowing them to achieve their goals through obfuscation, why don't we just have the national conversation to answer this key question:

Do the American People want the Federal Government in charge of healthcare? Are we ready to give up our freedoms - to pick our doctors and hospitals and make our own decisions about what treatments we need - in return for government control and higher taxes?

In my individual situation as a small business owner, I suspect that the increase in my taxes will probably be offset by its elimination of the exhorbitant amount I have to pay for my family's health insurance. But cost isn't the only factor; quality, accessibility, and freedom are much more important.

And when the Democrats succeed with their socialized medicine agenda (and I think it's just a matter of time before they do), we'll all suffer for it. Healthcare access will become a nightmare, quality of care will suffer, and we will lose our freedom to choose our own physicians and treatments. Just ask a senior who signed up for the Medicare Prescription Drug program and found out they couldn't get the medicines they needed because of the bureaucracy suddenly inserting themselves between them and their doctors.

It troubles me that most people don't seem to understand these simple truths.

Finding a Candidate

2007-10-16T10:33:00.000-07:00

The GOP president contenders have a front-runner in Rudy Giuliani, but the actual candidate is far from settled.

The Democrat side is all but settled. I will be shocked if the ticket of Hillary/Obama isn't set in stone very early in 2008. If there was a Democrat who had broad appeal with a message substantially different from the rest of the pack, he (or she) could get enough people excited to beat Hillary's machine. But there isn't anybody.

So give the fact I will never, not even with a gun to my head, vote for Hillary, all I have left are the Republicans.

But none of them measure up. At least not yet.

Rudy cleaned up New York City and was a visible and seemingly effective leader during the crisis of 9/11. He's saying the right things about National Defense. But he's suspect on taxes. And he's way off the reservation on social issues. Besides the fact he's an established skirt-chaser with a questionable moral history.

Mitt Romney is saying a lot of the right things and seems to be a competent executive. But he seems to be a political chameleon, so one never knows how seriously to take his positions. His Mormon faith isn't a problem for me, but I am concerned that there are lots of folks who won't vote for him just because of that. All else aside, when he talks he doesn't inspire me. I could vote for him against Hillary very easily, but would not be very happy about it.

Fred Thompson had everyone excited as he played coy about entering the race. But now that he's in, you can't really find anything that separates him from the rest of the pack. The weird thing is that he gives me the feeling he doesn't really want to be president. I can't tell what, if anything, he's passionate about.

John McCain is a guy that sometimes says things that make a lot of sense. Then he says something that doesn't. He angered lots of conservative voters with his leadership on the comprehensive immigration reform bill, most often alternately called the amnesty bill. It hurt his campaign, and although he's spending most of his time explaining himself on that issue, it may become the most important reason he doesn't win the nomination. McCain is a sort of moderate politician, which means I agree with him about 50 percent. Not enough to generate enthusiasm to pull his lever at the polls.

Of the rest, I seem to like Duncan Hunter the most. I probably agree with him on more issues than anybody else in the field. But nobody seems to even know he's running.

Mike Huckabee speaks well and seems like an honest, moral man. He's polling as the fourth most popular candidate, but doesn't seem likely to pull through. I'm a bit offended by his characterizations of people who feel the borders need to be secured and illegal immigrants dealt with as racists and bigots. But against most of the other guys, I might be willing to forgive.

Tom Tancredo is a one-trick-pony. All immigration all the time. I love his passion for the issue, but would like to hear more from him about other things.

Ron Paul won't win a nomination for president, but he will win Mayor of Crazytown hands-down. Every time he talks I get the uncomfortable feeling that maybe somebody should bundle him in a straightjacket and find him a padded room.

Where's my candidate? Not running for president, apparently.

Why Can't the GOP Raise Money?

2007-08-29T14:55:00.000-07:00

Was reading today about the fact that the Democrats have been beating the Republicans in fundraising by about 2 to 1. Obviously, they are very happy about that, and believe it further proves that they will own all branches of government after next year's elections.

At the same time, I've been reading about the reasons behind the dismal fundraising efforts by the GOP. Those reasons suggest something much deeper than apathy or general frustration with the party. Instead, they loudly and consistently demonstrate that the conservative base is sick of electing Republicans who go to Washington on promises to govern according to conservative principles, then suddenly do an about-face and govern like drunken (or drugged-out) Democrats.

Failing to enforce the borders in the face of real terrorist threats, then trying to push through a Democrat-written amnesty bill makes most conservatives absolutely livid. Just ask John McCain, who thought he would be a front-runner in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Giving great speeches about low taxes and less government and responsible spending, then going wild with secret earmarks in every budget bill drives everybody crazy - even those who support Democrats.

Instead of going to war in Iraq with a purpose to oust Saddam and help democratize the country and wipe out Al Quaeda and all other opposition, all of a sudden our president and his cabinet get soft and execute a John Kerry-like "sensitive" war. Oh my, we shouldn't shoot back at insurgents shooting at us from their mosques. Let's not anger Dems by prosecuting their traitors in the congress and CIA who routinely leak classified national secrets to the press. When they accuse the President of all manner of lies and corruption in the Iraq war effort, there's no strong response or fighting back, but just a turn of the other cheek.

Bush tries to make nice with those Democrats that have hated his guts ever since he "stole" the election by letting Ted Kennedy write the "No Child Left Behind" bill. He also worked with Ted and the gang on Medicare Prescription Drugs. Both nothing but failed boondoggles that did little more than siphon off more taxpayer dollars to line pockets of the undeserving. And such bipartisan cooperation got Bush not a single shred of respect or appreciation from the Democrats, who if anything increased their vitriol against everything he says or does, even making up nasty accusations when they could get away with it.

The only way the GOP can excite their base again is for new blood to step up and address these frustrations with specific messages about how things will be different in the new administration. The presidential candidate that can reach the masses with the strongest, most logical, and best message on cleaning up the party and Washington can and will win.

Unfortunately, we don't know who that candidate is yet. Maybe there isn't one. The alternative is Hillary. Say hello to the final slide into European-style socialism, beginning in 2009. Right now it looks inevitable.

Are Both Sides Equally Guilty?

2007-08-07T06:25:00.000-07:00

Those who want to present a reasonable or moderate stance on politics typically will suggest that both political parties are guilty when discussing the latest stupidity or outrage in DC.

Lately that argument doesn't seem to work. Lately it seems the Dems are stepping in it almost daily. The sad part is that they don't seem to be smart enough to recognize the fact.

Last week they went way over the line in the House by stealing a vote. The vote to shut down an effort by Democrats to stick an amendment into an energy bill that provided for benefits to illegals was gaveled closed by the Democratic chair with about a two vote victory for the opposition. Realizing their mistake, the Dems tried to pretend the vote wasn't closed. They twisted some arms among their party members to make them change their votes, and suddenly seemed to turn a 2-vote defeat to a 2-vote victory. Republicans walked out in protest.

They seem to have proceeded to falsify the record after the fact. Pretty outrageous, it seems to me. Especially given the subject matter.

Obama has been forced to begin making policy statements, because up to now he's just been an empty suit spouting platitudes. Now that he's talking policy, he has exposed himself as a bit of a lightweight. He gave Hillary a great opening by promising to meet with rogue dictators without precondition, to which Hillary responded with the obvious observation that he's naieve. She was being nice.

Then he said he would invade Pakistan to root out Al Quaeda if he got solid evidence they are there. Whether or not that's a good idea, it's just plain stupid for a Presidential candidate to say it out loud. Again, naieve is the nicest thing you could say about him.

Then there's Hillary, who sent some sort of politically-motivated letter asking for an Iraq withdrawal plan. She got a response from some underling that said it encouraged the enemy to make political statements about withdrawal, so she figured she could make hay for her campaign out of that response. The boss of the respondent tried to soften the message, but Dick Cheney went on TV and said, yes, it is helpful to the enemy when Democrats talk incessantly of withdrawal.

When is the truth an outrage? When it runs counter to the Democrat agenda, it seems. Speaking of naieve Democrat presidential candidates, aren't they all naieve in their belief that abandonment of Iraq at this stage would result in anything other than complete disaster? If Dems want to truly solve the problem and still stay true to their core beliefs, wouldn't it make more sense for their presidential candidate to run on the platform of bringing UN Peacekeepers into Iraq gradually to allow the US to draw down gradually? Strange we're not hearing that plan from any of them.

Speaking of empty suits, why does John Edwards get any attention or support at all? His demand that everybody give back any money they got from Rupert Murdoch, as if they wouldn't know about his million dollar book deal with a Murdoch company, was jaw-droppingly stupid.

Unfortunately, it is somewhere between disappointing and frightening that Edwards has so many apparently equally jaw-droppingly stupid supporters.

I'm in search of a candidate with a brain. Too bad they are in such short supply these days, but I suppose they are just representative of the population in general.

When is it a lie

2007-08-02T13:15:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I take a look at left-wing sites to see what they're up to. When I first did so, it was out of the desire to understand a point of view generally contrary to my own. Or see if there might be facts I had missed in forming my personal opinions on issues.

Taking another look today hasn't changed anything. The left-wing sites still prefer hyperbole over substance, feelings over facts, and an amazing prejudice against all things conservative.

Some examples:

The left is into Global Warming. Big Time. Al Gore is their hero.

They still believe some sort of conservative conspiracy culminating at the Supreme Court subverted the Florida results to steal the Presidency for Bush. I think this is at the core of what seems to be an irrational hatred on their part for GWB. Even to the extent many of them believe the same conspiracy re-elected him in 2004. It seems they would be OK with Hillary or Barack, but their dream candidate for next year is Big Al.

The emotional Global Warming argument is roughly that we need to "do something" immediately or face global catastrophe. Of course, for them the argument is settled: Global Warming is real and it is caused by humans. Scientists who question their alarming predictions are vilified as incompetents or hacks hired by the oil industry.

They are also into conspiracy theories about Bush and Company. It's mind-boggling. Forget the old news - Iraq was about enriching Cheney and Halliburton, 9/11 was an inside job, Katrina was a global warming related catastrophe that the Bushies either allowed or helped destroy New Orleans. Even before the story of the bridge collapse yesterday in Minnesota was written, the unhinged lefties were eagerly crafting new conspiracy theories blaming that on Bush.

Looking for rational debate on the issues of our times, I have been sorely disappointed. One item I read was a diatribe against Rush Limbaugh, for example. The premise of the item was that Limbaugh's such a huge liar. So I decided, OK, tell me what lies he is telling.

Strangely, most of their examples went back to his books, which came out back in the early 90's. I couldn't even find an example of something he said recently that they wanted to refute. Even with the old items from his books, they would print a phrase they wanted to refute. Most of those were about old environmental comments attributed to Rush, which they labeled lies and used as their "proof" a quote from some scientist they like. Rush cited scientists for his comments in many cases, so the accuser would dismiss his scientist as incompetent or irrelevant or associated with some right-wing advocacy group.

That got me thinking, so any scientist expressing skepticism about the popular belief in man-made global warming is incompetent or paid for by the right, does that mean that all scientists supporting the global warming belief are completely neutral politically and affiliated with no special interests that could benefit from the politics of global warming? Not likely.

So a quick poll on other key issues:

Abortion: Women need birth control, and opponents want to enslave them and deny them quality healthcare. Wow, really?

Economy: The "Bush economy" only benefits the super-rich. Everybody else continues to lose ground, with the gap between rich and poor widening dramatically. Just curious - are the poor actually worse off than they were 30 years ago? Doesn't seem that way to me - I was very poor during the Carter presidency, which was the worst economy since the Great Depression. If the rich are richer today, wouldn't that naturally mean the gap is bigger between them and the poverty class? Didn't the biggest explosion in the poverty class occur during Johnson's Great Society and contribute to the bad times through Carter?

Iraq: No need to rehash that one. Bush lied. The way they put it, if one didn't know better it sounds like our troops have killed millions of innocent Iraqi citizens. It sounds as if there are no terrorists in Iraq, just "freedom fighters" trying to rid their country of the evil American occupiers. As if they will then live happily and in peace if only our troops would go away. Really strange fantasy going on there.

Religion: As a Christian, I find their hatred toward me very disturbing. Apparently, Christians are a bigger threat to America than Radical Islam. I'm still trying to figure out what Christians have been blowing up gays, or letting women die in childbirth for lack of abortion services (birth control), or any number of other horrific abuses of gays, blacks, women, atheists, or maybe just liberals.

Taxes: They're pretty easy to understand on this one. Stop funding Iraq and the military in general, tax the evil rich, let the Left run the government and all will be well.

Healthcare: See Taxes. Free healthcare for everyone. Except the evil rich, of course, who should pay extra.

As I said, I went searching for well-reasoned arguments and came away disappointed.

Giuliani on HealthCare

2007-08-01T10:45:00.000-07:00

Rudi announced his healthcare plan. Based on the news report I read, it's not exactly bold or innovative. His basic idea is to give everyone a tax break of up to $15K per year toward the purchase of their own insurance. It would take some of the burden off employers and, he thinks, put market pressure on the industry to bring prices down to more reasonable levels. He also supports tort reform for malpractice lawsuits.

I don't have a major issue with his plan, and have to admit it's better than the government takeover envisioned by Hillary. But I don't think it addresses the fundamental core problem.

We've already decided as a society that we won't deny healthcare to someone if they can't pay. Despite the insensitive rhetoric out there from both libs and cons suggesting that fat people and smokers don't deserve healthcare (funny how they leave out alcoholics and drug abusers), very few people would be comfortable with the idea of withholding lifesaving surgery to someone because they aren't insured.

So let's review the causes of high healthcare costs:

Those who don't pay have their costs passed on to those who do
Providers have to maintain large administrative staffs to manage a wide range of claims procedures unique to each insurance plan
Providers have to take out malpractice insurance at very high premium rates to protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits, which they have to pass on to their patients
Insuring all healthcare, including basic office visits and prescription drugs, encourages overuse of the system by patients and contributes to higher pricing (especially for prescriptions)
Specialization in an increasingly complex medical field means patients need to see a different doctor for every condition, driving up costs
Illegal aliens cram emergency rooms to receive all kinds of care, for which they do not pay and are not insured
We care deeply about our elderly parents and grandparents, many of whom rack up huge bills for care during their last few months of life
A plurality of the public now believes they have a fundamental right to free healthcare; thus the success of politicians pushing government control of the system
Defensive medicine is a fact of life, with unnecessary tests routinely ordered for no other reason than protection from malpractice lawsuits
A wealthy and powerful drug company lobby insures that no politician will pass legislation that harms their ability to continue charging inordinately high prices for patented prescription drugs

Some things I think could help solve many of those problems are

National standardized electronic insurance claims processing
Eliminate insurance for office visits, basic blood tests and xrays, and prescription drugs. Everyone has to pay for their routine healthcare out of their own pocket. HSA's and tax considerations can ease the burden on patients, while the market will force drug companies to ease their more outrageous pricing policies
Affordable Major Medical coverage must be made available at an affordable price to everyone. No insurance company would be allowed to turn away higher risk patients.
Eliminate preferred provider networks. HMO's would have to adapt their product to compete, probably by offering unlimited routine care for a reasonable monthly subscription rate
Tort reform, of course. Designed to discourage frivolous suits by people hoping to win the healthcare lottery, but still is available to help purge true incompetents, charlatans, frauds and negligent providers.

Nobody is out there with these ideas, at least as far as I can tell. Nor will there be I suspect, because anybody making these sorts of recommendations would immediately alienate powerful interests - trial lawyers, drug companies, insurance companies, unions, and politicians, to name a few.

Handicapping the Presidential Race

2007-08-01T05:14:00.000-07:00

Unless one or both make a bad mistake in the next 6 months, a la Howard Dean, the Democrat candidate is already set. It's Hillary. And the safest bet you can make today is that Hillary will make Obama her Veep. The way such races happen these days, the media annoints their candidate. Even if there's some Democrat out there everybody on that side would adore, they won't ever find out about him. The left media, led by the NY Times, has already chosen Hillary. So Hillary it will be. (Unless she pulls a Howard Dean or somebody exposes her in a major scandal)

The Republican candidate is much harder to predict. Giuliani is the front-runner, but the Republican base feels ambivalent about him. Republicans like him because he's tough on terror and shows strong leadership qualities. But they are decidedly uncomfortable with his liberal social positions. He might be able to pull stronger support from the Republican base for the general election if he chooses a strong conservative for his Veep.

Most Republicans are sitting back and watching without getting behind a specific candidate at this point. Lots of folks like Duncan Hunter, for example, but hesitate to line up behind him unless he starts polling in the top tier. And everybody else is just waiting for Fred to jump into the race. If Fred takes his strong, no-nonsense conservative message on the road and doesn't make a big mistake, he's the one guy that has a chance to energize the Republican base.

Conventional wisdom now says it's a foregone conclusion. The Democrat candidate will win easily. Be careful about conventional wisdom, because it comes from the same media that has already anointed Hillary. Their message to Republicans is, Give up guys, Hillary's already won.

Maybe. But I think there are some things brewing that could change that in the next year. Success in Iraq being the number one - reports are increasingly positive that Bush's hated "Surge" may be working. Democrats have been desparately trying to short-circuit the whole thing, because actual success in Iraq will sink them.

If Iraq turns around, there are two other things I think could almost guarantee a win for the Republican candidate. Number one is if Republicans take the lead in finishing the fence and beefing up border security, cracking down on visa overstays, then widely publicizing the success. Number two is the introduction of a smart energy plan with a media blitz that shames the blue dog Dems into signing onto a plan that promises increased exploration, increased refining capacity, and overall energy initiatives that will bring the costs down while protecting the environment.

Number one is very achievable, but the leadership seems too dumb to carry it through. Number two is nearly impossible, but if a strong leader emerges to champion the case, it could have an outside chance.

Current prediction: Clinton/Obama vs. Giuliani/Thompson

Poisonous Politics

2007-07-26T11:34:00.000-07:00

How many people thought Democrats were really going to do positive things for the country when they put them back in power last year? If they did think anything like that, they should have known better. I'm guessing only the most rabidly partisan could ever be satisfied with what the Dems have done with their power.

Investigations is the name of the game now in congress. The partisans afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome spend all of their time scheming about new investigations they can launch that might embarrass the President. For the most severly afflicted, fantasies abound that if they investigate long and hard enough, they might actually find something they could use as grounds for impeachment.

So the endless investigations continue, widening the bitter divide between the rival parties while accomplishing zero in terms of improving the security, freedom, and prosperity of the nation.

Scooter Libby got convicted for lying about something that was never a crime to begin with. He says he just had a faulty memory. But he got convicted and sentenced to prison, not for exposing the identity of a covert CIA agent, as Democrats and their friends in the media desparately want us to believe; but for making statements to investigators in the case that did not match with the statements of reporters interviewed in the same case.

Maybe he lied because he didn't want his name plastered all over the papers as the person in the white house who exposed Valerie Plame. Maybe he didn't know that he wasn't the source, and the investigators already knew who identified her to Robert Novak. Maybe he just had a bad memory as he claims, mixing up which conversation he had with which reporters on which days. Hey, maybe the reporters were the ones who lied.

The silliness continues. At present, the Dems are investigating the firing of a handful of US Attorneys. Since the fundamental truth here is that the US Attorneys can be fired by the Administration at any time and for any reason, it might occur to someone to ask them what exactly are you investigating? To what end?

The answer is pretty obvious. They're pretty sure the firings took place for political reasons, but fantasize that just maybe they were to take out people who were prosecuting friends of the White House. So they're going to court to fight over access to internal administration communications, which the White House is (rightly) refusing to give them.

The cop shows on TV taught us that there has to be something called "probable cause" to search people. Regardless of the reason for the firings of these attorneys, unless a specific case can be found against a Bush crony that was dismissed or settled by the fired attorneys' replacement, there is no probable cause suggesting anything more than a political consideration was involved in the firings.

Investigations continue unabated. In search of any evidence that can embarrass Bush. Investigating the Iraq war over and over again and finding nothing new since the first 50 investigations. Investigating the Attorney General to see if they can find any evidence he lied about anything.

Of course, there are no investigations of guys like Jefferson, caught with bribe money stashed in his freezer. Or Harry Reid's real estate deals. Or Jack Murtha's corrupt quid-pro-quo's. Or Ben Nelson's earmark for government grants to his son's software company. Or Pelosi's husband's contracts. I suppose that if there's actual corruption taking place with somebody who happens to be a Democrat, no investigation is required.

Maybe the best way for a corrupt Republican to avoid prosecution is to simply announce he's decided to switch parties.

The only thing the Democrats take time out of their busy investigations to do is introduce more bills on Iraq. They keep trying to force a surrender. I wonder how many times in history the superior combatant that was clearly winning the fight just suddenly decided to quit and go home? It looks like that's likely to happen soon with Iraq.

Party of Idiots

2007-07-24T12:50:00.000-07:00

No, I didn't watch the Democrat debate. But I picked up some excerpts that make me wonder if the entire party isn't now dominated by weird, sick, and stupid people.

The candidates took a wide range of inane questions from people who posted them on YouTube. They mostly ducked the questions, I suppose. But as far as I can tell, there was a decided lack of serious and thoughtful questions. If anything, there seemed to be way too many setup questions that let the candidates pander to what seems to represent the base of the party.

The solution to the terror war, according to the candidates? Talk to the enemies. Negotiate with them. Do serious intelligent people really think this will work?

Stop Global Warming. That would be really funny if it weren't so sadly stupid.

Healthcare for Everyone! Where are the questions and explanations about how, exactly, will such a utopian vision be implemented?

Tax Rich People! Yeah, they deserve to be taxed and taxed and taxed again. Then again, who exactly are you calling "Rich"?

How about things people really care about - Illegal immigration, actual defense against terrorism, high gas prices? Hmm, it turns out Democrat presidential wannabes don't think those issues matter.

Republican candidates are worth little more than a yawn, but at least they make a little bit of sense now and then. But of course, they're just campaigning for the priviledge of losing to Hillary, at least if we are to believe the "experts" in the news media.

Political Stupidity

2007-07-23T13:27:00.000-07:00

I have been neglecting this blog, instead occasionally posting the odd political observation in the other one.

So I'm back to the political blog to vent on the whole frustrating picture.

Here we sit with Al Quaeda and an assortment of other radical Islamists wanting to wipe us out, borders nearly wide open, and a government that cares more about their own power and wealth than the welfare of the country.

And what's happening in Washington?

All night slumber parties in an empty pretense to please the anti-war left.

Impeachment talk to please the anti-war left.

Insults to the general population for loudly voicing their displeasure over a bill to open the borders even wider, followed by temper tantrums and vows to do nothing about border security.

Cowed Republicans afraid of their own shadows. And the big bad media machine.

Democrats introducing bill after bill and mounting investigation after investigation, all designed to embarrass George Bush.

Republicans simply voting against the Democrat bills to block as many as possible. Any that make it through will just be vetoed anyway.

A media machine so closely tied to the political parties that the idea of "objective journalism" has become a bad joke.

Democrats angry that Talk Radio is more identified with the Right, so they try to revive the "Fairness Doctrine". But their version would only apply to AM Radio, since they already own NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, etc. etc. ad infinitem.

Sort of like the old story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Congress plays petty politics while Al Quaeda plots and uninvited foreigners invade and conquer, one state at a time.

One day soon, an Iranian nuclear device will be carried into the United States across the Mexican border by somebody from Al Quaeda. It will be detonated in a major city, most likely DC or NY.

Assuming those left alive, the Democrats will blame Bush. Republicans will blame Democrats. The rest of us will blame the whole bunch of stupid, corrupt, narcissistic political leaders we were stupid enough to send to Washington.

I mourn for those who will learn too late that the enemy is real, is seriously bent on their destruction, and is not named George Bush. Want to impeach him? Then impeach him for failing to perform his duties, such as enforcing immigration laws and enforcing antitrust laws. But to do that, we would have to retroactively impeach his predecessors; Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

Wouldn't it be better to just find a real leader to elect as Bush's replacement next year? Better hurry, because the field is already crammed with the same old hacks.

Living in the Twilight Zone

2006-05-01T09:19:00.000-07:00

How else could I describe what's going on in the country today, but like a bad episode of the twilight zone?

Today is May Day, a major communist holiday. Supposedly illegal aliens from all over the country are going to skip work and school, stay away from stores, and march in the major cities. To protest any government action to seal the borders or ship them back home where they came from. Name one other country on the entire planet that would take this stuff seriously, other than the good ol' USA. Meanwhile our Senators posture and dither and look like the complete fools they are, while nearly every one of them is completely safe in their seat. Look at Indiana - there is no viable alternative to either of our senators that will even try to run against them for the foreseeable future.

Things seem to be gradually and slowly calming down in Iraq, but you wouldn't know it from most news reporting. In the meantime, Iran is mooning the entire western world and exposing the United Nations for the corrupt and inconsequential body it is. Nearly the entire population of the US has Attention Deficit Disorder, and can't bear to wait for a stable Iraq, despite the fact it is the most successful war in our history in all measurable terms. Even though the only way we can really be safe in this country is most likely going to be taking on Iran next, we won't do it unless or until Iran nukes us. Sometimes I think the influencers in our country actually want that to happen.

It's so bizarre that so many people fail to see any connection between what's going on in places like Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela and the prices we all have to pay for gas to power our cars. Those are the main villians behind the high global crude prices, but some would rather pretend it's somehow being manupulated on purpose by Bush and his evil oil baron buddies. It seems to me that anyone who is on board with high gas taxes, disallowing oil exploration and drilling everywhere in the US and offshore, protesting any US involvement or influence in the middle east whatsoever, and barricading construction of new refineries for over 30 years, has abdicated their right to complain about $3 gas.

Most distressing to me is that none of this stuff really seems to matter to most Americans. The general population seems more interested in Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, or the Duke Lacrosse Team case, or who's going to win American Idol. They seem to hate the president partly because of the Iraq war, but seemingly more because he admits to being a person of faith. I find it particularly bizarre that Bush is leading the way on perhaps the most liberal of proposals on so-called "immigration reform", yet for some reason he's hated even more for that stand by those who actually would otherwise agree with him.

If you could create a documentary that just records rhetoric on these and other front-burner issues, then take it back in time 30 years and play it for everyone, it would have to be as an episode of the Twilight Zone. Because there's no way it could be believed as a serious look at the future. Makes me wonder how much more bizarre things will become in the next 30 years.

Katie and Cynthia

2006-04-06T08:11:00.000-07:00

There's not much of significance to the country of either big story this week, but I can't help but find them both rather fascinating.

First is the story of Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman from Georgia. If I understand correctly, she's from Atlanta. What makes her story interesting to me isn't what actually happened, but what I've learned about Cynthia and the case since then.

From what I've learned, I have to admit to feeling sorry for Cynthia. She is an outrageous and colorful (no pun intended) individual who allegedly slugged a security guard with her cellphone when he tried to stop her from entering the Capitol building. She was outraged that the guard would dare stop her, an important member of congress on her way to whatever meeting was happening that day.

Apparently, she could have apologized to the guard for slugging him, and maybe sent him a fruit basket or something to express her regret for losing her cool. But instead she decided to go on the offensive, and publicly excoriated the guard as both a racist (he was engaging in "racial profiling") and a sexual predator (he "touched her inappropriately").

Instead of the incident passing with little notice, she now is subject to possible assault charges. And I would suspect she's subject to a civil suit from the guard for slander and defamation of character. She's appeared with her attorneys on a variety of news programs, which have served to dig her deeper into her hole rather than sway public opinion in her favor. Even her fellow partisan Democrats are keeping their distance from this crazy woman.

I feel sorry for her, because it must be a miserable existence to live every day in extreme hatred and paranoia. If you are Cynthia, every bad thing that happens to you happens only because of your skin color. According to several people who know her, the incident is one of many.

The other story is about Katie Couric taking over the anchor at CBS News. Again, it's not significant in its national importance, other than the obvious hope at CBS that she can help boost their dismal news ratings. What her hiring shows most of all is that CBS hasn't learned anything from the incident with Dan Rather and the forged Bush National Guard documents. If anything, Katie is even more openly partisan than Dan, and will be in charge of the CBS News program. That means her broadcasts will continue the CBS tradition of left-wing propaganda thinly disguised as the news.

There's no surprise there, but I can't help but be disappointed. Someday an executive at one of the big 3 networks is going to catch on, and put together a news division that actually presents the real stories of importance to our country and presents both sides of each issue fairly and reasonably.

Do Cynthia and Katie have anything in common? Sure. They're both angry liberal women. They're both self-important. They're both lightweights intellectually. They both hate the President. They both live their lives on emotion instead of reason.

It's just that Katie hasn't slugged any security policemen lately. At least not that we've heard about.

Sanity, Decency, and Civility

2006-02-17T14:16:00.000-08:00

The past week has been an incredible demonstration of the depths to which public politica discourse has fallen. We started the week with a tiff in the press over being kept out of the loop on the Cheney hunting accident. Now that we all know much more about that accident than any of us cared to, I wonder whether anyone noticed what utter fools Democrats and the White House press corps made of themselves.

Let's see if I can recap all of the ridiculous speculation that they've all been spouting about the incident: It's just evidence of the administration's penchant for secrecy in keeping matters large and small from the public. Cheney was drunk and held off reporting the incident so he wouldn't be tested. Cheney was hunting with a woman not his wife, and didn't want the press to find out. Cheney shot his friend as a warning to Scooter Libby about what could happen to him if he testified about any shenanigans in the VP's office. The Secret Service was part of a massive coverup in the matter. The victim actually died, but they trotted out a look-alike to tell their version of the story.

There's probably more, but I think I've covered the basics.

Does anybody actually believe this stuff? I guess they would be the same people that believe Bush made up Iraq's weapons of mass distruction to cover his war to benefit his buddies in the oil industry. They believe Bush and Cheney willfully killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqis and sent over 2,000 Americans to be killed for personal reasons and not national security reasons. They believe the NSA "Domestic Spying" program is listening in on American Liberal Democrats in order to harrass, intimidate, or arrest them just for hating the President. They believe Bush and big business have teamed up to make America a land of sweatshops where a tiny elite control all the wealth and everyone else is forced to live in poverty and without healthcare. Overall, they simply believe Bush and Cheney are evil personified.

There's something really big here that I just don't get. Nobody seems able to explain it to me, so maybe some intelligent reader will happen upon this blog and can help. It's about the liberal self-image that suggests they are smarter than everyone else, and conservative-minded individuals are nothing more than rubes who have fallen for the Bush propaganda.

One thing I do get. Liberals run on feelings. They feel emotions very deeply. They "care". They are concerned about the poor, the minorities, the downtrodden, the exploited. And they support government policies aimed at "fairness", at making the poor less poor, at punishing those who abuse and exploit them, and forcing the evil corporations to hire minority workers for high-paying jobs whether they are qualified or not.

But I don't get the whole "we're smarter than you" thing. Like the college professors, which surveys have shown tend to be somewhere north of 80% liberal. And on just about any public university, all you have to do is throw a stone through the quad and you're likely to hit a professor who's not just liberal, but most likely a Marxist.

So if they're so intelligent, why do they abandon that intelligence in their political activism? For example, the Communists: Didn't they see how the Soviet Union fell under its own weight, because ultimately it didn't work? Are they ignoring the fact that communist regimes can't abide opposing views and brutally suppress those who dare to even question their dictatorial party leaders? Have they no knowledge of human behavior, to understand that people need the motivation of a better life for themselves and their children to guide them to achievement and productivity?

What about the education system itself: How can they align with liberals who want more of the same in the public school systems that are failing despite the massive investments made to try to improve them in the past 30 years? How can they deny the horrible outcomes of millions of functionally illiterate "graduates" of our public education institutions across the country while making sure there can be no values education (except for liberal values), no discipline, and no standards?

How can they profess to be so smart about global issues, yet completely miss the point of the Iraq war? How can they use such misleading rhetoric about the missing WMD's and that Saddam didn't take down the World Trade Center, when anybody who has been paying attention knows that al Quaeda is simply one of the larger terrorist organizations supported heavily and openly by Iran, Syria, and (formerly) Iraq?

Finally, I have to take issue with which party contains the majority of ignorant masses. The left would portray conservatives as a bunch of evangelical bible-thumpers aligned with the Confederate flag waving NASCAR fans and the super-rich. Are some of the groups who align with Republicans ignorant? Sure. But when I'm out in public, just listening to conversations of all sorts of obviously ignorant folks, what I hear the most is simplistic Bush hatred - repeating the Democratic playbook almost to the letter about lies, Iraq, gas prices, corruption, and corporate greed.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who suggested that without a well-informed population, our Republic will fail? I don't care which side of an individual issue anyone comes down on, but I am frightened by the fact that most people have no clue about who or what they are voting for when they walk into the booth on election day.

On the Judiciary

2006-02-10T11:59:00.000-08:00

One of the great responsibilities of the Presidency is the appointment of judges to the federal and supreme courts. Recently our country has been observing an increasingly divided and politically charged Senate that supports and opposes nominees to especially the Supreme Court based on ideology rather than competence.

The most disturbing trend seems to be the determined efforts by some in the Senate to block Supreme Court nominees based solely on their perceived stand on abortion rights. The issue is carefully couched by abortion supporters in terms of protecting civil and privacy rights, but there can be little doubt that a nominee put forward by a conservative president can expect a ferocious and uncivil opposition from the abortion rights supporters.

Mine is a simple philosophy on judicial appointments. Judges are required to uphold the constitution of the United States and interpret the laws, not make new ones. However one may feel about the issue of abortion personally, the pertinent question for the Supreme Court is whether it is, or is not, a fundamentally protected right of individuals that cannot be infringed by any federal, state, or local government entity.

Roe v. Wade was decided, not based on specific language found anywhere in the Constitution protecting the surgical termination of pregnancy, but on a vague theory of a right to privacy used by the slimmest majority of activists then empaneled on the Supreme Court. Most honest students of constitutional law, including those who support legalized abortion, agree that Roe v. Wade was a decision without constitutional support. Basically, the justices who ruled to establish this brand new right to abortion did so out of their personal ideology rather than the strict interpretation of the constitution and the law.

Today we know a great deal more about fetal development. We also are advancing medicine to be able to save premature infants at much earlier stages. We know that aborted babies feel pain, and agree that the procedure commonly called partial-birth abortion is barbaric infanticide.

Personally, I support a Supreme Court review of the Roe v. Wade decision. I believe it is justified to begin a new national conversation about where the dividing line is between the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy and her unborn child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The entire issue of whether the unborn baby is an individual with the same unalieanable rights shared by the rest of us, or just the property of the mother who has sole power of life or death, needs to be revisited. I also believe that the unspoken tragedy of abortion occurs overwhelmingly in our poor and minority communities, which makes the practice even more morally repugnant. Finally, we as a nation must recognize that, legal or illegal, the practice of abortion is a tragedy that cannot be allowed to continue without some reasonable and practical solutions.

Therefore, whether or not the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, a key objective throughout my presidency will be to focus on providing alternatives to women with unplanned pregnancy. I will make sure that any woman or girl who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant will receive all the support she needs to bring the child to term and go on with her life. Whether through pre-natal care assistance, adoption services, day care assistance, parenting education, housing, or whatever the expectant mother needs to make the choice easier to make, the government will partner with any public or private organization who shares our goal of making abortion a thing of the past.

Finally, back to the Supreme Court. As a matter of law, the Court can and should find Roe v. Wade to be unconstitutional. But this does not mean that abortion will be immediately outlawed. It simply means that jurisdiction over such laws will be returned to the states, where each state legislature will be free to pass laws either permitting or outlawing abortion, or setting specific parameters within which abortion is allowed.

There remains much to be discussed and considered in our national debate on this topic. For example, if abortion remains legal, when in the 9 months can it be performed? If abortion is illegal, is it ever justified: for example, is abortion justifiable for cases of incest or rape, or if the mother is incompetent? Is abortion ever justified if tests reveal severe birth defects? Are there risks to the mother that should be taken into account, and if so, what are they? Are babies to be protected from conception? What about the use of contraceptives that are being seen to cause long-term detrimental health affects for women who use them over long periods of time?

I believe that Americans need to leave behind the old, divisive rhetoric of the past on the topic of abortion, and move forward to a reasonable and productive discussion of the real challenges and questions that must be addressed. And I expect to help lead that discussion through the office of the presidency.

Education

2006-01-21T07:47:00.000-08:00

This post will attempt to tackle perhaps the next most difficult issue facing our country after healthcare, that of educating our children.

First of all, constitutionally the Federal government has no business interfering in Education, which is clearly the responsibility of the states. However, decades of meddling by the courts and congress have done more harm to this country's education system than any foreign influence could have conceived or carried out.

Beginning with the Supreme Court deciding in the 1960's that suddenly there is this mythological "Separation between church and state" in the constitution, and therefore religious expression is forbidden in public schools, our schools have slid into an abyss of moral bankruptcy and academic mediocrity. The products of secular education apply their non-values to their adult lives, producing neglected children who attend rudderless schools and perpetuate the vicious cycle with their own children.

Ask any teacher their opinion of the number one reason for the failure of public schools, and he or she will tell you without hesitation, "lack of parental involvement". Parents view the schools as babysitters that give them a low-cost place to dump their kids every day. This permanent underclass of low-skilled, undereducated, and unambitious citizens were encouraged through government social programs and the education system to become exactly thus.

My point of view is that debates about public education today fundamentally fail in their inability to recognize the root problems that need to be solved. The debate centers on teachers and testing, as if somehow more money, better teachers, more tests, and more money will solve the problem. It is my contention that no problem can be solved if it is not understood. And we've seen years of programs and initiatives that throw money and tests at schools, yet the problems just get worse.

The solution does not lie with more money, more tests, better school facilities, or new Federal bureaucracies. Instead, I believe we need to rethink our entire approach to education. We have the tools and technology to transform education beyond the tired old agrarian model we continue to be stuck with today. Following are several of my ideas for returning the American education system to a model for the rest of the world:

Individualized Curricula: Children learn in different ways and at different rates. Where did the idea come from that all 12 year olds should be in the same class together regardless of their ability and aptitude in a particular subject? We have the technology to use testing for placement. For example, let's say there's a student that would be in Grade 6 in today's school; this student excels in language skills but is struggling in math. So the school places this student into a level 7 english, writing, and literature program, but a level 5 math program. The student's age is inconsequential to their placement in each major subject area, but they must complete up to, say level 10 or 11 in each subject area before they can graduate.
High School Graduation when the student is finished, not when they turn 18: Why do we keep students in high school until they are 18 in all cases? Why not use the individual curricula described above to let students complete their schooling at their own pace, perhaps up to a maximum age of 19? If an exceptional student can complete all of the high school requirements by age 16, why not let her graduate then?
Partnership with Community Colleges and Area Business: The public schools should partner with local colleges and businesses to provide educational opportunities for their students that help them transition into adulthood. Rather than teaching the college-level Advanced Placement courses in the high school, why not allow students to take those classes in college? Realizing that for social reasons, students will want to stay with their peers in High School until graduation at 18, why not let them get a head start on their college education or their chosen trade during the last year in high school?
Mentoring Programs: Peer influence is incredibly strong in public schools. Teachers have long observed that classes of students have distinct personalities, based on the attitudes of their unofficial peer leaders. Mentoring programs that pair high-achieving upper-class students with the poorer, rudderless younger students have the potential of breaking the cycle descibed earlier.
Respect Religion and Religious Speech: I believe we need to fight very hard to restore a level of sanity to policies that have for so long stifled moral and religious expression in the schools. I'm not suggesting that we permit proselytizing or pressuring students in any way into participating in religious activities. However, open access to the schools by area churches and mosques to bring in speakers and teachers for voluntary attendance by students can not only help students to understand perspectives of others' religious beliefs while perhaps reinforcing positive moral messages so lacking from the secular institutions our schools have become.
Expanded Curricula: There is little argument that music, art, and physical education are important components to a well-rounded education. All of these disciplines must be reinforced in the school curricula and given prominence alongside the other academic subjects. Physical Education should focus on developing lifelong fitness habits by establishing them as a daily required part of each student's schedule. Intramural sports teams for every sport from tennis to football to badminton, running and weightlifting clubs, dance classes, etc. should offer varied experiences for students that permit them to choose those activities they enjoy. Music and art should also be required for every student throughout their school experience, rather than limited to elective or extra-curricular status.

In general, a more flexible program that places students in classes that match their ability level but forces them to complete a minimum set of requirements for every subject will allow every student to work at their own pace while encouraging them to work hard to achieve the requirements to graduate on time. Peer mentoring and community partnerships will help students grow their understanding of the world and their own possibilities and are very likely to help break the tragic hopelessness of a permanent and growing American underclass. And an open policy toward philosophy and religion will help students understand each other and allow them to explore their own feelings about faith and morality without undermining their family's existing faith tradition.

The role of the Federal Government is not to institute and enforce these principles, but rather to encourage the States to do so, provide some financial resources to help them do so, and provide leadership and facilitate sharing of best practices of those school districts who have had success with their implementation of these programs.

Platform Plank #4 - Trade & Foreign Relations

2006-01-08T12:40:00.000-08:00

This topic has to include trade, the United Nations, and Foreign Policy, because all are inextricably intertwined.

The globalist push that has been underway since the end of WWII, and openly pusued by both Bushes and Clinton has brought us to today's world order. For globalists and free-traders, the objectives of such policies are a more peaceful and prosperous planet. Clinton's globalism rhetoric was more focused on economic parity, while the Bushes more about spreading democracy around the world.

The common sense approach our new party takes to this topic remains consistent with the fundamental principles upon which the party was founded. Fairness and common sense dictate a trade policy that continues to encourage free trade, but also the element overlooked by past administrations - fair trade. We should demand the same openness of our trading partners' markets to US goods as they receive from ours. And it is past time for Americans to reclaim its supremacy as the leading supplier of high-quality products to the world.

Foreign importers will be scrutinized in several areas; Are they "dumping" products into the US at prices aimed at establishing a monopoly and driving competitors out of business? Are they providing the same level of open access to their markets that the US is providing them? Are they routinely stealing US patents and copyrights to copy, build and ship those products back into the US and around the world? Are government subsidies giving foreign businesses unfair advantages in the world market? Are lax environmental and safety regulations in trader countries giving them an unfair advantage? Is the use of slave and underage labor, sweatshop-style working conditions, or unfair compensation policies giving importers an unfair advantage while exploiting citizens of poor countries?

All of these are fair game in trade negotiations. China, currently the largest importer of goods into the US and enjoying the largest trade deficit in history, also has the largest untapped consumer market in the world. It is past time to get tough with China in trade negotiations that level the playing field.

There seems to be an almost complete loss of patriotism and loyalty among American corporations, who will close plants and lay off American workers without hesitation if they believe they can produce their products cheaper in a foreign country. While we should not dictate to American companies how to manage their businesses, we can enact laws that help protect citizens so callously displaced by offshoring and outsourcing.

Any profitable American operation that is closed in favor of moving it offshore to a theoretically lower-cost country will be required to compensate all its displaced employees with a severance package ranging from 2 weeks for short-term employees, up to a full year of wages for long-term employees. Even if the move remains attractive to the company with these additional costs, at least the social burden now borne by the government in taxpayer-funded assistance programs that must help those workers until they can be absorbed into another job will be greatly reduced.

The issue of immigration and jobs can also fit within this topic, but we have chosen to outline this topic separately.

Finally, the role of the United Nations as an important organization for the global community to meet and negotiate all manner of issues must remain. However, the US will continue to assert its sovereignty and will never permit any domestic policies to be controlled in any way by the UN. And the US will always reserve the right to protect herself against all foreign threats, with or without the UN's approval and cooperation.

Platform Plank #3 - Healthcare

2005-12-28T11:36:00.000-08:00

Healthcare is a hot issue, and perhaps the most difficult of all problems facing the country. So far, no single leader has verbalized anything close to a reasonable or common sense solution to the large and growing healthcare problem.

Perhaps the most important reason we haven't heard a reasonable solution from either political party is that each is too closely tied to their individual benefactors and special interests. This has led to not only a lack of reasonable solutions, but perhaps even policies that have been detrimental to any eventual solution to the problem.

In keeping with my own party's philosphy, my policy toward healthcare reforms is based fundamentally on the idea that no specific group should get more consideration than any other in the development of government policy.

Besides all citizens who are the consumers of healthcare, the powerful interests who fight effectively from their limitless war chests will make the implementation of any healthcare reforms extremely difficult. We have seen the insurance companies, trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, labor unions, corporate interests, and healthcare providers all buying the votes in congress to make sure the status quo is maintained.

Solutions require an understanding of the problem. Let's start with a fundamental understanding: We as a society have already decided that we will not deny needed healthcare services to anyone, even if they can't afford those services. The problem today is that there are far too many in that category whose cost of care is simply passed on to everyone who can pay, namely the insured and the government.

Some want a European or Canadian style universal healthcare program, which would immediately put all private health insurers out of business and essentially make all healthcare providers employees of the federal government. I agree with the opponents of this idea who believe it will lead to shortages and rationing of care, as well as drastically harm the quality of care.

On the other hand, we simply can no longer afford to continue passing the buck of uninsured patients on in higher charges to the rest of the population. COBRA, a good idea when it was initiated, is now unaffordable for most of the general population. A basic family health insurance plan costs the worker who leaves or is laid off from his or her job nearly $1,000 per month. That's a bill that won't be accepted by any but the top wage earners in the country, and is no longer an effective measure to keeping the rolls of the insured high.

Solutions require participation from everyone. The uninsured must have access to healthcare that they can afford. However, that doesn't mean they should get a free ride. The government and private insurers must agree to implemented standardized claims processing that reduces the heavy administrative burden currently delaying compensation and burying providers in paperwork. Trial lawyers must be made to think twice about bringing frivolous suits against providers when there has been no malpractice, while true malpractice should see to it that inept and unqualified practitioners lose their licenses.

The policies to be pursued by my administration in regard to healthcare include the following:

COBRA rules will be replaced by a new insurance portability act that will permit individuals to keep their health insurance even after leaving a company. The policy may be modified with higher deductibles and lower premiums to make it more affordable for the individual.
For those who are unable to purchase health insurance because of any pre-existing condition or high-risk factors, the opportunity will be extended to join Medicare for a premium rate tied to the individual or family's latest 1040 adjusted gross income. No citizen may be denied coverage for any reason, but nobody will be forced to purchase insurance. It will be made crystal clear to everyone who chooses to remain uninsured that should a catastrophic injury or illness occur while they are uninsured, their property may be subject to confiscation to pay for treatment.
Companies will be encouraged to provide health coverage for all of their employees. Tax incentives will be created to make it as attractive as possible for all companies to offer coverage to their entire employee population, even including part-time or temporary workers. For small businesses who find it more difficult to acquire group plans at an attractive rate, they will be permitted to band together in large groups to get rates comparable to those enjoyed by larger corporations.
Free or low-cost wellness programs will be provided through public/private partnership grants to encourage all citizens to participate in exercise, nutrition education, smoking cessation classes, etc.
Drug and alcohol rehabilitation services will be expanded and made available to a broad segment of the population.
Non-citizens will be given emergency care only, and forced to pay for non-emergency treatments themselves. Border security and immigration reforms will include specific provisions to help reduce the burden placed on the system today through reducing or eliminating the need for providing free health services to non-citizens unable to pay.
Medical MalPractice Review Boards will be created to review any malpractice case that is presented alleging harm to a patient due to improper or negligent care. The Review Board will be made up of a mixture of medical and non-medical experts from the community, who must commit to an unbiased review of each case. If the case is deemed to have merit by the Review Board, it will be recommended for referral to civil court proceedings. If the case is deemed without merit by the Review Board, the case can still be heard in civil court, but must include a compelling reason for overturning the findings of the Review Board to proceed.
Government clinics and hospitals will be opened in major metropolitan areas, where anyone may come for treatment. Charges will be based on ability to pay up to the reasonable and customary limit for all patients. These facilities will generally be affiliated with medical schools, providing a good training ground for medical students and helping to keep costs under control. Emergency Rooms will no longer be the first choice for patients under Medicaid or other government insurers, but these clinics and hospitals will serve those patients. In rural communities, subsidies for treatment of poor and indigent to existing clinics and hospitals will replace the government facilities. Government administration will be outsources to professional healthcare companies subject to regular audit scrutiny to make sure they are keeping overhead costs low and spending tax dollars wisely.
Pharmaceutical companies will have to negotiate with the government to supply high volumes of needed medications for those covered under government-sponsored insurance plans. Volume pricing of drugs can be negotiated to give a fair profit to the companies while helping reduce costs to the government insurance programs.

None of these steps represents a perfect solution. What Americans need to realize is that any solution requires some participation and perhaps sacrifice in order to meet the goal of getting the healthcare problems at least partially under control. That means trial lawyers must be more circumspect about bringing questionable malpractice suits, doctors and providers may need to trade some high treatment rates for lower administration costs, insurers have to conform with standardized claims processing systems, the government must outsource the bureaucracy to keep taxpayer costs low, and individuals must be willing to take on a greater role in paying for their care and participating in wellness programs.

All of this can greatly improve the sytem over time, although it is fully expected that the programs will require constant monitoring and adjustment to keep in step with the real needs and issues that will certainly continue to change.

Platform Issue #2 - Immigration

2005-12-26T07:34:00.000-08:00

Immigration is a hot topic these days, and many people right now list it either #1 or #2 among the major political issues of our time.

Whatever one thinks about illegal immigration, the problems it is presenting for our country cannot be ignored. While it is probably true that the majority of illegal immigrants simply want to work hard and build a better life for their families, it is also true that illegal immigration is creating massive problems placing unprecedented stress on our welfare, healthcare, education, and justice systems.

Illegals access social services and healthcare in massive numbers that US citizen taxpayers cannot sustain. Among the aliens sneaking across the border are drug smugglers and gang members driving up crime and stressing law enforcement resources. And finally, in these critical times where our government must protect citizens from the very real threat of terrorism, we can no longer risk open borders that might help terrorists gain entry to carry out their destruction in our cities.

In a strange alliance, we're seeing politicians on both the left and right doing their level best to ignore this huge national security issue. The political left use rhetoric that pretends these illegals are the equivalent to all other, legal, immigrants, and those who wish to control the borders do so solely out of racist and xenophobic world views. On a more practical and perhaps cynical level, the left welcomes illegal immigrants and work hard to support uncontrolled voting rights laws that allow those immigrants to vote, presumably for their left-wing candidates.

The political right looks the other way on illegal immigration for very different, but no less cynical purposes. To those politicians on the right, illegal immigrants supply a cheap source of labor to their corporate benefactors, who encourage lax border enforcement so they can continue to fill their unskilled positions with sub-minimum-wage workers from across the border who are happy to work for low wages and no benefits.

Some raise an argument that illegal immigrants fill jobs that no native-born American will take. Whether or not this is true depends on how the conditions of those jobs are defined. If the definition of the job is unskilled and perhaps difficult and physical work for minimum wage with no benefits, then it is true that most native-born Americans will not accept the job. But the same job with a higher wage and benefits could definitely attract US-born workers.

And even legal immigration is hurting some sectors of our workforce, especially in the technical and customer service industries. I've personally seen the legal importation of technology workers from India who specifically displaced their higher-wage US-born counterparts for no reason other than the Indians were willing to work longer hours for a fraction of the compensation.

There are some fundamental principles involved in this issue, which form the foundation for my policy on immigration as President:

As a matter of national security, the first priority of my administration is to seal the borders, both northern and southern. The borders will be strictly enforced, and illegal immigration will cease.
The legal immigration policy will be modified to permit immigration under specific circumstances. For example, companies can sponsor immigration of foreign workers either on temporary work permits or on a citizenship track by demonstrating that there is a need for the foreign workers to fill open positions that cannot be filled with US Citizens. The policy would not grant work permits for foreign workers being imported to displace US citizen employees. Recognizing that Central and South American workers have long been a mainstay in agriculture and other industries, legal temporary work permits will be made available for those workers, but based on sponsorship from the companies who plan to employ them. Employers will be asked to assist the government in policing immigrants, identifying those who overstay their work permits or quit their jobs and try to disappear into the population.

There are not many laws that need to be changed, but perhaps somewhat modified to help streamline the immigration processes. Otherwise, the resources need to be employed to make sure we effectively regain control over our borders and protect our citizens from terrorism.

Campaign Issue 1 - Iraq

2005-12-10T10:45:00.000-08:00

Where else to start with my campaign platform than today's hottest issue - the war in Iraq.

At times when I hear the talking heads bluster and spin about the war, it becomes difficult to discern just who's telling the truth. And I suspect the only real way to find out the truth is to go to Iraq myself and ride around with some of the soldiers, meet the Iraqi people, get briefed by some of the commanders, etc.

Barring that for the time being, my campaign's policy on Iraq follows the party's mission: common sense above all.

Anti-war folks claim to be so based on a couple of basic arguments: We never should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, and now that we're there, there is no way we can win.

Doing my level best to consider those arguments from a logical point of view, I have to reach my own conclusions, as follows:

First, whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, the fact remains that we are there, Saddam has been removed from power, and we're well into a program of reconstruction and helping launch a new democratic government there. So to argue incessantly about whether we should have gone to war in the first place is irrelevant to today's situation. For this reason, I say we rededicate ourselves to finishing what we started and let the historians and political spinmeisters argue amongst themselves about whether it was a good idea.

Second, to suggest we cannot win in Iraq is perhaps the worst sort of anti-Americanism, and it troubles me that leaders of a major political party are suggesting such near-treasonous rhetoric. If we consider for even a moment how our nation's military, the absolute strongest and best in the world, could lose the war in Iraq, there can only be one way. That's if their country fails to support their mission. We all must honor and grieve the two thousand plus soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq. But we must also recognize that this is the price for freedom and security, not only for our own citizens, but for the free citizens of Iraq as well.

And to put it into perspective, these two thousand lost over three years is lower than the number of citizens murdered in Los Angeles over the same time period. Perhaps that issue deserves at least as much attention from a government policy perspective as our losses in Iraq. But that is a subject for another position paper to appear in this blog later.

Therefore, the policy of this presidency is an absolute commitment to finishing the job of helping to establish a free, open, stable democratic society in Iraq that is a shining example to their troubled region of the world of how free people are the happiest, safest, and most successful over all other repressive dictatorships, Islamist, socialist and communist societies. This doesn't mean continuing to do everything exactly as it has been done to date by the Bush Administration; in fact, every facet of the effort in Iraq will be continuously reviewed and monitored, with continuous improvements in tactics, weapons, and defenses implemented with speed and efficiency to help minimize casualties for both our troops and Iraqi civilians.

Our country will never fully leave Iraq, and we expect to maintain some presence there in the forseeable future. Not to dominate or intimidate, but to aid in their protection and maintain our alliance should another country in the region become belligerent to Iraq or the United States. Iran and Syria, Iraq's two neighbors which are also avowed enemies of the United States, and by extension Iraq, both must be held in check by our continued vigilant presence in Iraq.

There are already signs that President Bush's long-term vision of peace and freedom for the entire middle eastern region is just now beginning to take hold. Progress is being made in the Israeli-Paletinian conflict, Libya has renounced their WMD programs, Lebanon has kicked the Syrians out of their country, and Iranian citizens are beginning to agitate for freedom from their extremist Mullah-controlled government.

At a minimum, seeing this conflict through to its conclusion will result in establishing a friendly and reasonably stable Iraq. But we will reach for more through our continued presence and diplomacy throughout the region, continually cajoling Iraq's neighbors into joining a peaceful and free world community.

Dan for President

2005-12-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

So here it is, my official/unofficial announcement of my candidacy for President of the United States. After much study and research of the expected candidates from both major political parties, I have reached the conclusion that there is no available candidate who either reflects my views of government or can legitimately claim to be immune from corruption by the denizens of the lobbies and cocktail parties of Washington, DC.

There seems to be little point in introducing myself, as for most people that information would be boring and irrelevant. Besides, the major obstacles facing my election committee right now are many: The committee itself (there's nobody on it), campaign finance (I've got a little over 20 bucks in my pocket right now), and lack of name recognition (Dan who?).

This campaign is instead based completely on ideas and philosophies. If you read this and future blog entries and agree with my platform, join my new party and help get the word out on the "Dan for President" campaign. If you hate my ideas, fine, go away.

We will begin the campaign with the platform of the new party under which I make my run for the Presidency. For lack of a better idea at this point in time, I'll just call it the "Common Sense Party", or CSP for short.

The CSP is dedicated to the following principles:

Preservation of constitutional principles of freedom and equality, and vigilantly assuring continued compliance with every paragraph and amendment as defined therein
Protecting the United States' borders, language, and culture against foreign assailants
Defeating terrorism
Protecting the United States' sovereignty from global government movements while using both the carrot and the stick in encouraging foreign governments to become and remain friends
Maintaining capitalism while enforcing antitrust laws and never giving preferences to any individual, corporation, or labor union
Protecting the rights of citizens to worship (or not worship) as they please without impeding anyone's freedom of speech, only excepting advocates of violence and terror
Seating judges who interpret the constitution and the laws on the books and do not attempt to create their own laws
Maintaining a strong military that is able to protect the country against all threats while making sure all tax money for defense is spent wisely and appropriately
Implementing social programs designed to solve problems and eliminating those programs that have failed
Throwing out the current tax code in favor of a simple, fair tax that treats everyone equally
Finding realistic solutions to healthcare that require participation from everyone and favor no individual or group over any other

Over the next few posts, which I'll create whenever the whim presents itself, I will expand on the above points. Most likely, I'll add some more points as well.

If you like the ideas presented by the CSP, leave a comment. If you don't like them, you can comment too, but if the comment is objectionable I'll delete it. On the other hand, a well-reasoned argument against any one principle in my platform could possibly entice me to rethink that plank; then again, I highly doubt it, but good luck if you want to give it a try.

The Fall of the American Empire

2005-11-21T12:43:00.000-08:00

Comparisons have been made by many over several years now between the conditions of Roman society right before their fall and those of the USA today. And certainly the cultural decline in our country over the last 30 years is deplorable. But now, with the current status of our internal debates about the war on terrorism, I fear the end of our way of life may indeed be near.

If recent polls are correct, a majority of the population is now buying the line that started way out on the left fringes of the political spectrum, known by the protest mantra "Bush lied, people died". The campaign spread to now include the leadership of the opposition Democratic party. Now there are United States Senators, who should and I am convinced do know better, parroting the myths started by the socialist-communist-pacifist-ultra-left-wing-radicals about Iraq being Bush's war and about oil and Halliburton, rather than about protecting the country from global Islamic terrorism.

What upsets me is that the Democrat-leaning news media is a willing participant in helping their favored politicians spread the vile and misleading mythology that attempts to paint the country's president as some sort of vile version of Ghengis Khan, invading soverign peaceful countries and murdering their civilians in order to enrich himself and his friends. That he either condones or encourages torture of innocents, as if just for some sort of perverse pleasure in causing pain and suffering. That equates our military's dentention of Al Quaeda prisoners to the Soviet Gulags, Pol Pot, Nazi Concentration Camps, etc. (See the "Honorable Sen. Dick Durbin")

It is one thing to engage in debate over the wisdom of going to war to oust Saddam from Iraq. The debate was held and a super-majority of congress voted to move forward, so at this stage there doesn't seem to be much point in revisiting. It is quite another to use such outrageous lies to undermine that effort like the spoiled brat who didn't get his way.

It strikes me as both appalling and amazingly stupid that one of the two major political parties in America would have as it's strategy for gaining power in the next elections a fundamental lie against the president during a time of war. Did Republicans use such tactics to undermine FDR during WWII? Did they viciously attack Harry Truman for his decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring the war to an end? Did they attack LBJ for his conduct of a John Kerry-like "sensitive" war in VietNam?

No.

Even when decisions were questionable and leadership suspect, Republicans and Americans knew that in time of war we must unite behind our Commander in Chief and do everything we can to try to help him win the peace.

But it hurts me deeply to see that mostly Democrats mostly in the Senate would happily trade this country's security for their own personal power. Those who voted to authorize the Iraq war at the beginning and are now trying to suggest they did so because they were misled by the president are guilty of the worst sort of treason; they are selling out their country for their own political gain.

And our great unwashed, poorly educated masses have no clue.

America, I pray for thee.

Missing Curiosity in the Media

2005-11-17T12:26:00.000-08:00

Things have been somewhat quiet lately in the whole media-created-and-maintained controversy over the Valerie Plame "outing" by the White House. What generally has been a frustration on my part with the media's misleading reporting on the whole story has now evolved into amazement at their apparent lack of curiosity about so many unanswered questions in the story.

I'm no journalist, but somewhere in my past I seem to remember that the duty of the journalist was to ask all the questions when putting together a story; the who, what, when, where, why, and how questions that will help them get to the bottom of what really happened so they can share it with the rest of us.

Whether journalistic standards have fallen to new depths or our media watchdogs are merely lazy is open to debate. But just in case a real journalist happens to read this (which I know is highly unlikely), let me try to prompt a few of my own questions about this particular story.

1. After he was recommended by his wife, who at the CIA signed off on the decision to send Joe Wilson, a known anti-war, anti-Bush, Democrat Party activist, to Niger to investigate whether the story was true about Saddam approaching them to try to purchase uranium?
2. What did the CIA think qualified Joe Wilson for the job?
3. Why didn't the CIA ask Wilson to sign non-disclosure forms to keep whatever he might discover private?
4. Did Joe Wilson seek or get approval from anyone at the CIA to give his information to reporters, then write his own op-ed about the trip to Niger? If so, who approved it and why?
5. When Joe lied about nearly every assertion about his trip in his Op-Ed, why didn't someone at the CIA who knew the truth call a press conference to help set the record straight?
6. The 2 year investigation into this matter clearly did not produce any violations of the law that instigated the investigation, that White House officials "leaked" Valerie's name and endangered her or her mission somehow because she was (or may have been) a covert agent. Given these facts, if Scooter Libby did lie to the investigators, why did he do so if he knew there was no law broken by whatever he may have shared with reporters about Plame?
7. To expand on the questions about Libby, why didn't he just openly admit talking to the reporters, saying he did so because Wilson was spreading outrageous lies about his mission and reporters should be focusing on the circumstances that led to him being sent, why, who sent him, and why they let him publicly release information? What's wrong with asking reporters to do their jobs, and what's wrong with helping discredit someone who has been working diligently to discredit the President by simply using the truth?
8. Can we establish for certain that Scooter Libby lied or misled the investigation, or is he being prosecuted for bad memory? Even if he didn't want his name put forward as the source of the so-called "leak", why didn't he use the Bill and Hillary defense, "I don't recall"?
9. What did Joe Wilson really find out in Niger? Did anyone cross-reference his information to related information collected by other intelligence sources in the US and other countries? Did anyone review the intelligence from the British that made the claim in the first place, which by the way the British never repudiated.
10. Has anybody followed up on what journalists have been saying for some time - that the fact Valerie Plame worked for the CIA was no secret, and most reporters who covered the Pentagon already knew?
11. How about a final question just for the media itself: Why do you keep reporting the story as about a "leak of the name of a covert operative by the White House in order to discredit her husband", when that line lies somewhere between misleading and false?

When journalism becomes propaganda, we lose our freedom. Why don't today's journalists-turned-propagandists understand that basic fact and do their jobs?

Mary Mapes and Alternative Reality

2005-11-10T06:45:00.000-08:00

Mary Mapes, in case you don't know, is the former CBS News producer who produced bogus documents from a man from Texas with an axe to grind against Bush that were used by Dan Rather in a pre-election "expose" claiming that Bush got others to use undue influence to allow him to go AWOL from the National Guard back in the VietNam War days.

She was asked in a TV interview about those forgeries, and she claimed that nobody ever definitively proved they were forgeries. And in her view, rather than it being her responsibility as the journalist to confirm their validity, it was somehow the responsibility of those questioning the documents to prove they were not authentic.

How bizarre. I can't help but wonder whether this is now the "standard" for professional journalism. You get some incriminating information from a source you know has a vendetta in Burkett, fail to research and get independent verification of the information, and actually ignore reliable sources who will refute the information to rush it on the air. Plus, it is rushed on the air only a few weeks before a presidential election. Then when people all over begin to point out the obvious flaws in the story, you accuse them of partisan motives and stick with the story even when it's proven to be at least questionable and most probably wrong.

What amazed me at the time was that a very similar story had been circulating about Bush's opponent's VietNam War record. Mary and Dan Rather ignored that one completely. No mention of the "Swift Boat Veterans" was ever made on CBS news. And Mary and Dan both continue to say their reporting had nothing to do with political bias. Really? So calling Joe Lockhart, Kerry's top campaign adviser, and getting him in touch with the source of those forged documents before airing the story isn't prima facie evidence of not only bias, but coordination with the Kerry campaign.

The comparison of stories goes something like this:

Bush was in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. There was a guy who came out and said that he helped lots of young sons of prominent people get into the Guard to avoid Vietnam service, and that probably included Bush. But later he had to retract that when direct evidence surfaced that proved Bush got into the guard on his own merits. And he apparently was a talented pilot, getting excellent performance reports from his superiors.

Then as the war in Vietnam was winding down, Bush requested and received a waiver from some service dates while he was working for a political campaign. There's no official military documentation that he did anything improper or used undue influence to skip drills while he worked for that campaign. Only these new documents which were magically "discovered" by Burkett and faxed to Mary supposedly showed anger and frustration over Bush's commanding officer at the political influence brought to bear on him to somehow force him to allow Bush to skip drills.

The incriminating documents seem to have been created on Burkett's own word processor, but he claimed some mysterious person gave them to him. And the fonts used in the documents are unique to modern word processors, and no such fonts were available on the typewriters used during that time. Plus, the family of Bush's CO adamantly refuted the content of the documents, saying they were not in his writing style, that the CO never wrote memos remotely like them on any topic, and that the CO actually never expressed anything but respect and admiration for Bush.

So the worst that can be said about Bush that is verifiable is that he chose to join the Guard to avoid assignment to VietNam, and that he skipped drills (even though with permission) to work on a political campaign. My take on that is, "So what?".

Let's contrast the "Swift Boat" story about John Kerry. It's not based on a single source, although you could say that the leader of the group telling the story is an avowed Kerry enemy. It's actually documented in a book that was compiled and supported as truth by nearly everyone who served with or commanded Kerry during his brief tour in VietNam.

Most people know the stories that cast Kerry in a rather poor light, but essentially the book suggests that he ran away from a firefight, leaving other swift boats crews and even one of his own behind. That two out of his three wounds that earned him purple hearts and a ticket out of Vietnam were of questionable origin and may have been self-inflicted. And that his anti-war statements about atrocities after the war were fabrications, and the only actions that even came close to the horrible crimes he testified to were his own.

Beyond the first-hand accounts of the Swift Boat group, there is documentary information available that can at least partially support or refute their stories. But those documents are held by the military and can only be released upon Kerry's own request. Kerry refused to allow their release. I wonder, is it possible that those reports would prove the Swift Vets version of events to be false? If so, you'd think Kerry would have moved to release them in a heartbeat.

So which story is more newsworthy? Which story would have had more relevance in revealing the character of the candidate?

Most importantly, why did Mary and Dan choose to spend over a week reporting Burkett's memos and the Bush AWOL story while never even mentioning the Swift Boat Vets story?

I know. How dare I impugn the integrity of such great journalistic watchdogs!

Of course, such things never happen and that was just a small mistake. As if CBS has mended it's ways, just look at how they report more recent news. The Libby indictment, Hurricane Katrina, the DeLay indictment - all notable more for the inaccuracies and information they leave out than for their so-called journalistic integrity.

It is a sad day when we now have to admit our major news outlets: NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, are no better than Pravda of the old Soviet Union. Only news that helps their beloved Democrats or hurts the hated Republicans is fit to publish or broadcast.

The New Civil War?

2005-11-09T08:27:00.000-08:00

The times are increasingly in parallel with those of the era of the Civil War. It strikes me how many factors are in common between today's unrest and the factors that led to what southerners prefer to call "the war between the states".

Back then, moral outrage in the North over the continued slave trade was building. It represented one of the core issues behind a push toward more power of the Federal Government to set policy for the states. Southerners chafed at what they believed was a direct threat to their freedom in what might lead to an all-powerful and dictatorial Federal Government meddling in their affairs.

Today we have realized that all-powerful dictatorial Federal Government that has once again split the country down the middle. But this time it's not between the North and South, but between the coasts and the hinterland. Between the big cities and the small towns. Between races.

Abe Lincoln, the Republican Federalist, was elected President to the outrage of the southern Democrats. He was the most hated and vilified president in history, perhaps before George W. Bush. The hatred for Lincoln by southerners, if you look at some of the political cartoons and articles of the time, is frighteningly similar to the hatred for Bush today. And that hatred for Lincoln resulted in the only American Civil War. Are we in danger of repeating history?

The issues are different today. Those who elected and support Bush generally view abortion in much the same light as abolitionists saw slavery 150 years ago. Today's Democrats seemingly will stop at nothing to maintain the barbarism of tearing babies from their mothers by the millions and throwing them in the trash, citing pretty much the same reasons as slave owners did in those dark days of the past. But there's much more to this story today, as there was more to the story back then.

The source of the conflict goes deeper than abortion today. Like in the mid-1800's, there were many deeper issues at stake. Among the core issues in conflict today are: Conflict between religious freedom of expression and suppression of religious expression in favor of freedom of licentiousness. Conflict between capitalists and socialists. Conflict between philosphies of color-blind policies and race-based preferences. Conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. Conflict between tradition and patriotism and radical change to a world government.

As I read and listen to the political speech of today, I can't help but wonder whether the strident tone of debate isn't leading to a new Civil War. Has it already started with terrorism, and will it spread into French-style rioting in the cities? Have the left and right become so alienated from each other that there can be no compromise or understanding? Can we survive the hate?

If we are to have any hope of overcoming the problems of our polarized society, it must begin with demanding that our political leaders rediscover civility. Those who continue to stridently use spin, lies, and half-truths for political gain must be censured by their colleagues and the press, regardless of their party affiliation. Arguments must be based on facts and aimed at solving problems rather than destroying reputations of opponents. People must be convinced based on the strength of an argument rather than insinuations against the opponent.

Honest Political Discourse

2005-11-07T13:31:00.000-08:00

I have to admit, I was a little frightened at times.

During the Bill Clinton speech at Butler University last night, a jammed Hinkle Fieldhouse was quite obviously filled with Democrats. Tim provided the tickets and we jammed ourselves into the uncomfortable benches and endured a 45-minute delay in the hot and crowded arena until the ex-pres made his appearance. From time to time I conjured a paranoid fantasy of an unruly crowd that numbered around 10,000 pointing at me there in the front row of the balcony section directly across the arena from the podium and yelling, "It's a Conservative - Get Him!".

That didn't happen, and the speech itself was actually more interesting than I expected. The ex-pres actually dealt with some substantive issues, even though he just couldn't resist the occasional political spin. What I mostly appreciated, and suspect most of the liberal crowd found disappointing, was that Clinton avoided the Bush-bashing that seems to be Democrats' most popular sport.

I can't help but wonder how many people in the crowd noticed that the first 10 minutes or so of Clinton's speech could have been delivered by Bush. In fact, I would estimate that somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of the points made in the speech were very much in line with the philosphies expressed by our current president. It seems like that had to just about drive the liberal partisans in the audience a little crazy, but you couldn't tell from their enthusiastic response. I laughed at a point in the speech where Clinton started talking about "Corrupt, incompetent" governments and the crowd started howling in glee until they found out he was talking about foreign governments. But then again, maybe it's a code, like Clinton throwing around the perjoratives so over-used against the current administration and then, with a wink and a nod, giving himself cover by saying it about unnamed foreign leaders.

The two main thoughts I had from the speech itself were, first, that it's unseemly for an ex-president to run around the country giving partisan speeches. And although he was very generous to our Republican president in policies with which he agreed and was relatively muted on issues of disagreement, there was a little too much partisan spin in some of those disagreements.

All the same, have you ever heard the senior Bush trashing policies of the Clinton administration? Apparently I'll get a chance to compare and contrast the two this spring, when George H.W. Bush comes for his own speech at Hinkle Fieldhouse, again compliments of Tim. There seems to be a consistent theme, where Republican ex-presidents comport themselves in a dignified manner and seem above petty politics, while Clinton and Carter have no problem with expressing a party-line spin at the drop of the hat, Carter often embarrassing himself repeating wild leftist propaganda.

However, I have to give the former president credit for laying out each issue fairly clearly and making his own argument. Generally he did so in a civil manner, framing it as disagreement with Bush rather than suggesting, as most of his friends do, that the current president is either too stupid or lacks the character to understand and support the obvious (in a liberal mind) solutions.

His speech was focused on international policies, and I suspect it's one he is giving everywhere in a campaign to take over as the UN Secretary General. As an aside, I think if he wants the UN job, why not? Maybe it will keep him busy.

The points he made that I agreed with were also things the current administration already supports, even though he sometimes pretended that wasn't the case. For example, he talked about the Kyoto accord, which of course I absolutely do not support (and he didn't either, until he left office). But when he started outlining his "global warming" solutions, he wasn't talking about anything that is new or is not already under development and supported by the current administration. He spent a lot of time on wind energy, which I thought was a little strange, but whatever. I would love to have asked him about the fact that an attempt to put wind farms off the east coast was blocked by Ted Kennedy and his eastern blue-blood rich liberals because they didn't want their ocean views cluttered.

Probably the strangest comments were about jobs. He pointed out that the boom in the 90's was in Information Technology, but India has taken most of those jobs. But he's a globalist, so he doesn't think we should impose limits on that. Then the strange part - first he claims that he had something to do with that IT boom in the 90's, which is certainly news to me, as I can't remember a single policy or initiative that helped that industry take off. But then he suggested that the big job growth opportunity is in developing alternative energy sources. Huh?

His worst comments were about our government "torturing" enemy prisoners, which is such a distortion of facts. And he actually supports joining the World Court, which wants to indict our military for "war crimes" in Iraq, with perhaps his weakest argument of the night. And of course the whole "tax cuts for the rich" thing. If he wants to say we shouldn't cut taxes when we have a war and all these natural disasters, fine, I can respect that. But to intentionally use the whole mythology that somehow the only people who got tax cuts were the extremely rich, and that if only we could roll them back all our deficit spending problems would be fixed is intellectually dishonest.

If I could say one thing positive to the ex-president on his speech, it is probably "thank you for staying away from the whole 'Bush lied' rhetoric and actually talking about real issues and solutions." That's quite a departure from most of his Democratic Party comrades.

So a fraternity near Hinkle Fieldhouse was using the event as an opportunity to help them in their fund drive. They were raising money to help in research and treatment for a childhood disease (sorry, I forgot which one). I watched for awhile as the thousands of liberals streamed past the frat guys on their way to their cars. I didn't see a single person put money into their bucket. I hope they set up outside the Bush event, because I'd really like to test my theory about the difference between Democrat and Republican individual generosity.

Oh I Get It

2005-11-03T11:38:00.000-08:00

Saw an interesting interview with Howard Dean this week.

The interviewer was talking about abortion, and the obvious fact that the Democratic Party is the "Pro-Choice" party. For some strange reason, he thought Howard would simply confirm that, yes, Democrats are the "Pro-Choice" party.

But he refused to say that. He flipped and flopped and spun and danced. Why, "Pro-Choice" has become synonymous with "Pro-Abortion", and Democrats are not that. They are simply in favor of keeping private medical matters private. Between a woman and her physician. That government has no place in decisions of individuals in the area of reproduction.

But no, he refused to say that Democrats are "Pro-Choice". Why, there are plenty of Pro-Life Democrats, and they are welcomed and respected.

Really?

I was just wondering, is there a single national Democrat leader that is openly Pro-Life? Let's say that Howard actually went so far as to say that Democrats want reproductive freedom, but would be happy to see abortions become a thing of the past. I can only imagine what their core constituencies - NOW, NARAL, People for the American Way, MoveOn.org - would react to that. They'd probably tar and feather him and ride him out of Washington on a rail.

So I get it. Democrats have decided that they can only win if they can fool the majority of people. Pretend that they don't really support abortion when they really do. Call Alito "Scalito" and distort his record beyond recognition to try to create cover for filibustering him. Pretend that "Scooter" Libby's alleged lies to the special prosecutor represent a "culture of corruption" in the white house. Keep up the daily mantra that "Bush lied" about WMD in Iraq, when everybody in the world (including leading Democrats) agreed at the time that Saddam had them. Continue hammering Bush for racism and mis-management of Hurricane Katrina when the facts of the event clearly implicate the New Orleans Mayor and Louisiana Governor as the real source of failures. Get CBS to run a skewed poll to get a 35% approval rating for Bush, which asked 24% Republicans, 35% Democrats, and 41% Independents; then run a comparison to Nixon, trying to brainwash people into believing Bush equals Nixon.

The unfortunate truth is that it works, at least partially. It mainly works with the uneducated and uninformed, who hear little snippets of Democrat lies and accept them as fact. I hear some of them talk now and then and am always amazed at how skewed their perceptions are - quite often, they don't even get the message the Democrat machine is trying to sell them quite right, because it gets distorted even further as it passes through the filters of friends and faulty memory.

Ben Franklin was so right. Democracy is wholly dependent on an educated and informed population. Strange that the party that speaks loudest about education seems to be the one trying hardest to destroy it.

The Root of Polarization

2005-10-28T12:14:00.000-07:00

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

2005-10-28T10:41:00.000-07:00

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

2005-10-26T07:22:00.000-07:00

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

2005-10-19T07:17:00.000-07:00

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

2005-10-17T14:18:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-10-11T16:57:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-10-11T08:10:00.000-07:00

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

2005-10-03T06:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Corruption or Hatchet Job?

2005-09-29T13:58:00.000-07:00

How fascinating that some DA in Texas finally did what the Democrats have been trying to get done for years - he indicted Tom Delay.

So now we're treated to the gleeful litany from Democrats and their media friends about how Delay's the poster child for a corrupt Republican party in power, and of course this indictment represents only the tip of the iceberg.

Personally, I could care less whether Delay is guilty of the charge, which apparently is one count of criminal conspiracy for breaking a Texas law about corporate campaign contributions. But there certainly is plenty in the back story that makes me scratch my head.

First, there's the prosecutor - Ronnie Earle. Apparently he's a true blue Democrat activist who just might have done at least one previous politically-motivated bogus indictment against another Texas Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. That case never went to trial because Ronnie pulled out at the last minute - apparently for lack of evidence. There's also the strange speech he gave to a group of Democrats at a fundraiser last spring where he basically promised to bring down Delay and all the other Republican "bullies" who step up to replace him. You might want to check on me here, but isn't that an ethics violation by itself, if not a criminal violation, for a prosecutor to reveal a political motivation behind "getting" an opponent?

Of course, if you recall, the Democratic Party Chairman, Howard Dean, has been calling for the prosecution of Tom DeLay for several months now. He hasn't been too specific about what Tom should be prosecuted for, but he and his party cronies sure have been spending a lot of energy trying to destroy the Republican Leader. Stranger yet is how quickly the Democrats have ramped up their political machine to make hay out of this indictment - they were so fast, one would have to wonder whether they knew about Ronnie Earle's plans ahead of time. They've got phone and media campaigns already launched expressing outrage and demanding that all Republican Congresspersons "return the money they received from DeLay" (whatever that means).

Finally, Clinton and Gore actually broke campaign finance laws back when they accepted large contributions from China while still in office. Not to mention that Gore was making fundraising calls from his office, on Federal time, on the Federal dime. And that the Clintons booked the Lincoln Bedroom like their own private little Democrat Hotel. This is factual stuff, and compared to what DeLay's being accused of doing, are like the difference between stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank. Clinton and Gore were allowed to skate on that one with the media barely mentioning it, while the same media is all over the Delay indictment story.

But finally, how is the media covering the DeLay story? By reading the indictment and researching the background to tell all of us what the specific charges are and maybe how DeLay was alleged to have broken the law? Nope. Instead, they line up all the eager Democrats and let them pontificate at length about what a criminal DeLay is, and by extension, how corrupt the Republican Party is as a whole.

The only question remaining, what is the truth? Did DeLay break the law? Whatever they allege he did, how many other politicians have been doing exactly the same things of which DeLay is accused, and if so, will they be prosecuted as well? Will the press ever even try to uncover the whole truth of this issue and pass it on to the public?

Let me make a prediction. No, the press will not do any independent investigations on DeLay's alleged criminal acts, but will continue their lazy habits by taking for gospel whatever their Democrat Party sources tell them. Rather than checking out the allegations about Mr. Earle's modus operandi, they will brush them off or try to ignore them, because of course such things damage their objective of fomenting negative attitudes toward the hated Republican party. And ultimately, the charges will be dropped, and this probably will never make it to trial, but the media will still conclude for the rest of us (and hammer the point heavily and often) that DeLay is most definitely crooked, but his powerful Republican friends successfully derailed the prosecution.

All this partisan obfuscation makes me tired.

Stupid Katrina Hearings

2005-09-28T07:29:00.000-07:00

The congress is holding hearings supposedly aimed at getting to the bottom of the failings of the government response to Katrina. They started with Michael Brown, who somewhat predictably pointed a defensive finger at Blanco and Nagin. So now today Blanco apparently is going to get her chance to point a finger right back at Brown.

What a stupid process. Not to say that the Democrats are right to boycott the hearings, which only makes them look more like the partisan hacks they are. But nothing will come of hearings of this type except political posturing and finger-pointing that is more about scoring political points than finding out what went wrong with Katrina and how to fix it in the future.

If our elected leaders really want to solve the problems, they should stop the hearings charade. They also should skip the "independent panel" demanded by the Democrats. What they really should do is get a group of experts in the business of disaster planning and recovery, making sure they are committed to keeping politics out of the process while letting the facts speak for themselves. The group should be led by a strong person, maybe Giuliani, maybe somebody else, who can make sure the right questions are asked and the information needed is gathered fully and accurately.

Then the investigators can present their findings to congress, including a published report that all Americans can read. This way, those who hope to use the investigation for political gain will have nowhere to go. Because the report will probably expand on the true facts of the disaster: Nagin was absent before, during, and after the storm; There was inadequate planning and missing execution of any disaster plan in New Orleans; Nagin and Blanco spent much of the aftermath bickering over turf; FEMA was ineffective and failed to take charge, sending emergency reponse units to sexual harrassment and diversity training instead of into the city to rescue people; and that it wasn't until the National Guard arrived that the real rescue effort took shape.

Unfortunately, the hearings will do nothing but provide a platform for those who want to score political points by blaming members of the opposing political party. The outcome will not produce any meaningful changes or improve government response in future disasters; other efforts performed quietly elsewhere will be needed for that.

My Lessons are Different

2005-09-26T13:20:00.000-07:00

There is so much talk about lessons learned, now that Katrina and Rita are history. And yes, there were plenty of lessons learned, and lots more not learned, about our country's preparedness for disasters, our leadership and their strengths and weaknesses, and especially about government bureaucracy.

But for me, the lessons are different. I see the constant piling on the president with 20/20 hindsight and second-guessing, along with outrageous accusations ranging from secret orders from the president to blow up the dykes in New Orleans (see Farrakan) to the hurricanes themselves being an Israeli plot. Yes, those are extreme forms of kookism, but it's not too far of a stretch to compare them to the poll results provided by an all-too-willing Bush-hating press corps that something like 75% of black people believe that the problems with the government's response to Katrina were racially driven.

Amazingly, in a previous post that was eaten by Blogger, I seemed to have the ability to predict the future. Because, sure enough, just as I expected, reports from the anti-war rally in DC over the weekend quoted Cindy Sheehan and her cadre of left-wing crazies equating Katrina with the Iraq war, all in an attempt to continue painting the president as evil incarnate. They hope to lay every death from Katrina, Iraq, and even 9/11 at Bush's doorstep.

Then noted global climatologist Barbra Streisand gets invited on TV morning news shows to reveal to everyone that Katrina and Rita were directly caused by, *gasp!*, Global Warming! And her accomodating interviewers make no attempt to question her credentials for making such statements, but rather bow and scrape to her as America's very own form of royalty.

So what conclusion can the public reach, who have been informed only by CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN, other than this: Bush is a liar and a criminal who is singlehandedly responsible for global terrorism, invading an innocent soverign nation (Iraq) and killing hundreds of thousands of its citizens so Halliburton can get fat government contracts, refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol thereby accelerating the planet's demise of which Katrina is only a preview, and nominated a supreme court justice who wants to kill pregnant women and bring back the bad old days of institutionalized racial hatred and inequality.

Wow. I sometimes wonder if I'm the crazy one. Because it is getting to the point where I can no longer watch a TV news program without becoming nauseous over the continuous hammering on our president for all manner of inflated and invented sins. But even more disturbing is, if polls are a proper gauge, the strategy by the press to marginalize the president seems to be working. More and more people seem to be questioning Bush's performance and rethinking their support for the war in Iraq.

Does anybody out there remember why the war started in the first place? That congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the war? That since then, we have not had a single successful terrorist attack on our own soil? That the primary so-called "insurgent" group car bombing Iraqi civilians and US troops right now is Al Qaida? Agree or disagree with the original decision, how can any reasonable person argue that an immediate pull-out of Iraq would not result in anarchy, which would be certain to lead to a radical Islamic government emboldened to increase terrorism against the US? Not to mention the fact that the numbers of Iraqis killed in the intervening power struggle would likely dwarf the numbers of insurgents killed in the current war?

I feel like I'm in some sort of Twilight Zone episode, where I'm surrounded by zombies who have been mesmerized by Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer into believing and repeating the left-wing mantra: "Bush is evil", "Bush is a criminal", "Bush doesn't care about you", "Bush sucks".

The president is no satan. He's also no god. He's a politician, who is flawed in many ways. I'd love to spend a half-hour with him voicing my disappointment in his inaction on illegal immigration, his failure to use the bully pulpit to oppose pork-barrel spending in a now Republican congress, his overly laissez-faire approach to trade and big business, and his lack of meaningful action on healthcare (and I don't count the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, which I think started as an OK idea but was poorly designed and implemented).

My vote for Bush both times (2000 and 2004) were not necessarily because I thought he was a fantastic President, but because the alternatives, Gore and Kerry, were unacceptable. And I continue to have no doubt about the correctness of those judgements.

Did I Pass?

2005-09-20T14:17:00.000-07:00

You are a
Social Conservative
(35% permissive)

and an...
Economic Moderate
(56% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Centrist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

Got this from Mike's blog. Turns out Mike and I share the same political attitudes.

And what do you know, I'm not as "right-wing" as you probably thought. Of course, I've known for a long time that I am an Economic moderate and a Social conservative. That's easy to determine without the help of any web survey.

Country at a Crossroads

2005-09-15T14:50:00.000-07:00

Based on what's happened recently, between Katrina and John Roberts, I'm now convinced that our country is at a crossroads. Our very way of life can be affected by the outcomes of events that are happening right now, and I have to admit I'm not hopeful for a positive direction.

Last night I had a casual conversation with someone who shared with me her thoughts on the president. She told me that she doesn't consider herself a Democrat, but definitely dislikes Bush. I didn't want to get into a debate with her, so I simply asked her why. Her answers were interesting and revealing.

First, she readily admitted that she doesn't pay a lot of attention to politics. So she knows that she's somewhat uninformed about the issues of the day. Even so, in talking about President Bush, she sounded like an echo chamber of the major network news shows. Bush is a liar. Bush only cares about his rich buddies. Bush has no heart.

I mildly told her that if she really dug into factual information, she just might find that the media has been over the top on their reporting about the president. And everything she said about him is conveyed by every network news outlet (except Fox) 24/7.

But I was interested in the last statement - about heart. Why did she feel that way? She responded that, no matter how horrible the event, when Bush comes on the air to talk, he shows no emotion and just spouts his "party line". She can't trust any president who shows no emotion, and she feels that this president has no soul.

My conclusions from that conversation is that she represents the majority of women in this country who lean toward the Democrats. There's little doubt that President Bush is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to communication. He's a poor public speaker, famous for his frequent public faux pas. But unless you pay close attention to see him in both formal and informal occasions and read what those who know him have to say about him, you can completely miss what I believe is a very sincere and compassionate man. And I understand that the main reason women are drawn to Democrats is because they vote with their hearts instead of their heads. They are more likely to support a policy that sounds compassionate, even if it's completely impractical. It's too bad that the news media is so intent on destroying this presidency that they won't make any effort toward balanced reporting; I don't expect all positive, but reporting equally on both the strengths and weaknesses of our president.

Ultimately my fading hope comes from the disappointing realities this conversation with an educated and intelligent person brought to vivid relief, that when the majority of the population is uninformed or misinformed about the important issues facing our country and the kinds of people leading us, we will soon lose our freedoms and quality of life.

The Supreme Court vacancies that will presumably filled by John Roberts followed by another Bush appointee are going to determine for the next 30 years whether we will remain ruled by laws and not by men. There quite possibly could be a couple more vacancies during the next presidential term, which looks very much like they will be filled by a Democrat president.

And whether Bush is allowed to finish the job in Iraq will determine whether the United States will ever again be able to effectively protect its citizens from foreign threats, or become a pacifistic nation open to all manner of terrorism and abuse and fear. Frightening polls these days are suggesting that most Americans don't have the stomach for war, which to me means we may have become incapable of uniting behind the flag to protect our country once again from foreign threats, whether they be tyranny, enslavement, fascism, terrorism, or any other threats to our freedoms and living standards.

Lessons Learned from Katrina

2005-09-06T10:11:00.000-07:00

The 24/7 news of the Katrina disaster has given me some insight into lessons we all can learn, which should be used to improve our national response to any future large-scale disasters.

The best conclusions I can reach from news reports of what happened last week:

Civilian Bureaucracies are incapable of effective disaster relief. By nature, they are slow-moving, fractured, and more about protecting turf and a@# than getting things done. The City of New Orleans, The State of Louisiana, FEMA, and Homeland Security apparently spent more time bickering over who was in charge and what priorities should be than actually helping the Katrina victims.
The best disaster relief organizations are the US Military and private charities, aka "Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)". Chaos reigned until the National Guard arrived and took control, and while FEMA dithered, NGO's delivered.
Citizens need to elect leaders who can take charge in difficult times. Citizens of Louisiana and New Orleans should fire their mayor and governor in favor of competent and incorruptible leaders.
The Federal Government needs to first figure out who's in charge of disaster relief - FEMA or Homeland Security. Bush needs to fire the chiefs of each organization and replace them with strong individuals who can be effective in times of crisis. And the new leaders of both Federal agencies must find a way to integrate the services of NGO's, which will not only help get aid to victims faster and more efficiently, but also help avoid wasting tax dollars on programs that are not needed.
Those trying to score political points by making outrageous statements denouncing the President need to shut up and help the recovery efforts.

Clearly, there was a serious failure of leadership in the aftermath of Katrina. That failure is most pronounced and evident among the New Orleans Mayor and Louisiana Governor, who were quite obviously overwhelmed by events and chose to hide in a corner and cry for Federal assistance. What a contrast from Rudy Giuliani and the events of 9/11.

Whan FEMA arrived, they also seemed to be disorganized and overwhelmed. To be fair, it was an overwhelming event unlike any that have ever been experienced in our nation, at least in modern times. However, the lack of communication and coordination between Federal, State, and Local resources cannot be excused. Apparently there are reports of a great deal of turf battles taking place by officials at different levels attempting to take control during the power vacuum created by the non-involvement of the Mayor and Governor.

Despite the carping taking place everywhere about the President showing up a day late, the facts seem to show that when he did arrive, everything dramatically changed for the better. The president showed leadership and a tough, no-nonsense approach that facilitated the introduction of National Guard troops and a chain of command that established control of the evacuations almost immediately. Why was Bush a day late? There seem to be lots of reasons floating around, but a major reason appears to be that the Louisiana Governor was resisting his involvement, apparently for purely political reasons.

The next catastrophic event, whether another devastating hurricane, a major earthquake, or a terrorist attack, will prove one way or another whether our officials learned their lessons from Katrina.

House of Mirrors

2005-09-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

When I was very young I remember walking through the carnival attraction full of mirrors that distorted images. Mirrors would stretch me very tall and thin or short and squat, or distort my face and body into a variety of strange and often funny shapes.

These days I think there must be millions of people who view the world in these kinds of mirrors. The mirrors are provided by media outlets and political propagandists, who have successfully convinced so many to believe unquestioningly in the grossly distorted images they choose to present.

Distortions are present on both the right and left, and here is my list of the most egregious examples on both sides:

From the Left:

Bush initiated the Iraq war only to enrich his buddies in the oil business (read:Halliburton) and Iraq and Saddam have nothing to do with terrorism.
The disaster of Katrina wouldn't have happened if Bush cared anything about global warming and the environment.
Bush is spreading ignorance in his anti-science policies that won't allow research that could produce major cures of disease.
If Bush is allowed to nominate justices to the Supreme Court like John Roberts, suddenly young pregnant women will be dying by the millions, racial segregation and discrimination will return, and Christianity will be forced on all citizens as the "official" US religion.
Big corporations will conspire with the help of the government to push all American workers into poverty and deny access to healthcare to the masses of people.
That Labor Unions are in touch with their membership and are spending their money wisely on things that will directly benefit their members. And the Union leadership is not corrupt.
Christian conservatives are all about imposing their morals on everyone else, and will team with the Bush administration to persecute atheists, gays, and women who have had abortions.
That tax cuts only benefited the wealthy.
That oil exploration, whether offshore or in ANWAR, should be opposed on environmental grounds plus the evil, greedy oil companies don't need more oil wells to pad their profits.
That conservatives don't care about the poor, and would eliminate welfare programs, letting poor people starve in our cities to save a few dollars on taxes.
That illegal immigrants are nothing more than poor people looking for a better life, and we should use tax money to help them adjust to their new lives here.

From the Right:

That "Free Trade" is good for our country, even when it includes slave labor in third world countries making the cheap goods we buy at Wal-Mart. And even when it means importing programmers from India to replace American technology workers because they will accept 10-20% of the wages. And even though we have almost lost our ability to make things in our country.
That there is no Anti-Trust problem in our country.
That all Unions are inherently evil and corrupt, and completely unnecessary.
That illegal immigrants are valuable because they take the jobs nobody else will do.
That raising the minimum wage to $6 or $6.50 would harm the economy.
That there hasn't been an erosion in the standards of living for the middle class.
That corporate executives are not grossly overcompensated in comparison to the workforce.
That big companies walking away from their employee pension obligations is not a big problem.
That the status quo in healthcare is just fine.
That Republicans in congress are actually following their own party's philosophy on smaller government and lower spending.

I can go on and on and on in both categories. The truth is that there are plenty of things going wrong in government that can be blamed on both political parties. Reasonable people can agree on many things regardless of which political philosophy fits their world view. However, these days there is so much distortion in party rhetoric that we've lost our ability to hold our government responsible for being good stewards of our resources and making the right decisions, in fear of being criticized by some special interest group or another that will get plenty of help from a biased media in holding up one of those distorted mirrors to the decision.

Everyone, I don't care whether you are right or left, must stop looking at the fun house mirrors and find a window on the truth. Only then can we elect the right people to office and hold them accountable to do the right thing for their country.

Disaster Politics

2005-09-02T08:02:00.000-07:00

It seems that partisans will stoop to any depths in their ever-present obsession with scoring political points. While the disaster of Katrina remains far from over, everywhere you turn are those who choose to point fingers of blame rather than roll up their sleeves.

Who is to blame? Probably lots of people. But this isn't the time for debate and finger-pointing. This is the time for helping the victims in the deep south of Louisiana and Mississippi who are trapped without food and water and increasingly threatened by armed gangs.

It's pretty clear that relief forces have mobilized much too slowly. That despite a nationwide outpouring of support, somehow the relief workers are not reaching huge populations of sick and hungry people. Only now is the National Guard beginning to move in and try to take control of the security.

There are plenty of questions to be answered when this is all over:

Why were the dikes not shored up in New Orleans long ago, given that they have known for years that an event such as Katrina would be likely to devastate the city as it did?

Where's the Mayor of New Orleans? In all of the news coverage, I have yet to hear his name or see him interviewed. Why aren't we seeing him all over his city coordinating relief efforts while asking the State and Federal Goverments for assistance where it's most badly needed?

Even the Governor of Mississippi seems to be missing in action. Again, I haven't seen him interviewed, I haven't seen pictures of him walking through New Orleans coordinating aid.

The state and local officials seem to have run away and hid, relying on the Feds to step in. Local police were stretched to the limit, seemingly without any leadership helping to set their priorities.

The nuts throwing stones at the president have put their partisan idiocy and lack of concern for victims on display. Suggesting that Katrina wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't signed onto Kyoto is outrageous. Saying that Bush's failed energy policies and cozy relationship with the oil industry are responsible for the current gasoline crisis is terribly hypocritical, given the fact that the same people block drilling for new domestic oil sources and the building of new refineries for reasons more political than environmental.

At the same time, if the American oil companies really want to foster goodwill among the citizens, they will step out front in the energy crisis to reassure Americans that they will keep supplies available and pledge against profiteering during these times. If for no other reasons, the public relations benefit can give smart oil executives benefits far beyond the short-term profits they can realize over the next few months.

It looks like the president is stepping up, maybe a day or two late, but he needs to take command and make sure the victims of Katrina get the help they need immediately. He's really just getting started, so we'll see what he is able to do.

Why Libs are Kooky

2005-08-30T15:17:00.000-07:00

I just had to copy in this quote from some lunatic named Lloyd, writing this, believe it or not, as part of his effort to denounce a recent book by Bernard Goldberg, 100 People Who are Screwing Up America. What this has to do with Goldberg's book, I couldn't begin to tell you.

And finally, how could anyone create a list of people screwing up America without listing President Bush and many of his cronies? Is lying and poor judgment that leads to a war that kills an estimated 110,000+ on both sides, wastes hundreds of billions and increases the threat of terrorism no big deal? Or what about the mess he has made of the federal deficit and the Iraq occupation, bungling 2004 flu vaccine production, undermining Social Security (while thousands lose private pensions), failure to address global warming, pollution, CAFE standards, thieving government contractors ($9 billion missing in Iraq), dishonest (eg. Rove) and incompetent staffers (eg. Tenet, Rice), outsourcing American jobs (CAFTA and allowing Mexican truckers into the U.S. will worsen the problem), the trade deficit, and the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S (also hides potential terrorists). Then there is his his support of medical malpractice limitations that lessen incentives to reduce the 100,000+ annual unnecessary medical deaths - anesthesiologists did it while REDUCING real dollar malpractice premiums. And opposing medical marijuana, and total failure to take any preventive action pre-9/11, despite repeated evidence of al-Quaeda's plans to use planes as missiles? Finally, as if to atone for all the deaths he has caused, Bush severely limits medical research using stem cells, and makes a "Federal case" out of the Terry Schiavo tragedy.

What a piful life Lloyd must lead, to be filled with so much anger and hatred for the president, most of which is based on bad information. Now I (and many other conservative types) am very concerned about CAFTA, and admit to being angry about Bush's failure to protect our borders from the national emergency of illegal immigration. And I'm also upset that the courts are opening the door wide open for our biggest corporations to walk away from their pension obligations. But the rest of his diatribe is so skewed and devoid of factual support to be ludicrous.

It would be fairly simple for me to make a point-by-point refutation of nearly every statement in his murderously outrageous rant, but unfortunately there is so much divisiveness over political philosophy today that it likely wouldn't change anyone's mind. Those who pay attention to the facts, don't let spinners on the left or right form their opinions for them, and aren't already reds would already understand and agree with what I posted, while the rest would stand up and cheer Lloyd without bothering to even read me.

It would be tempting to beat up heavily on poor Lloyd for his ignorance, but I'm more inclined to feel sorry for him.

The Answer to Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-26T09:06:00.000-07:00

The answer just struck me on how the president could deal with the Cindy Sheehan protest. The woman who's being managed by the left-wing radicals and held up as a hero by the so-called mainstream media should get what she's asking for - and then some.

The president should get her a message that says to Cindy "I'll not only meet with you, but I'll let you spend a few days with me".

The president should take her with him to Iraq. There they will meet with the soldiers in her son's company and hear about their experiences and attitudes toward the war and the Iraqi people.

She can be invited to attend a briefing with the military leadership about the progress of the war and hear where the insurgents are coming from, who they represent, where they get their weapons and bombs, their tactics, and how the US and Iraqi forces are responding.

She should then be taken to meet with ordinary Iraqi citizens to learn their attitudes about the war, life before and after Saddam, how they feel about America, and their hopes and dreams for their country.

Of course, she also needs to meet the Iraqi leaders who were elected by the people and can tell her how they feel about America, and how long they think they will need the assistance of US troops.

The president's staff should take a cameraman along to record every meeting and event in the trip, providing the resulting video to the news media without editing and without any reporter adding comments or observations.

If Cindy is truly honest and interested in the truth and what's best for our country, I believe such a trip would transform both her perspective on the war and of the president. If not, she will prove her irrelevance as a left-wing idealogue who refuses to allow facts to get in the way of her ideology.

Personally, I would greatly enjoy seeing the resulting video diary of her days with the president. Of course, I know that the usual suspects at ABC/NBC/CBS will take the video and edit it to only show what they want us to see, but I'm sure other networks will be more than happy to show it in its entirety so everyone in America can learn the truth about the war first-hand.

Ignorance or Prevarication

2005-08-25T08:35:00.000-07:00

Saw a rant from somebody in Columbus in the local newspaper today. He wrote a letter to the editor with the apparent purpose of ripping Carl Rove in the whole Plame/Wilson issue. I read the rantings out of curiosity, trying to understand how people like this guy think.

There are really only two possible explanations to his Rove Rant, which was full of inaccuracies and spin. He started from stating his absolute certainty that Rove committed a crime and is being protected from prosecution by his "neo-con" buddies, then predictably moved on to try to link the whole thing to what I suppose he believes is a pattern of lies and manipulation by his real object of hatred - the Bush administration.

If anyone wants the facts of the case as they have been discovered so far, I think the best source is factcheck.org

That is a site that seems completely non-partisan and is very balanced on calling attention to efforts from both parties to try to spin stories to their advantage. If the guy had read the extensive information on this site, he would realize that 90 percent of his rant is factually wrong. Thus the question, does he know the facts but is lying about it anyway, or is he just another ignorant guy on the political left that has bought the whole anti-Bush, anti-War rhetoric?

There isn't any need to review the facts of the case here, since they are already covered in great detail at "factcheck". But the main question I came up with after reading through the information was, why is NY Times reporter Judith Miller staying in jail and refusing to give up her sources for a story she never actually wrote? The other reporter called by the investigation, Matthew Cooper, gave all his information to the investigators with permission from Carl Rove. There doesn't seem to be any more to the story, at least from Rove's standpoint, based on the information already provided.

So the only conclusion I can reach about Judith Miller is that she's protecting somebody other than Rove. I'm very curious who that might turn out to be. It seems that there must be something nobody knows about yet being tracked down by investigators looking into this case, and I'm looking forward to when it's brought to light.

But the bottom line, an impartial reading of the facts would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Rove broke no law, and I don't even think he broke any ethical guidlines in telling Cooper that Wilson's wife was involved in sending him to Niger. And Wilson clearly had political motivation in telling his somewhat distorted story about Niger and Uranium while directly supporting Kerry's presidential run, so his claims related to that trip should be viewed in that light.

For me, I could care less if Rove is innocent or guilty. If he broke the law, he should be prosecuted. But the facts as I read them seem pretty clear that he not only broke no law, but Valerie Plame was no longer an undercover operative with the CIA at the time her name was published in the article by Novak that started this whole flap.

Reading and Listening

2005-08-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

My method of staying current on events is to read and listen as often as possible. I read the local newspaper and often USA Today, then check stories online from a variety of outlets. Whenever a new issue appears, I try to get the facts through checking all of these sources, which cover the spectrum of political bias.

How about a couple of recent examples of stories we've all been hearing in August:

Cindy Sheehan

The regular networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) tell us Cindy is a grieving mother of a son killed in Iraq who wants to meet with the president to express her concerns about the war. They craft their stories and interviews with this woman to support this message, and manage the story to convey a disbelief that Bush would be so callous to reject a meeting with this poor grieving mother.

But the alternative news sources tell a somewhat different story. Yes, Cindy is a grieving mother who lost a son in Iraq. But she and her family had a meeting with Bush last year, when he apparently spent a lot of time with them and was very comforting and caring for their loss. Cindy turns out to be a fire-breathing extreme liberal who talks about Bush as the new Hitler who should be impeached and prosecuted. She says her son was killed, not by terrorist bombers in Iraq, but by President Bush. That the Iraq war was concocted by the president to support Israel and enrich his oil buddies. She's even gone so far as to suggest that we should help the Palestinians drive the Jews from Palestine and stop our support for Israel. And no, these aren't distortions or characterizations by some right-wing pundits, but real quotes from Cindy herself.

In addition, we find out that she is surrounded and supported by the most radical leftist groups in the country, like MoveOn.Org and Code Pink. And she keeps a regular blog on Michael Moore's website. And much more.

Air America and the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club

Here is a story you won't find anywhere but the alternative media. If you haven't heard already, there was a guy named Evan Cohen who was a major player in the launch of the liberal Air America network, which was formed in an attempt to offset the influence of conservative radio talkers like Limbaugh and Hannity.

The simple story is that Cohen diverted a little under $900K from the New York City charity into Air America, purportedly as a "loan". The charity can't get the money back, because the media corporation the money was funneled into folded and Air America reorganized under another name, apparently to try to leave behind the debts in the former bankrupt media company. Obviously this is a criminal case, and Cohen will be prosecuted for his malfeasance in the matter.

The above are the fundamental facts of the case, which any reasonable person could interpret as some widespread fraud and ethical lapses in the Air America organization, not just Cohen. But the major news media outlets don't consider this to be a story worthy of publication. Nobody's covering it except for the conservative outlets.

Both of these stories are clear illustrations of how the news is carefully managed by the journalistic outlets who are supposed to be the protectors of our democracy. Instead of a commitment to dig up the whole truth no matter where it leads, journalists are instead carefully managing the news to either ignore stories that might hurt their "side", while spinning or obscuring the facts in other stories to convey their desired message to the masses.

In reading through some liberal blogs and articles, I've noticed their visceral hatred for conservative media, in the form of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang. What I've particularly noticed is through all their protestations that mock Fox's "Fair and Balanced" pledge and call the individual commentators the worst names they can imagine, they offer zero examples to back up their attacks.

I've searched in vain for a liberal example of distorted reporting on any individual topic. They don't exist. I try watching different news programs on television to spot the differences, comparing reporting on the Today Show or Nightly News to Fox News. Certainly Fox News has O'Reilly and Hannity, who openly present themselves as conservatives (but I find O'Reilly to be more of a moderate). The difference is that people like Brian Williams and Katie Couric pretend to be fair while showing clear bias in reporting, while the Fox News program just reports the news.

The easiest way to tell the difference is to catch the reporting on a particular story of the day from one of the mainline networks and compare to Fox. Most of the time, the story will be presented on the mainline network with very little substantive facts and lots of interviews with Democrat or liberal leaders who tell the reporters and viewers what everyone should think about the story. Most of the time there is a one-sentence sound byte from a Republican or conservative, or no alternate viewpoint at all offered in the reporting of the story. So if you are frustrated by high gas prices, for example, and want to find out why they are so high, you are more likely to get a message from some interview with a Democrat politician that it's the oil companies making obscene profits causing the problem.

Then switch to Fox News. There the story will dig into the causes of fluctuation in crude oil prices, such as increased world-wide demand, especially by China, the fact that environmentalists have successfully blocked oil exploration in America, and that refinery capacity is maxed out but environmental restrictions won't permit building more.

These days a citizen's identification with one party or the other, I believe, is closely tied to two major factors: Religious belief or lack thereof, and knowledge of the factual truth of each important issue. Atheists are more likely to be Democrats whether they know the facts of issues or not, just because they perceive Republicans as being pro-religion and therefore anti-debauchery. Everyone else who doesn't really pay much attention to politics, those who would not be able to name the Secretary of State or Speaker of the House, is usually going to be a Democrat, just because they only hear the occasional sound byte from their music radio station or television that tells them about the evil Bush administration.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that our democracy depends on an educated and involved populace? He couldn't have been more correct, and we're fast approaching mass ignorance, which will evolve into tyranny.

War

2005-08-22T14:06:00.000-07:00

What better way to start the new blog than to tackle the biggest issue of the day - war.

It has been disappointing to see the outrageous amounts of spin and hatred and prevarication taking place since the Iraq war commenced. I sometimes wonder if half the country forgot about 9/11 and the series of events leading up to the invasion. The solid majority of the country supported the president in his declaration that we must do whatever it takes to protect ourselves from the terrorists and those states who sponsor them.

When congress demanded that Bush first exhaust every avenue to pressure Saddam to comply with the UN, he did so. Despite months of diplomacy in the UN, France and Germany refused to allow any vote on sanctions for Iraq. Since then there has been clear evidence uncovered that high-ranking officials in those governments and the UN were getting paid off by Saddam, either directly or through the so-called "oil for food" program.

Without going into gory detail of history, the president ended by going to congress and asking for approval to commence the war in Iraq. And the vote was decisive, including plenty of Democrats and Republicans, to go forward. Despite a huge victory, the upcoming presidential campaign led a gaggle of Democrats who wanted the oval office to begin undermining the war effort.

Those who disagreed with the decision to go to war have only two choices today. They can either support the war effort and encourage our leaders to do everything possible to finish the job. Or they can undermine the war effort with protests and inflammatory rhetoric against the president, his cabinet, and the military, and basically root for the terrorists to win. It makes me very sad that most of these people have chosen the latter. How can our country survive if it is true that a giant segment of the population want to see us defeated?

Some ask the question, why Iraq? Why not Syria or Iran, the other two members of Bush's "axis of evil"? I think the answer is very simple. Iraq is right in the middle, somewhat weakened by the Gulf War a decade ago, and Saddam was openly defying UN resolutions about disarming and destroying WMD. If your goal is to eventually defeat terrorism, it makes sense to start in Iraq. A democratic and friendly Iraq will certainly have a major impact on the region, given that the effort is successful. A booming economy in Iraq with its citizens enjoying higher living standards and a voice in their own government will rub off on the people of Iran and Syria, who may replace their repressive regimes on their own simply through a desire to get what Iraq has. That's Bush's objective, and agree or disagree, I think people need to stop attacking him personally for this strategy that was clearly stated and easily understood from the beginning.

No one can engage in a debate on the Iraq war without discussing the famous issue of WMD. The fact that Saddam had them, used them in the war with Iran and against his own people, and refused to account for them to the UN mean nothing to the anti-war firebreathers. They were so quick to pronounce Bush a liar when the troops were unable to find the weapons after the invasion. The enemies of the president refuse to consider the question of what happened to those WMD we know Saddam had.

The simple logic of common sense is all that is needed to look at the circumstances and figure out what probably happened to Saddam's WMD. The months leading up to the invasion gave him all the time he needed to hide his weapons. I believe that's exactly what he did, and there are some reasonable but unverifiable reports of those WMD being moved into a willing neighbor (Syria) for safekeeping against inspectors until the UN backed down and they could be brought back into Iraq. There isn't another reasonable theory, because if Saddam had destroyed his WMD, all he had to do was tell the UN the details of how and when.

So now there are frequent car and truck bombs plus suicide bombers trying to disrupt the creation of the new democratic Iraqi government. And everywhere you turn there are people suggesting that these bombings are signs that things are not going well or even we are losing the war. Bush's approval ratings on conduct of the war are reportedly low, and more and more Americans are losing their stomachs for losing countrymen to wild-eyed Islamic terrorists half a world away. Too many are now saying, or thinking, that maybe we should just declare victory, wish the Iraqis luck, and get out.

News reporting ignores the facts of the positives in Iraq, such as free elections, a consititution on the way to ratification, restored power, open schools, a growing market economy, restored oil production, and many other successes. And reporting also skips certain details of the insurgency itself, failing to honestly identify insurgents as foreign terrorists imported from places like Syria and Iran. Most importantly, the reporting glosses over the fact that Iraq's #1 terrorist/insurgent leader, Al-Zarqawi, is one of bin Laden's lieutenants from Al Quaeda. (Not to mention he's not an Iraqi either).

Personally, I'd like to see a more aggressive approach. Our troops, partnered with the Iraqis, should mount a WWII-style house-to-house operation to clean out the insurgents from Iraq, city by city, until they are all killed or arrested and all of their bomb-making materials confiscated and destroyed. At the same time, I think we should find and eliminate terrorist camps across the Iraqi borders with Syria and Iran.

I fear the Bush administration has fallen too far under the spell of political correctness and may be trying to wage John Kerry's "more sensitive" war. Sorry, war can't be sensitive. It must be brutal and overwhelming, to the end of complete victory. No war should be undertaken without an absolute commitment to victory.