Random Thoughts

Presidential politics

2011-12-11T16:31:00.001-05:00

Is my calendar correct …. we are still in 2011? I am reading all these news stories about how the next 10 days will decide who the Republican nominee will be … when not even the first election has been held, much less the convention … and the presidential election isn’t for another 11 months.

Somebody needs to yank the chains of the national news media.

A. Public opinion polls do not decide primary elections … or at least they shouldn’t.

B. Please stop the horse race crap … and let the people decide and then report the results … gee, that would be novel reporting … rather than hyperventilating over the latest poll numbers or the latest gaffe or the most recent scintillating tidbit that really has no bearing on anything.

Profit

2011-12-09T23:21:00.001-05:00

I may be a bit old fashioned, but when did the word “profit” become obscene. I obviously missed something in my education long ago, but I was taught it was alright to try to profit, whether it was from your individual labors or as part of a team or group.

But it seems that I am wrong, or at least it appears that way from various and sundry news stories that have appeared lately.

HuffPo hilights an article pointing out the Presidential wannabe Newt Gingrinch profits from the sales of his many books and videos as he wanders the campaign trail. And they have a problem with this?

I guess I just am backward and born in the wrong era.

Happy Halloween

2011-10-29T11:41:00.001-04:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45087391#45087391

I don’t know about the rest of America, but this is getting scary (and just in time for Halloween)

In the above link, President Obama says that if Congress won’t pass his proposed jobs legislation, then he will do the same things by executive order.

Hello, does that not bother anyone. It bothers me, a lot.

Constitutionally, a president does not make the law, he enforces the law. He proposes, Congress disposes.

I find it exceedingly uncomfortable when a president starts acting on domestic matters via executive fiat.

I am not sure, but I would hope our members in Congress would rise to this challenge and seek to restore the checks and balances that make the United States practically unique. Yes, those checks and balances make for gridlock. Yes, they make the government look inefficient and slow moving. But, honestly, that is more prudent than acting on impulse or seeking immediate gratification.

I think President Obama is wrong in seeking to enact his plans by executive order. Not because the policies are necessarily bad, misguided or wrong, but because it should not be in any president’s power to do so.

Whose business is it anyway?

2011-10-23T13:25:00.001-04:00

I was reading a story/commentary on MSNBC about eight corporate executives who, in the author’s judgment, apparently are not worth the very large compensation packages they receive.

OK, other than pointing out that the people who invest in these publicly held corporations are not getting what they probably should, what is the point? If you don’t hold common stock/voting stock in the company, then your interests are pretty much zero.

OOPS, my bad. That is right, we are supposed to resent others who have more than we do and demand that we get our share of the pie.

Greed

2011-10-15T11:19:00.001-04:00

I really feel like running screaming into the streets.

What is greed? Would someone please define it, as Pappy used to say, in words of one syllable or less so us old farts can understand it.

Now we have a US congressman proposing that the US government put 15 million unemployed on the government payroll at $40k per year and use another $200 billion to bail out local and state governments.

Did I miss something or did the world go blind?

Now, it seems the US media is giving big play to the “occupy” movement going worldwide. With all due respect to the young people involved, but there ain’t nuthin’ that comes free in life and it ain’t gonna be given to you.

Skepticism

2011-10-14T00:38:00.001-04:00

Ok, folks. Something doesn’t quite add up here.

I have been trying to piece together exactly what the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was all about and how it supposedly was to come about.

Either there are some IRGC Al Quds people who are incredibly stupid or these guys make some of the crackpot schemes of the CIA look absolutely brilliant.

First, I admit I am never going to see any of the NSA intercepts that may be linked to this, but it sort of beggar’s belief that some Iranian sleeper is going to go down to Mexico to link up with somebody he doesn’t know from Adam but is supposed to be from one of that nation’s drug cartels and offer them $1.5 million (do you want that in small bills or in opium) to off the ambassador. If I was some Mexican cartel guy, I would have tossed this yahoo in a heartbeat. Shooting up ICE and Border Patrol people is one thing, but I would think that the Mexican drug lords have got enough on their plate to even contemplate getting involved in that sort of international shenanigans. And then it turns out that the cartel contact is a DEA informant … like great choice Iran.

Next, I admit I don’t have any inside dope on the machinations of the Iranian regime or the theocrats who pull the strings, but this sounds about as dopey a plan as a poor novel plot or movie script. It takes a certain suspension of disbelief to think someone really thought it might work.

Let’s assume what has been reported is true. Some low to mid-level functionary at Al Quds decides to enhance his career and go rogue. He contacts his American cousin and tells him to hoof it down to Mexico to see if he can troll up someone in the Mexican mafia to provide a hit man/team. This guy in Al Quds obviously has some pull, cause he is able shift $100 K electronically to some bank account.

But why use a Mexican cutout? They don’t have any reason to play square and a lot of reasons not to.

It would seem cheaper and more reliable to get a Jihadi to do it.

And the blowback on this hit is going to be intense. If you are going to try something like this, you better have something better than just plausible deniability going for you, especially when you are coming from the Dark Side as far as the US and its erstwhile friends seeing things.

It all just tends to make one wonder why any Persian with more than two functioning brain cells (and these people really do go way back in the smarts department, chess versus checkers anyone) would do this without having some really important goal in mind. It doesn’t make whole lot of sense.

Occupy what?

2011-10-10T23:55:00.001-04:00

I have been trying to understand and follow the “Occupy Wall Street” protests of the last three-plus weeks (and its various stepchildren around the country) and I have yet to figure exactly what point the protesters are trying to make.

That corporations are “bad” … all a corporation is is a voluntary – yes, I said voluntary – legal construct to allow people to unite for some purpose while limiting their liability. This limited liability is part of the reason for the success of the modern world because those who voluntarily invest in any corporation, of whatever size, shape or purpose, are only liable to the extent they are invested in the corporation. That actually serves a good economic purpose, rather than bad … in my humble estimation.

If you eliminate the corporations, then what are you left with? I am not sure anyone has an answer to that or at least I am not hearing any.

Ok, so five percent of the nation controls most of the nation’s wealth … since when is that news. It always has been that way, and besides, most of that wealth these days is on paper and is not real “wealth” … however you want to define that.

So the people who manage corporations are “greedy” … so what? First of all, I wish someone would give me a practical working definition of what greedy means, because I am not sure what it means.

Are we saying that individuals can’t own their own labor and profit from it or leverage it to their advantage? That they are not allowed to exchange the fruits of their own talents and labors for whatever the market will bear? If that is your viewpoint, then you have seriously missed out on the historical lessons of the last three centuries. By granting the individual the right to own their own labors (and the results of that labor) and to exchange it is the reason why millions –if not billions - of people are not living at subsistence levels, particularly in the US,

The biggest problem I have with the devotees of the concept that society/government owes individuals the satisfaction of their “needs” is that nobody ever gets around to defining exactly what satisfying those “needs” means. At what point do needs become merely desires or even luxuries?

If you mean survival, then a shirt, coat, pants, socks, shoes, a puptent, a blanket, a portapottie (1 for every hundred people or so) and maybe 2,000 calories a day should do the trick … anything more than that and you are getting into discriminatory choices that differentiate individuals and then we are not treating people equal.

Oh, that is the point. We all are supposed to be equal … but in what way? We should be equal before the law (the law should be blind to our differences and our treatment therefore should be equal) … But that doesn’t happen because we happen to be individuals, different and unique, and discriminatory by nature.

Equal outcomes (incomes, etc.) are about as fallacious as anything that can be proposed. If you are not happy where you are, then change something … usually starting with yourself.

Anyway, so much for my ramblings.

Who said life was fair?

2011-09-19T23:48:00.002-04:00

Whomever said life was fair was selling a bill of goods. Life isn’t fair. Nothing is fair, except when everyone plays by the same set of rules, and then varying abilities make it unfair.

It appalls me to see certain political types calling for this group or that group to play fair or pay their “fair” share. Give me a flipping break.

Take taxes: Unless everybody pays the same rate, then the tax is not being fair. Somebody is paying more than someone else. Given all the tinkering that is done with the US, state, county, municipal and other tax codes. no one is being treated “fairly” in my estimation.

See that is the problem: No longer are we equal before the law. As Napoleon the Pig decreed in Animal Farm, “some animals are more equal than others.”

We as a nation have discovered we can manipulate the tax code and other government policies to pay ourselves money and that is why democratic forms of government fail. Once the people learn they can vote themselves money out of the common treasury then it eventually will collapse. As I have said, someone done let that cat out of the bag already even.

I shudder to think what my grandchildren are going to face, because it ain’t gonna be pretty. I wish I could leave them better, but I don’t have the power.

Beep, wrong answer.

2011-09-19T11:20:00.001-04:00

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/19/news/economy/obama_debt_plan/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

“A driving principle behind the proposal is that high-income individuals and corporations should pay more in taxes than they do currently so that they will bear some of the burden of debt reduction going forward. “

I have a serious problem with part of that statement and that is that “corporations” should pay more in taxes. Corporations don’t pay taxes because it is the people who purchase the goods or services from the corporation who pay the tax. That is right, the consumer (meaning us ordinary smucks).

Somebody needs to send somebody back to ECON 101. Corporations may appear to “pay” taxes, but any corporate manager/business owner worth his or her salt has calculated the cost of those taxes and included in the price of whatever good or service they provide. If they don’t, then they are incredibly stupid and need to take a course in business planning.

In other words, taxes on corporations really are just hidden taxes paid by us ordinary folks.

I am increasingly disappointed with the current administration’s seeming attacks on business and the wealthy. This is not a “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” society, but it seems that the current administration is playing like it is.

Electoral College

2011-09-16T21:58:00.001-04:00

News report has it that Pennsylvania is considering revamping the way it allocates its electoral votes. Rather than give all the state electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote, the electoral votes would be apportioned out to the winners of each congressional district and two statewide.

This is about the best way for a change and retain the founders vision of preventing the big populous cities being able to dictate the results.

The Electoral College is there for a very good reason, in that in compels candidates to consider more than one state.

War is not an Option

2011-09-16T01:55:00.000-04:00

Saw a bumper sticker on a recent travel: WAR IS NOT AN OPTION and the thought immediately jumped into my mind: Yes, but sadly sometimes it is the only alternative available.

Would that it were true, but unfortunately, human nature being such as it is, war,violence, death, destruction, all are sometimes the only alternative we have if we wish to remain at liberty and live our lives as we have chosen. Of course, we could chose to surrender our liberties …. we could choose to die quietly or be slaves, but that would not be my choice.

If there are those who have sworn to see my death as well as those who I care for or to those who believe as I do in the dignity of the individual above all, then I will fight them … on any and all levels of conflict.

RIP War Powers Act

2011-05-21T00:52:00.001-04:00

It seems to me that President Obama is going to get the Libyan operation past Congress without a whimper.

Lord, this strikes me as funny and I wonder where the hue and cry is? The president is acting without Congressional authorization … of any type … and few if any (other than the much derided Fox News) of the pundits or elected leadership in the Congress seem to be making a major deal out of it.

I guess that is what it means when it is said that elections to make differences. My guess that if our previous administration had ignored at least attempting to follow at least some parts of the 1973 War Powers Act, he probably would have been impeached, or had even more people in the streets.

Well, we get what we deserve … or at least vote for … and it is go0d to remember that democracy only works until the majority figures out it can vote itself money from the common treasury.

New book

2011-05-17T16:57:00.001-04:00

We got him!

2011-05-02T15:58:00.001-04:00

Sunday, May 1, 2011, Osama Bin Laden died at the hands of a small group of American Navy SEALS.

Well Done!

It is not the end of the Global War on Islamo-fascistic Terrorists, nor even the end of the beginning, but it is a milestone.

To put it in perspective the World War II generation. This is not the equivalent of the death of Adolf Hitler, but more akin to the death of Isoroku Yamamoto in April 1943. The architect of the attack on the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor and much of the very successful Japanese conquest of the Pacific was dead, was killed by a small group of Army Air Force aviators who flew hundreds of miles on a scrap of intelligence from the U.S. Navy.

It did not end the war in the Pacific, which went on bloodily for nearly another 2 1/2 years, but it was a major blow to the Japanese and a major victory and morale boost for the Americans.

Such is it today.

Random Thoughts 20

2010-09-11T12:44:00.000-04:00

As I watch the events marking 9/11 and the controversy surrounding the pastor in Florida who threatened to burn copies of the Islamic holy book, I was struck by the differences between the US and say Afghanistan or Indonesia.

In those countries, demonstrators angry over the prospect of some obscure non-denominational preacher in a faraway country with a church with a membership of about 50 will destroy a copy of their sacred text. They protest by burning American flags, a relatively sacred object to many Americans, and urging death to Americans everywhere. I imagine that if they had Christian Bibles to burn, they would readily do so.

Americans, who thought the idea of burning the Islamic sacred text … or at least a copy of it … was not a very good idea were able to talk to the point that the pastor reconsidered his idea and apparently has decided that it is not such a great idea after all.

Still, the riots and demonstrations persist, just because someone even thought of burning the text. How bizarre is that?

I wonder if Christian Americans were to go on rampages every time an American flag was burned, or Christian sacred symbols were destroyed in Muslim countries, how that would be received? How about Americans calling for the deaths of all Muslims and then violently following up?

Yes, I know, there are those who say Americans already are doing that with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that would be a misrepresentation of those efforts.

Besides, much of the violence in those war torn countries is not directed at coalition forces as it is against local indigenous people.

It just strikes me how hypocritical it is to hold the US to one standard while absolving others and holding them to an entirely different standard. It doesn’t matter that Americans look at themselves as unique or exceptional in this world where multicultural people have been able to come together and for the most part live in peace and harmony (especially when compared to the rest of the world where peace and harmony, if it exists at all) comes only with homogeneous countries with one race, one religion and one government ideology.

But then, it is acceptable to find fault with everything the US does, both internally and externally, and to absolve others of the selfsame failings or worse.

It really gets depressing sometimes.

testing

2010-06-09T20:07:00.002-04:00

this is a test

2008-09-27T21:09:00.000-04:00

2008-09-27T21:04:00.001-04:00

A Gathering Storm at Sea off the Carolina Coast

c. Richard Browne, November 2007

Random Thoughts 19

2008-09-25T23:11:00.000-04:00

Life really is all about contracts. In everything we humans do, it involves a contract of some sort, implied, verbal or written.

We have social contracts, business contracts, financial contracts, purchase contracts, sale contracts, partnership contracts, corporate contracts, marriage contracts, contracts on every aspect of human life. Unfortunately, most people forget that the world is made up of such contracts.

Just as unfortunately, people tend to forget that the role of government, and about its only legitimate role, is the enforcement of all these contracts, should someone fail in their obligation to meet one of the contracts’ particulars.

It matters not whether a contract is written down or merely implied, it remains an obligation of each individual to uphold his or her end of the bargain. We agree to certain laws and rules governing our social structure. These are not necessarily written down but by custom and tradition they are just as valid as any business contract.

Courtesy is part of our civil contract, unfortunately as aspect that it all too often ignored in modern society.

When parents bring a child into the world, they have, without their explicit endorsement, agreed with the society in which they live to raise the child with the values and mores necessary for the child to be prepared to be a member of that community and social structure. A baptismal is sort of a formal ceremony to recognize this responsibility with the church acting as the agent of enforcement.

Do good, the church says, then you will go to heaven and that is your contract. Do bad, and you will not go to heaven or paradise or whatever afterlife the religion observes. Again, a contract.

You go to the grocer to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk and you exchange whatever currency is the medium of exchange in your community and that too is the result of a contract.

Even social relations basically are contracts. When you enter into any relationship, you are offering your expectations, to be satisfied by another, while you are agreeing to try to satisfy the expectations of your partner. It is a simple but again just as valid contract. It may sound cynical but it is true just the same.

Today, in the U.S., we are seeing a crisis of confidence in the national institutions with the failure of many of those institutions to meet the expectations of individuals who literally failed to read the fine print, or as in the case of many in the large financial institutions, of individuals seeking to avoid personal responsibility for their own mistakes in judgment and efforts to make a game out of reality. Unfortunately, in such situations, the fallout hurts other people.

In the U.S., however, over the last century, it has become socially acceptable to protect people from their own foibles and failures, much less mistakes, and expect the government, as some neutral third party to provide the protection.

Again, unfortunately the problem is, that most people fail to realize, that government is not a disinterested benign third party. First it is a creation of society and second the same type of fallible human beings that the government is trying to protect from mistakes and failures makes its decisions.

Random Thoughts 18

2008-09-25T23:02:00.001-04:00

When thinking about people and human relations, I think we sometimes forget that at our core we are but a very adaptable species of the primate family of the kingdom of mammals.

What does this mean? Well, for one thing, it means that we are animals. Granted we are animals that have highly developed communications skills and a sense of self-awareness, but we still are animals and evolution has left us with the usual animal instincts toward procreation and self-preservation.

With our highly evolved social structures that dictate much of our behavior, people far too
often forget that deep down, the two things that actually motivate individuals is their desire to live or survive and the instinct to pass on another generation.

People, generally, are not instinctively altruistic. Most people are driven by their instinct for self-preservation and the necessity of satisfying their basic needs of food, shelter and protection from the elements. Only when those needs are met will most people find the capacity for altruism. Granted, there are exceptions, but altruism is more a choice than an instinct.

The human individual also has the instincts of a pack animal to an extent as well as some of the instincts of herd animals. Most humans have a need to have the acceptance of either type of animal and find solace in the hierarchical structure of the pack and safety in the comfort of numbers in a herd.

The other thing people are most likely to forget is that governments, organizations, corporations, and other social groups are made up of individuals and it is how those individuals think that eventually is reflected in how that entity deals with the world around it.

It seems to me that if you keep these elements in mind, then it becomes easier to explain and understand human history and current human behavior.

It is our socialization as we grow up in whatever social construct we are born into that shapes our abilities to control and channel the basic instincts. What we so often fail to remember is that there are many social constructs on planet Earth and many of those constructs are not necessarily compatible with the others.

Those raised in the American Occidental Democratic Republican Capitalistic Tradition are imbued with certain values and expectations that have been the world around them. To them, the way they live becomes the “norm” and any other cultural construct is either wrong or abnormal.

There are those who cannot understand or even conceive of a world that, let’s say, has no computers, cars, trains, planes and the Internet. It is difficult in this era to conceive of a world where information moves not at the speed of light but perhaps at the speed of sound, if not slower. This also is the source of much of the problems in the world today.

With information moving at the speed of light, then change comes at people at almost the same pace. Humans, as they are now evolved, have not yet adapted to such rapid change. Change is difficult in its own right, but the speed of change apparently does not allow time for the modern human to perceive, process and the adapt to the new whatever. Evolution doesn’t work in this environment in that the species can not codify the necessary adaptations before new adaptations are required.

Random Thoughts 17

2008-07-17T00:52:00.003-04:00

Revisiting History

Was the Iraq War necessary? Given the context of the time, it probably was.

Was the Iraq War executed well? Obviously not, or the U.S. would not still have so many troops there.

Why was the Iraq War necessary?

To answer this question we have to slip back in time and review the complex set of circumstances that led up to the invasion.

First, what was it about the regime of Saddam Hussein that made U.S. leaders think it was time for him to leave the world scene?

Well, Saddam was a so-so educated megalomaniac who pictured himself as the savior of the Arab world.

The Arab world at this point in its history is nearing its nadir. Gone are the fabulous centers of learning of 700 to 1,000 years ago. Gone are the great thinkers of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. In their place, like a society caught in a time warp, is a cluster of nations that have fallen behind socially and economically, surpassed by the civilization that grew out of the Hellenic traditions and blossomed across Europe. It was the Europeans who underwent a religious Reformation and philosophical period of Enlightenment that leading to a Renaissance that developed into the Industrial Revolution, which literally changed the world and man’s relationship to it.

To the Arab world, to see all this progress and to not be its leader, much less not even to participate in it, not participate in it, much less be its leader, is and was a crushing humiliation. And in the Arab culture, as with most of the non-Occidental societies, humiliation is the worst that can happen to an individual, a village, a tribe, or a nation.

So, here the United States was presented with a megalomaniac, who embodiesd the Arab feeling of humiliation and had , with delusions of grandeur that under his aegis he will be the new Saladin to rule the known world, or at least the Middle East. (Granted that Saladin was a Kurd, but he was the Islamic leader that most modern Middle Eastern Islamic leaders want to emulate – his was the time of the great libraries and the great intellectuals and philosophers). This dictator’s country also had the technical capability to create weapons of mass destructions. He already had developed and actually used various chemical weapons. He had been playing around with various biological weapons, but probably was a tad short of the research needed to weaponize them. And then there were the nuclear weapons. Back in 1990, he got awfully close to making one, but the first Persian Gulf War knocked his plans a kilter.

However, by the end of 2002, he had pretty circumvented most the sanctions for his and his sons’ own personal benefit. And the whole sanctions regime would probably implode and collapse within the next 12 months. Such was the greed of people wanting something that Iraq could give them: money or oil. So, by 2003, we had this idiot just champing at the bit to have the sanctions imposed withdrawn that were to keeping him from developing these weapons on a mass scale. If only the United Nations and its pesky inspectors would go away and drop the Security Council demands that he pledge to be a good boy, and not go building WMDs, and definitely stop using any of his weapons against his neighbors.

The choice then became whether the U.S. would allow the sanctions regime to collapse and the Iraq situation revert to status quo ante the Persian Gulf War. Well, the U.S. still harbored some hopes that the U.N. could become a viable arbiter for the peaceful resolution of the world’s problems. Only, as with all behavior problems, its efforts to change them have to be backed by a credible “or else” option.

For 12 years, a U.S.-led coalition had been giving the “or else” to U.N.’s ultimata to change credibility by flying and responding to attacks and provocations over areas of sky in Iraq that the U.N. had decided were areas that Iraq aircraft were not allowed to fly. These flights were part of an effort to protect not only the inhabitants of those regions from Iraqi military air attacks but also to keep the Iraqi military from threatening its northern and southern neighbors. These flights by American, British, and, for awhile, French warplanes were flying under the U.N. flag to enforce not only the ceasefire resolution at the end of the first Gulf War, but also to protect minorities in Iraqi who were being brutally suppressed by Hussein’s goons.

The atrocities committed by Hussein, his sons, and their henchmen on their own people have been well documented over the last five years and the related deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of those deaths occurred annually during the Butcher of Baghdad’s nearly 30-year reign.

However, maintaining these forces that essentially are flying potential combat missions on a daily basis was not a cheap proposition and it was the U.S. who bore the lion’s share of the financial burden. It especially was not those people who were its primary benefactors.

This, of course, is where the ugly and evil word “oil” enters the equation.

Unfortunately for the world, the largest deposits of petroleum seem to lie beneath the sands of Arabia and the old Persian and Mesopotamian homelands. Yes, there are substantial deposits in the North Sea, the South China Sea, in Siberia and the nations of the Caspian Sea, in Africa, in North and South America, but the sweetest oil seems to come from the area surrounding the Arabian Gulf. It is the most accessible, because there is not much to disturb but except a few itinerant tribesmen passing through with their camels and their tents. There are no gleaming metropolises here, nor any hubs of great industry churning out products that raise the standard of living not only for the rich but for the common man as well. Not much in the way of people or development, just a lot of sand.

Unfortunately, as the world progresses from the industrial age to the information age and the 21st Century, much of what powers those the world economies is fueled by gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel. Some economies are more dependent on oil from this particular region than others. Most of Europe becomes dependent on Middle East crude, as do the Tigers of Asia, to which now can be added China and India. As the world continues to develop, its economies become increasingly intertwined and the supply of oil becomes increasingly inadequate.

Any threat to the smooth and peaceful extraction of oil is going to be deemed a life-threatening event to any nation whose economic umbilical is tied to it.

As in the Cold War, Europe, Japan, and other nations look expectantly to the United States, which came out of the Second World War relatively unscathed from the scars of that horrific conflict and with its seemingly huge economic power that seems to be the engine that drives the world economy intact, to shoulder – with its parallel huge military power – the burdens of being the protector of the peace and the protector of the smooth flow of this commodity to the rest of the world.

Only Hussein tended to make things jump off the track.

First, he invaded Iran and after eight years of a bloody stalemate, decided that wasn’t such a good idea after all. Yes, the U.S. and other Arab nations favored the Iraqis in this dispute, mainly because Iran, ruled by the mullahs and ayatollahs, had become a theocratic nightmare that felt the U.S. was the Great Satan and should be destroyed. Besides, there was the minor humiliation of Iran violating years of diplomatic tradition and seizing the American Embassy and holding its occupants as hostages. (Note: This technically is an act of war, but the U.S. ignored that little part of international law.)

We won’t go through the disastrous and muddled attempt to rescue the hostages that so mesmerized the Americans’ attention for the 444 days of their captivity. The U.S. was looking for a little pay back, and so what if Saddam was an evil person, he was fighting the right enemy. In that respect, sort of, it was similar to the U.S.’s alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union in World War II. Stalin may have been a totally reprehensible person and despot, but he was fighting the right enemy and it was better let him use his millions to grind down the Nazi war machine than to have young Americans pay that price.

It is the old credo: that the enemy of my enemy is my friend – at least for the moment.

So, not only did Saddam’s megalomania pose a threat his neighbors in the Gulf, all of whom maintained tiny militaries in comparison to the Iraqis (except for Iran, Syria and Turkey) and looked for protection under the American umbrella, but also his religion seemed to compel him to want to wipe out Jews - no matter where they are found. Now after Hitler’s nearly successful attempt to wipe out European Jewry, the Europeans – who have never been partial to the Jews because they were the enablers of European hypocrisy for almost two millennia – agreed to a plan to settle the remainder of the survivors in their ancient homeland in Palestine. Even though the Jews have been in Palestine for at least three millennia, the Arabs – who themselves are relative newcomers to area – were upset with the Europeans pawning off their Jews in what the Arabs perceive as “their” territory. However, the nation of Israel was formed, however, and the Arabs have spent the better part of the last 60 years thinking of ways to destroy Israel and push all of the Jews into the Mediterranean., where presumably they will all drown.

Unfortunately, for the Arabs, the United States – partly because it has the largest number population of Jews in the world living in it and partly because we really believe that the Jews should have some place they can safely call home, without being the local scapegoats for everything and occasionally having murderous riots launched to beat up on them – decided that it would be the big brother protector of this small nation of less than four millions. The Americans are just not going to sit by and watch another Holocaust. ... We did that once and it left us still kicking ourselves for letting it happen the first time. Besides, in many ways the Israelis are like us and, unlike most of their neighbors, at least their government is a functioning (or is that disfunctioning, it is hard to tell some times) democracy, unlike most of its neighbors.

But Hussein, mostly for his own domestic consumption (known as creating an outside devil – something we in the West are not immune to doing) but also for his own aggrandizement thinks thought it would really go a long way to wipe out the humiliation the Arabs have suffered over the years (especially in the four wars where the Israelis basically kicked butt on them) if he could figure out a way to wipe out the Israelis.

Well, the first thing he did, after the Iraqis and other Arab nations had their collective butt handed to them by the Israelis in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, was to go for the asymmetrical option and funds Palestinian groups who are were taking the fight daily to the Israelis in low intensity combat (suicide bombers, random rocket and mortar attacks, kidnappings and assassinations, sniper attacks and drive-by shootings). Lurking in his mind, however, was a plan to use that the ultimate weapon those dastardly Americans invented. Even if he died in the process, he would go down in history as a great Muslim martyr who died in a war to crush the infidel.

Besides, if he got his hands on a nuclear bomb, then he could have held hold it over the heads of the Arab tribal leaders in the neighborhood as a great big club and make them dance to his tune. That would have impact on the flow of oil from the Gulf, which would have impacted the big, bumbling U.S.’s economic partners. Then, the U.S. would be called upon to drag out the old military force option and wave its big stick around.

In 1990, he had tried direct action to gain control of more of the Gulf Oil, but again his military had its collective butt handed to them in Kuwait in 1991 by the overwhelming force of a U.N.-sponsored coalition led by the United States. In a funny way, he was able to portray this humiliating defeat of his troops as a victory, because had the situation been reversed, he surely would be putting the head of GHW Bush on a pike and parading it around the square. Since that didn’t happen to his head, then obviously Allah, peace be upon him, was protecting him.

The Gulf War also got him saddled him with a series of UN resolutions designed to de-fang the Mesopotamian viper. To all of which, he did what he could to defy and skirt his way around them.

In December 1998, he essentially told the UN inspectors to take a hike and leave, which resulted in President Bill Clinton ordering four days of aerial bombing and missiles strikes in an exercise called Operation Desert Fox. All that accomplished was to get the UN inspectors permanently banned from Iraq.

At the same time, at the urging of President Clinton, Congress passed a bicameral and bipartisan resolution for it to be the stated policy of the United States government to seek out and pursue a way to terminate the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Come the fall of 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed its 19th resolution advising Saddam to come clean about all his various WMD programs or face the consequences. In December 2002, we saw aee this huge document dump by the Iraqis. After review of those documents, the chief of the UN inspectors, Hans Blix, said they proved nothing and did not begin to meet the requirements laid out in the UN resolution. In short, Blix said the Iraqis were lying again and trying to be evasive.

Why did the Iraqis let the inspectors back and do the document dump? It wasn’t out the goodness of their hearts that is for sure. What had changed from January 1999 and January 2003?

Well, the big change was that in January 2003, there were increasing numbers of U.S. troops sitting in camps in the Kuwait desert. We are not talking a small group; we are talking 170,000 American Soldiers, along with about 30,000 British Tommies and a smattering of forces from some 44 other nations ranging from Italy to Lithuania. Notably absent from the ranks are the French, Germans, Russians, and the Chinese, as well as most of the other Arab nations. The thing about this coalition, whether you want to believe it or not, was that it was hoping to put some spine into the UN and prove that its “or else” threats were not just empty air.

Now, the question came: Do you use this force or not?

While the French, the Russians, and the Chinese had signed off on the previous resolutions that threatened “or else”, this the trio was had cold feet on No. 20 because it might upset their new contracts they had negotiated in violation of previous sanctions resolutions and that would never do. Besides, in a few months all support for the sanctions would collapse and the Russians, Chinese, and French could go back into the very lucrative weapons trade with the Iraqis.

And if the Iraqis did come up with a device to vaporize Tel Aviv, they could always blame the Americans for failing to take any action.

To cover Tony Blair’s butt, GW Bush agrees that is a good idea to try to get a 20th UN Security Council resolution authorizing military force. It was not that the previous 19 resolutions had not either authorized military force or at least threatened it, it was just another ‘i’ to dot and a ‘t’ to cross, to make sure that if anything went wrong, then the blame would not fall on just the Americans and the British. However, since the Chinese, the French, and the Russians all hold vetoes on the Security Council, the resolution stands stood no chance of passing.

With summer approaching, Turkey balking at letting the Americans launch a second front through its territory with the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division and with some 200,000 troops sitting in the Kuwaiti desert, Bush and Rumsfeld grew impatient, or realized that the French, the Russians, and the Chinese had no intention of letting the UN become a truly effective organization that could impose its vision on recalcitrant nations. Bush and Co. looked back at the previous 19 UNSCRs and discovered they held all the authorization for the Coalition to strike. Besides, it would be awfully expensive and degrade the combat readiness if the juggernaut was forced to sit and wait until summer passed.

So, given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime was starving his own people, murdering tens of thousands annually, oppressing millions, merely waiting to reopen his weapons labs and rebuild his WMD facilities, funding terrorist operations against the United States through the Palestinians, flirting with the people who had pulled off the 9/11 attack on US interests (see documentation from the Iraq Perspectives Project), had already attempted to assassinate the sitting president’s father, defied the UN by basically giving it the finger, and last but not least, its leader was basically a despicable person, George Bush and Company decided that indeed Hussein posed a clear and present danger to the health and wealth of the world and it was time to depose him.

Deposing Saddam him was the easy part. It was the aftermath that Donald Rumsfeld totally dropped the ball. To him, the Iraq war was just a testing ground for his new lighter, faster, more mobile, interconnected military force that substituted firepower for manpower. Despite the fact that the U.S. State Department actually had a plan for implementation post-bellum; it was ignored, in fact, disdained. In a bureaucratic feudal turf war, Donald Rumsefeld’s DoD told those stuffed shirts at State to take a hike and the DoD’s program of military shock and awe would sort things out. He disregarded the Pottery Shop rule and had illusions about being able to replace a vacuum with a non-existent laissezze-faire anything-goes solution.

In fumbling in the aftermath of the offensive phase of the war, Rumsfeld gave those who, for whatever reason, are predisposed to dislike, nay hate, GW Bush, ample ammunition to attack the former governor of Texas. It is ironic that the first president who has had the courage and resolution to stand up to the relentless attacks against Americans, their businesses, and their overseas representatives and say “Enough. It stops here. Beyond this we will respond with more than the niceties of our legal system. The gloves are coming off and we will strike back and hit hard,” gets such harsh treatment.

It is as if, as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto observed almost 70 years ago, the terrorists had awoken a terrible sleeping dragon and had made it angry. The dragon was awake now and tired of the pinprick attacks. It had stared down the Bear without much thanks and now was going to look out for itself.

In retrospect, the WMDs were there, especially the capability to bring production facilities rapidly on line as well as resume the pursuit of the Golden Fleece of a nuclear device. If you don’t believe that, I beg that you read the Duelfer Report in its entirety and not just the news stories summarizing inaccurately its findings.

In addition, Saddam Hussein was indeed proven to be a very malevolent despot who deserved to hang at the hands of his people.

The threat of his regime is now gone, but the threat from Iran has never gone away and if the U.S. can be run out of Iraq by asymmetrical warfare, financed in good part by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, then it will be the mullahs who have driven the Great Satan from the region and it is their time to rise, as the Xerxes of old and restore the Persian empire to is rightful place as the leader of the world, but especially the Islamic world.

If the bumbling bums of the U.S. cannot pull a rabbit out of their hat, as they seem to be doing today, then who will challenge other despots and threats to the economic stability of the world?

What it really comes down to the end of the day is all the Americans want to do is trade with other countries and sell them stuff – at a profit, of course.

PS: We seem to be winning.

Random Thoughts 16

2008-07-17T00:20:00.003-04:00

No I did not make this, but I think it is hilarious
... especially the last few scenes

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Random thoughts 15

2008-06-25T21:26:00.000-04:00

A random rant

I sometimes think if I hear one more time that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election or the 2004 election or that the war in Iraq is illegal or that members of the Bush political administration are guilty of war crimes, that there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003, that Saddam had no connection with terrorists (including some who did have connections with 9-11 although Saddam was not in on that operation) or that Israel is the source of all the problems in the Middle East, I think I just will go off the deep end.

First: GWB did not steal the 2000 election. The U.S. Supreme Court did not select him. If anything, it was the Gore campaign that tried to use the judicial system to change the outcome in Florida. I am tired of hearing that all election officials down at the county level are in the hip pocket of this campaign or that political party. In the 30 years I covered elections, the local election officials have done their darndest to be as accurate and accountable as possible. So, when I hear people talk of conspiracies to steal elections, I think of those hard working folks at the local level and just shake my head.

As for Gore and his campaign: They just couldn’t let Bush have in the appearance of a victory, so they tried everything they could to stop the count until they could line up a judge or two to allow manual recounts, but only in areas that favored Gore. The hypocrisy of that just made me sick. For God’s sake, I wanted to scream, just let the process work itself out. There is a procedure for challenging the results of an election and asking for a recount, just follow it. Rather, the Gore campaign had to jump to the courts. And don’t go on about the GOP controlling the Florida secretary of state’s office, that is just hogwash to the extreme. Don’t go on about suppressed votes or butterfly ballots. It is all stuff to obscure the fact that Gore did not win.

Besides, in the ultimate end, after all the dust settled and a coalition of media outlets went back in a recounted the ballots ... guess who was the winner in like all the various scenarios: GWB.

So, if you don’t like the result, get over it.

Also, even if the minority vote was suppressed in some areas of Ohio in 2004, which it apparently didn’t happen but makes a convenient urban fairy tale, the margin of victory for Bush was such that it wouldn’t have mattered ... in other words, Bush-haters, you lost; time to get over it.

Nor was the war in Iraq illegal nor are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., guilty of any war crimes.

First, how many U.N. resolutions threatening AND authorizing force does it take to make a war legal? The UN Security Council since 1991 had passed 19 resolutions on Iraq that Saddam supposedly was in violation of. Even Hans Blix admitted that Hussein had violated the last one in November 2002, but he wanted more time.

If you truly believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime had NO WMDs, please read the entire Duelfer Report, http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html , not just cherry picked passages.

Also understand, if I put a bar of soap in my jacket pocket where you can’t see it and tell you it is a gun, you most likely would believe it was a gun. Especially if all my buddies with me are saying it is a gun, because they actually believe it is a gun. And when the cops show up and see me pointing my “gun”, they are not going to assume it is a bar of soap. They are going to assume it is a gun and tell me to put it down. And if I don’t do it immediately, they are liable to open fire and justifiably I might add.

Saddam may have had a bar of soap or he may have really believed he had WMDs, but 45 nations believed he did and formed a coalition (and so what if GWB allegedly coerced most of them, the man is not omnipotent and they still put their people on the line in one way or another) to take Saddam down. It was not something that just the Americans did, or just the Brits did, or the Italians or the Poles or any other of the members of the coalition.

Just because you don’t like George W. Bush does not make him a liar or a criminal.

Bush did not lie. He did follow the law. He got Congressional approval, that in essence (except that it did not have it as its title) was a declaration of war. He had a U.N. resolution to back him up. OK, granted it didn’t specifically authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq, but the November resolution authorized unspecified measures to compel compliance if Saddam’s regime did not satisfy its provisions. It didn’t.

Saddam had no links to terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda. Arrgggghhh. Please read the Iraq Perspectives Report.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

And what has been released so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

I also wish people would understand the difference between a lawful and unlawful combatant. Unfortunately, since we have had a slew of bombing over the last 7 years, a lot of people think we can go back to status quo ante 9-11. When will we realize that we really are at war with these hoods and it is an honest to goodness root’n toot’n shooting war?

As for torture: Maybe I have misplaced my faith and trust but I find it difficult to believe that the type of soldiers I have had the pleasure to serve with actually engaged in torture. Of course, your definition of torture and mine differ. I mean, to me torture is like beating somebody with fists or a rubber hose. It is like breaking limbs and dislocating joints. It is like drilling holes in a body or chopping off digits. It is like carving on someone or using them for a human ash tray. Let’s not forget sexually violating someone.

However, it is not torture to subject someone to loud music that they dislike for 24/7 or to put them in a cold room with little clothes on. It is not forcing them to stand for hours, or squat for hours or keeping them under a bright light for hours. Those psychological pressures do not meet the standard for torture in my book. Nor does the Good Cop-Bad Cop routine.

My personal jury is still out on waterboarding. I don’t know enough about the procedure to know if it qualifies as torture. Drowning some one is, but then they would be dead. I do think that keel-hauling would qualify as torture, but that is primarily due to the barnacles, plus ships’ keels are much longer than they used to be. We could be back the cat-o-nine-tails, but they flogging really is more than punishment. It is torture.

Still, I am not sure humiliation is torture. It is humiliation and torture is more physical.

One thing I do wonder is that when did combatants (whether lawful or unlawful) get rights other than those laid down by the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. Remember, we are in a war. Oops, I forgot ... we aren’t, even if Congress authorized the use of military force to resolve the problem.

Finally, for all those who hate GWB so much that they lose all sense of proportion. Understand this, in a few months on Jan. 20, 2009, at noon, a new president will be sworn in. This person will be the winner of a national ballot held on Nov. 4 (and days preceding in some jurisdictions) and your long nightmare will be over. I wonder what you will say if your preferred candidate doesn’t get elected this time. What excuse are you going to trot out this time.

Ok, I have vented enough for today.

Random Thought 14

2008-03-05T12:00:00.003-05:00

I find it almost humorous the current saber rattling on the northeast coast of South America.

The Colombiam military successful struck a FARC rebel base and killed the No. 2 man in the FARC organizational structure. Granted, the FARC base was maybe 3 kilometers inside Ecuador, but then the U.S. just hit a suspected Al Qaeda hangout in Africa, so what is the difference.

Ecuador admits that the camp was in its territory. Ecuador admits that government of Colombia advised its government that the action had taken place and apologized for the necessity of entering Equadorian air space and territory in order to accomplish the mission.

Now, it seems that they are upset that the attack apparently took place in early morning hours when everyone was asleep. I guess it is not macho enough to wake the rebels up and give them the chance to vamoose.

Now, Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela decides to get involved. Is this some form of comic opera or what. The Venezuelans send 10 battalions, at some of them armored units, to the border to fend off the evil Colombians and to protect the sanctuary for FARC bases it wants along the common border. Then the close the border to economic traffic. I am not sure who this hurts worse: the Venezuelans or the Colombians. Still it is a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Chavez, on the other hand, is following a familiar template for petty dictators. Create a foreign devil, create a foreign enemy for the masses to rally against and forget the failings of the dictator's government to provide a stable economy and justify its actions as necessary sacrifices in order to carry the fight to the enemy.

If it wasn't so serious (in that a lot of people could get killed in this soap opera), this would be so funny.

Random Thoughts 13

2007-10-14T14:18:00.000-04:00

I see where the House Democrats have a new plan to end the war in Iraq. The Democrats are advancing a resolution that would accuse the nation of Turkey of genocide when 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, that preceded the current Turkish state, back in World War I.

I think the Democrats have finally hit on a way to force George Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. They have been unsuccessful at cutting off funding for the war, so now they are going to piss off the Turks so much that the Turks will cut the supply line into Iraq, forcing a reduction of troop strengths becase a vast majority of the supplies (like 70 percent) are routed through facilities in Turkey.

In addition, the resolution will further complicate U.S. efforts when the Turks, who are currently be held at bay by the good offices of the U.S., will no longer feel restrained from attacking the Kurdish separatists who have taken refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan and strike accross the border in terroristic raids.

I think Nancy Pelosi is absolutely brilliant and this is a wonderful strategy to force the defeat in Iraq to a conclusion and make sure that any efforts of the Bush Administration to salvage the mess in Iraq fail for lack of supplies, without the Democrats being accused of failing to support the troops.

Now, it will be a simple matter of pointing to the incompetence of the Bush Administration in handling the "Turkish situation."

I do so love American politics ... it is so educational

Random Thoughts 12

2007-09-22T14:00:00.000-04:00

In reviewing the news , I see where the Iranian president and the Ayatollah are back out baiting the U.S. and daring it to smack down Iraq. What is with these guys? It is like they want a fight, and are doing their best to ignite one all the while saying they just want peace. I fear the president what's his name that seem impossible to pronounce as has some apocalyptic vision that he wants to fulfill. It really is haunting though.

.

Random Thoughts 11

2007-09-16T17:40:00.000-04:00

My rant today is about OJ Simpson. Enough already even. I see where Simpson supposedly has been arrested for an incident in Las Vegas where he and his bodyguard entourage allegedly rousted a couple of entrepreneurs who were auctioning off his memorabilia ... which apparently had been illicitly acquired. Well, I really would not like to get worked up over this, but its headline status on the news makes me want to throw up. I guess I am tired of this apparent fixation on Simpson, the murder of his ex-wife and all the other stuff about this once-great football player and sometime movie star.

Why oh why do we get so hung up on celebrities like him? Is it because he is "black" and got away with murder? OK, I don't know if it murdered his ex, the criminal jury said there was reasonable doubt, a civil jury said the preponderance of evidence was that he was responsible for the two deaths and now every one is coming out of the woodwork to say that a book that was ghost written for him is the real truth and Simpson is confessing. Well, they say that confession is good for the soul but I hope the book flops. Of course, given all the media attention, it won't and thousands, if not millions, of copies will be sold.

I guess I want to be an ostrich went it comes to celebrities and just ignore them. Who cares what idiots like Simpson, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Brad Pitt, Angeline Jolie, Katie Couric (did I leave out any names I saw on the front of the checkout rags I saw at the grocery store when I got milk last?) happen to be doing, thinking or outraging?

I know ... it is what passes for news these days ... much like the news of who was appearing in the Colosseum in Rome this week was for the Romans two millennia ago (or was it 15 centuries, who the flip cares?)

I sometimes feel like the Rearden guy in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ... trapped in this world and wanting to change it so people would focus on reality ... but then I could go off on the tangent of whose reality. Anyway, the Sunday New York Times (9/16/07) had an interesting piece that book and Rand's Objectivism philosophy has had on a lot of business leaders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?em&ex=1190088000&en=cd6337257785a5ce&ei=5087%0A

OK, I guess I am done ranting now.

Oh, and for those who want another perspective on Iraq, George Bush, etc.

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/14-09-2007/97145-bush_iraq-0

Random Thoughts 10

2007-09-12T13:02:00.000-04:00

I have been doing my usual thing of reviewing the news on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, and commentary from the Drudge Report and Neil Boortz (He is an Atlanta-based talk-show host who actually went to the same high school I did ... although he was ahead of me by four or five years) and have a whole bunch of random thoughts ... well some are related.

It was interesting to read that Russian President Putin picked a relatively political unknown as prime minister to lead a caretaker government until the parliamentary elections in November and the presidential elections early next year. The thing that most interests me is whether Putin will just leave office (as he is barred from seeking a third term) and pass the reins of power to a successor yet to be determined. That will be the true test of democracy in Russia.. Another thing that sort of amazed me ... here the Russians are a few short months from having an election for president and like nobody is campaigning for the job ... this seems weird, especially when we look at the U.S. where it is like 14 months before the election and still six months before the primary mess begins (I will not digress on that as I think I already have) and most of what is on the news is about the two mobs seeking to become their party’s candidate. It makes one wonder what it going on in Russia these days.

Then, of course, the Russians had to set off a massive fuel-air bomb that was four times more powerful than the reported force of the U.S. MOAB bomb that uses basically the same technology. I think we just reverted back to the 1950s with a schoolyard demonstration of our bomb is bigger than your bomb.

Then there was the item about the Japanese prime minister saying he was stepping down. It is interesting to see the Japanese leadership fall on their swords in traditional fashion when things are not going well for their party. It also is one of the drawbacks of parliamentary systems ... government’s tend to fall all too often which leads to a certain amount of instability. I still think fixed terms are better ... more stable, even if the national media in the U.S. seems to start the campaign for the next election the day after the voters finish voting.

Then there was the massive earthquake down in Indonesia ... I imagine the first questions asked by Bush upon hearing this was: where is the nearest American aircraft carrier; where is the nearest American Marine/Navy amphibious ready group; and where are the Mercy/Comfort/Hope, the hospital ships. Once more, I suspect American forces will leap into the breach with little fanfare or recognition. Such is the way of things.

Last but not least, there is the “Patreaus Report.”

First, it really contained nothing new, nothing unexpected. All the usual suspects said all the usual things and things are pretty much status quo ante. However, I would recommend reading an Al Jazeera analysis for the story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/160735B8-6995-44FA-9891-274A29CF60E5.htm) for the “Arab” take on the story.

Another recommendation would be to read Newt Gingrich’s take on the report (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200709/POL20070911a.html) which I happen to agree with (for the most part). I respect Gingrich as a historian, political theorists and a political bomb thrower, but he has made too many enemies to be an effective leader and his public persona has been ground down to where he really seems to be fringe character these days. That is a long way from his heady days as Speaker of the House. Still, in this case, I think his assessment is right on the mark. Our political leaders have taken the eye off the ball and have lost sight at whom the enemy really is, how it fights and how long this “war” really is going to go on. That is the problem and it is going to sink us. No one seems to have a vision of how to fight this World War IV (WWIII was the Cold War) or at least no one really has articulated a vision how to fight it. Iraq is just one front and, from the comments and actions from one side of the U.S. political spectrum, it is a front that the U.S. has no right to win on. We are just throwing away troops and money on a lost cause. Which leads me to ask what cause they would be willing to invest the lives of our troops and the wherewithal and resources to equip and supply them. Right now, short of tanks on the beach at Atlantic City or Newport Beach or Padre Island or tanks rolling across the desert toward Tucson or El Paso or Austin ... or across the bridge and through the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, I don’t think some Americans think that military force is acceptable ... and I imagine in those cases they would be screaming that the U.S. just needed to negotiate in good faith and confess all its sins and give its wealth away to atone for those sins. I really believe that these people have lost track of the fact that the world they live in is not the same world the rest of us live in. To them I would say: There really are people out there who don’t care if an American is a liberal/progressive or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, worker or management; all they care about is that they intend to kill Americans and do harm to America in any way they possibly can.

It is beyond me how these Americans - as intelligent and as educated as I know them to be - can’t understand that America – the United States – is the object of a love/hate relationship with the rest of the world. For the most part, the rest of the world loves this idealized image of the U.S. and its culture as it is spread through books and magazines, TV and movies, CDs and DVDs, but, at the same time, it hates the U.S. culture because it is not their culture. It also hates the Americans because they keep demonstrating that they don’t really live up to the idealized but artificial image of who and what Americans are.

Yes, Americans can be arrogant ... but so can any other nationality you can name that is proud of their nation and their culture. American “exceptionalism” is not so exceptional, except for the fact that the American system is the most successful in history in providing for needs of its citizens. Look, even the poorest of Americans have a standard of living that far outstrips the poor in other countries. This is not to belittle the poverty (mostly of spirit) that can be found in the U.S., but it is to point out that there are very few, in reality, in the U.S. who lives in the grinding poverty that can be found in most Third World countries and even in some developed countries. This wealth is why a lot of the world resents Americans; that and the fact we keep telling people that if they would just follow our example, it, too, could be theirs. That plus the fact that we often fail to live up to our own ideals and standards, which makes others ask how can we follow such a flawed example.

Nuff ranting for now.

Random Thoughts 9

2007-09-09T02:20:00.000-04:00

I see where Fred Thompson has entered the Republican lists in the contest for the presidency in 2008. This is probably a plus for the GOP ... Thompson comes across on the TV as none of the others do ... due undoubtedly to his years of acting on the big screen and the small screen. He just looks more presidential than the other candidates.

I see where Oprah is raising money for Obama ... I don't think his campaign will want for anything. I am not a Obama fan ... but I am not all that swept up in the Oprah fever that seems to have engulfed afternoon TV watchers. Actually, I have to say, Oprah impresses the heck out of me. She is a tremendous TV personality who connects well with her viewers and is an incredible business woman ... a tycoon in fact.

I read where Bush is asking the Democrats to unite behind him in a bipartisan front on Iraq, given that the surge actually seems to be meeting with at least a modicum of success. Note to tell Dubya: Don't hold your breath. Too many Democrats have invested too much of their soul in destroying his administration to ever be bipartisan. Such is the pettiness of politics in America today.

For an interesting take on the Iraqi front in the "War on Terror", I really do recommend people visit Michael Yon's web site and blog. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iv-of-iv.htm - read the whole series on Anbar http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-1-of-4.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-ghosts-of-anbar-part-ii-of-iv.htm http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/ghosts-of-anbar-part-iii-of-iv.htm

The interesting part is that he says what I beleive ... now ain't the time to cut and run ... but to lead, follow or get the hades out of the way for those who will.

I also see the Mister Bin Laden has rejoined list on the media front of the war between the west and Islamic extremism. Those Al Quaida guys are getting so media savy ... we should be taking notes ... ok, the text of his translated speech is so full holes and screwed up facts but who cares ... his audience doesn't, because like some of those in the U.S. who still think Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, they don't care about the facts.
Anyway, the whole thing is classic propaganda ... oh Where is Frank Capra when we need him? The U.S. desperately needs a new "Why we fight?" series like Capra's films from WWII ... only don't look for Hollywood to help on this one. They seem to be AWOL or working for Major Quisling this time.

Tis enough for now.

Random Thoughts 8

2007-09-03T19:19:00.000-04:00

Sen. Larry Craig.

I don't know what to make of his case. OK, he did plead guilty to disturbing public order, but did he?

I sure has heck don't know, but it bothers me that apparently he is being coerced to resign by a spiteful opposition party and the main stream press. I suppose that had Craig been a Democrat instead of a Republican, that the media would have jumped on this just as hard ... I mean they jumped on the Democratic rep who allegedly got hostile at the National Airport baggage claim area, well sort of did. Of course, he allegedly assaulted a airline worker, and that does, sort of might be, cross the line ... but then nobody called for his resignation.

I guess the issue is that Craig is a hypocrite for being an outspoken opponent to special privileges and rights for gays while being a closet gay person himself .... or is he?

Again, I don't know. Haven't a clue ... but I do know the next time I am in the Minneapolis airport ... or any airport ... or rest area ... or any public rest room ... I ain't gonna wiggle my toes no way, no how.

Hell, I didn't know that was a signal to the person in the next stall that you were soliciting for an illicit homosexual liaison. I am not sure I know anyone who would have had a clue it was. Well, the young adults might, because they usually are plugged into the latest language variations, i.e. slang terms and signals.

It does bother me that nothing apparently was said other than the toe wiggling, that to me seems like the basis for an extremely thin case and one that was wont for abuse of police authority.

And it also bothers me that the Democrats are dumping on this issue so vehemently ... shouldn't they be standing up for the senator's rights as a gay person, since gays make a major constituent group for the party? It just strikes me as being a mite bit hypocritical and more than mite bit peevish.

Anyway ... I think if all the hypocrites in public offices in Washington were forced to resign and leave town tomorrow ... a great hush would fall over the city.

Random Thoughts 7

2007-08-13T14:24:00.000-04:00

I have been hanging out of late at a web site for writers (www.helium.com), which seems to be an eclectic place with both mostly poets and occasional scribes. Anyway, they do have discussion threads for a host of different topics including one on the liberal bias of the mainstream news media.

In that vein, I came across and interesting article by a former BBC editor I would commend to any one's perusal. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece) Having been a journalist for most of my life, and having witnessed exactly what this former editor says, his take is spot on ... even for a Brit.

I also note that Dubya's top political advisor is stepping down from his official White House position at the end of the month. I imagine the Democrats and anti-Bush Luddites with be jumping with joy at this news. Thinking as many do, I believe, that Rove was one of Bush's puppet masters and Dubya is just a mouthpiece and puppet on a string, I fear they are going to be surprised to find that the president is going to be just about the same. I think those who hate Bush to the point of myopia, fail to see that what is going on in the White House at this time is almost predictable. The end times for this administration is near and those weary from the constant struggle in the highly partisan environment that is our nation these day, especially its capital, are leaving the epicenter in order to prepare to get on with their lives. This is just one more step that belies the canard I seem to hear so often in the blogosphere about King George and how he is a threat to democracy and our freedoms and the nation is going to hell in a hand basket. Well, it ain't and he ain't. I predict that on January 20, 2009, at noon, someone not George W. Bush will be standing in front of the U.S. Capitol Building taking the oath of office as president of the United States in what remains the most exceptional and incredible acts in the world: The peaceful transition of power from one administration to another. After which George Jr. will return to Texas and do whatever ex-presidents are wont to do.

A lot can happen between now and then, but I am willing to bet my shirt that everything that can be done will be done to make this peaceful transition occur as scheduled and on time.

Random thoughts 6

2007-08-05T19:51:00.000-04:00

Question for the day: Should the United States pull its troops out of Iraq and surrounding countries in the Middle East to stop the violence?

Not unless everyone stops looking to the United States for leadership is my thought.

If the U.S. pulled out the Middle East, why should it not also pull out all the other countries where it has forces forward deployed?

The problem is that because the U.S. is the 900-pound gorilla in world affairs, it is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Today, the U.S. with its huge economy that drives much of the world’s commerce is dependent upon and inexorably linked to the economies of other countries. It cannot just withdraw and try to isolate itself, to be dependent on its own resources and no other markets.

The same holds true militarily. There are those who are begging for the Americans to intervene in Dafur and the Sudan, while nothing was done in Bosnia and Kosovo until the Americans took the lead. When disaster strikes, who often is the first responder to bring immediate relief? It is the U.S. military, which has the resources, the training and the capability to go almost anywhere in the world.

Many countries took for granted during the Cold War the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella that kept the Soviet Union at bay for more than 40 years. The war in Korea happened because the U.S. said South Korea was outside its area of interest. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 happened because the U.S. told Saddam Hussein that the sheikdom was outside the area of American defense interests.

If the Americans are to withdraw, then don’t ask them to return or intervene anywhere, militarily or economically. No military aid or economic assistance and the Americans will not be there to help those asking for American help and/or leadership.

IF the Americans pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (physically impossible, but let’s consider the hypothetical), what would be the result? Would peace immediately descend on Iraq? Does anyone really believe that? No, the factions – tribal groups, clans, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds – probably would descend into a frenzy of internecine warfare as they jockeyed for power and dominance. Little to no effort would be made to achieve political compromise or community co-existence. And who would be blamed? Not the Iraqis, not the foreign jihadists flooding the country. No, it would be blamed on the Americans.

The Americans always are responsible for everyone else’s problems. It is easier to blame the Americans than to look inward and find where the responsibility truly lies.

The sad thing is the Americans are guppies and they have yet to overcome their innate desire to do good in the world. In their blind arrogance and imperious hubris, surrounded by their incredible wealth, they can’t see that nothing they do in the world will be perceived as attempting to help the less fortunate, to protect the weak, and to help end the killing.

Random Thoughts 5

2007-08-03T23:33:00.000-04:00

Does the war on terror threaten civil liberties in the US?

Short answer: No

Long Answer:

What are Americans’ “civil” liberties?
- The freedom of religion?
- The freedom of speech?
- The freedom of the press?
- The freedom to freely associate with others?
- The freedom to peaceably assemble?
- The freedom to seek redress of grievances?
- The freedom to own property?
- The freedom to travel?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government in our private lives and affairs?

Before we determine if the war on terror is threatening American’s civil liberties, we have to define what civil liberties we are talking about. Then we can rationally discuss what those threats are and how we should we deal with them.

First, freedom of religion, the right we have to worship (or not worship) god/gods in our own way (I hope that definition is sufficient for most). How has the war on terror affected this? Well, it has drawn scrutiny to Muslim mosques and for a very good reason: So far almost all of the terrorists who have attacked Americans at home and around the word recently have been Muslims. It stands to reason that a mosque, where Muslims congregate, would garner more attention from government’s limited resources than a Quaker meetinghouse. Quakers are not likely to go around blowing things up; so far, Muslims have done most of that. It makes sense to observe the Muslim community, where most of the latest crop of homicide bombers has emerged. To do otherwise, then those who are paid to protect and serve people and society at large would be terribly remiss. However, the government has not closed any mosques or threatened large numbers of Muslim-Americans with prison without charge and without recourse to judicial review.

Granted, a small number of Muslims (and yes a couple of thousand among six billion on the planet – or even less the 300 million in the United States – is a relatively small number) have been detained by the U.S. government, mostly non-U.S. citizens. Many, if not most, of those who have been detained already have been released. Some even have been documented as to having had returned to waging war on America and Americans.
Now, a brief digression: The U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the other codes and laws that govern American life are not a suicide pact. Vested in the power of the American government is the inherent power of doing whatever is necessary to protect the nation and its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. And we are at war ... and have been at war for many years ... with members of the Islamic civilization/culture/religion. We may not acknowledge this fact, but it is the truth, as the Jihadists go to some length to keep reminding us. The government of the United States (made up mostly of citizens of the U.S.) has an affirmative obligation to take measures, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to protect Americans from these enemies. To do otherwise, would be malfeasance of the highest order. From all accounts, for better or worse, President George W. Bush is taking this task with utmost sincerity.

Other than observing, what has the Bush Administration actually done to infringe upon the right to worship freely in this country? No action whatsoever has been taken that I have heard and I doubt you will hear of any soon.

Freedom of Speech: No laws have been passed restricting speech as part of the war on terror that I am aware of, except maybe the PC codes at a variety of major colleges and universities and a number of “hate speech” laws aimed at criminalizing thoughts. I have seen no politicians of any stripe being hauled off to detention merely voicing their opinion. There have been a few, whose conduct has been less than savory, who have been hauled off for doing things that really were blatantly criminal ... bribery, selling votes, etc. However, no one has been hauled off to prison for saying vicious things about Dubya and accusing him of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, not that the president and his advisors don’t probably wish they could.

Freedom of the press: After one remembers that the freedom of the press extends only to he (or she) who owns the press, I know of no law or regulation stemming from the war on terror that has been used to shut down or limit any person, organization or business for saying whatever they want about the war on terror (which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and a multitude of other fronts in a truly global conflict), even if some of which would be libel or slander if directed at a truly private citizen; or, if not that, considered treasonous in an earlier day and age. The only assault on the freedom of the press that I am aware of is the campaign to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine”, which truly is an assault on the freedom of the press because injects government into decisions about what will or will not run or be aired those who own the presses (or radio or TV stations).

Freedom of association: Again, I know of no law that has been passed to criminalize associations ... unless you want to count local and state laws intended to curtail the criminal activities of gangs and organized crime. There, however, have been no laws passed that criminalize political associations whose views, tactics, outlooks may be less popular in the mainstream quarters. Yes, right-wing militias and black and white supremacy organizations still exist.

The freedom to peaceably assemble: How has this been infringed on in the past five years? Well, I don’t see large groups of protesters of any stripe being hauled off to jail, much less concentration camps. In fact, other that Guantanamo Bay (which is more of a war prison than a concentration camp), I have heard no reports, or even rumors, of any detention facilities for such protestors. Now there was the case of the imams on that airplane who as a group were asked to deplane after they made a disturbance and acted in such a fashion as to arouse the suspicions of the passengers and airline crew. It is like a supreme court justice once said, people do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you are acting like a duck, then you are liable to be treated like a duck and that is reality.

The freedom to seek redress of grievances: Just because Congress or the State Legislature or County Commission or City Council doesn’t act on your petition the way you want does not mean that your right to petition for redress of whatever grievances you may have has been infringed upon in any way ... just means other people disagree with you. No, the war on terror has had no impact on this right.

The freedom to own property? Again, at last look, we still have the right to own just about anything we want, except maybe drug paraphernalia but that is unrelated to the war on terror. So, I don’t see how the war on terror has impinged on our right to own stuff ... unless you count the prohibition on owning machineguns and other implements of war, which by all rights should be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, nothing in the government’s war on Islamic extremists have affected this right.

The freedom to travel: Other than have to undergo identity checks in airports and screening for carrying potential weapons, our freedom to travel anywhere in the U.S. (except a few top secret military bases in Nevada and Utah where they secretly test alien technology) has not been infringed upon. Granted, you do have to prove you aren’t carrying anything that might be classed as a weapon when you fly, but you have say that is an understandable requirement (although definitely overkill) in light of the events of 9/11/01.

The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property: Ah ha! Herein lies the rub, so to speak. Just how much expectation can we have of privacy from unwanted, versus unwarranted, intrusion on our property? Well, given the technology available to just about anybody with the right price, we have more to fear from our neighbors than we do than the government, which easily has the money to invest in the equipment. Unless every other person starts working for a government surveillance agency, government usually has to target its resources rather just cast wide nets.

In our modern world of web cams, cell cams, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, global telecommunications, the Internet, we are going to have to redefine our expectations of privacy. A junior high school hacker could do more to intrude on our privacy than the federal government ever can. Given the diffuse nature of the Internet, it is impossible to expect that anything you pass electronically from point A to Point B can truly be expected to be private. The same for anything said over the telephone or conveyed by any electronic means. In this world, there literally is no place to hide and no way to keep secrets. Too many people, mostly non-governmental actors, can find ways to monitor our communications, our activities, our lifestyles. The war on terror has done nothing to changes this, other than to make us all aware that some who are charged to watch over the safety of us all want the legal authority to do things Jack Bauer on “24” does on every episode (which is fantasy, but not reality).

Now, there is the question of the freedom of cruel and unusual punishments, which I supposed includes interrogation techniques for suspected and known terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans and/or America. Do different rules apply for non-U.S. citizens who have declared war on the U.S. and refuse to honor the Geneva Convention rules for combatants in wartime? Besides, what is “torture”? It reminds me of necessities and luxuries ... what is one man’s luxury is another man’s necessity. Again, unless the interrogators are more like Jack Bauer, I suspect that their techniques are a bit of a stretch to really call torture. Besides, at least we don’t videotape our interrogators slitting throats and cutting off heads, which we know the Jihadists do. And if you call the hijinks at Abu Graib prison torture, then I think you really must have led a sheltered existence. A fraternity hell week was worse than that.

No, the war on terror has not eroded Americans’ civil liberties. Those they had before are still there, unaffected by this administration or its opposition. If anything, technology poses a greater threat than the government but the American government, by design, is too incompetent and inefficient to be such a threat.

Random Thoughts 4

2007-07-25T19:48:00.000-04:00

While perusing the news today, I noticed an article on representatives from Jordan and Egypt going to Israel to extend the hand of peace from the Arab League.

Could it be? It is a first for the Arab League to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. Now, Jordan and Egypt both have signed peace treaties with the Jewish State, but the rest of the Arab world still was advocating the elimination of the Zionist entity on the ancient lands known as Palestine the last time I looked. Of course, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah still are trying to wipe the Jews of the map ... or at least harass them to death.

The plan being offered by the Arab League apparently is the same one put forth by the Saudis not to far back ... which basically was to return to the borders prior to 1967, which basically were the borders offered the Arabs when the old British Palestinian Mandate was partitioned by the United Nations in 1948. Ironic, in a way, trying to return to the status quo ante of some 60 years ago.

Of course, the Arabs want the "right of return" of the displaced Palestinians (who the Arabs have kept as their pet refugees for the last six decades) to their old property in Israel. I am not sure the Israelis will accept that, not being privy to their councils, but I am not sure they should. The corollary would be for the Arabs to allow all the displaced Jews from their countries who found refuge in the Jewish State after 1948 to return to claim their properties and fortunes they had to leave behind when they left their homes.

The tragedy of the Middle East is that the Holy Land is a trice-promised place and holds places sacred to three of the world's largest religions (actually more, if you split the Christian church into its various denominations and Islam into its two major camps) which makes it difficult, if not impossible to resolve disputes over who should control what and where.

Many times I have felt that the U.S. should just step back and then let the residents on both sides fight themselves to a standstill and God sorts it all out. Sort of the old warrior motto; "Kill them all and let God sort it out."

The other thought I have on the Middle East peace process ... is why is the U.S. even involved in it (I know, OIL). No matter what we do, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't. Just look at Iraq and you can see it is a classic illustration of that. The world expects the U.S. to lead, but rarely wants to go where the U.S. leads ... it would be a sign of weakness if they did and would "compromise their independence." Yes, Virginia, the U.S. is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. We do have the largest economy that pretty much acts as a primer pump for the rest of the world ... if it wasn't for the U.S. economy soaking up so much commerce, much of the rest of the world would be broke. For instance, if the U.S. didn't buy so much oil from countries like Venezuela, then people like Hugo Chavez wouldn't have the funds to play petty socialist king. So, the U.S. whether it likes it or not, is stuck ... it has to lead.

And it doesn't help that the U.S. military stands literally head and shoulders above all the others when it comes to training, equipment and professionalism. Thank you FDR and the Japanese for that. Before WWII, the U.S. didn't have much of a military, just a cadre of brilliant strategic and tactical thinkers. As a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, Truman and those who have followed them have vowed that the U.S. never would let its strength flag militarily and our armed forces would be second to none. And that pretty much has been the case ... well sort of ... we weren't prepared for the Korean War because we put all our eggs in the nuclear response basket. Pretty much the same can be said for Vietnam ... we had the wrong force for the wrong war. The 1970s were pretty grim and had a conventional war broken out in Europe, we and our NATO allies would have been hard pressed to hold back a Warsaw Pact onslaught ... although there are a myriad of questions whether the Warsaw Pact ever was a strong as we thought.

In fact, the last 60 years have been an aberration in that we have invested so much of our resources into maintaining military capabilities. You see, the distaste with which much of the progressive side of the political spectrum holds the military and military service is pretty much a time honored American tradition. It reminds me of a Rudyard Kipling poem that ends:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

(Tommy being the equivalent of GI Joe)

Americans have never be happy with a large standing military, but then there was a time when if you weren't a member of the local militia unit, you were really looked down upon; and there was a time when the elites saw military service (as a commissioned officer) had a noble obligation that was sort a requirement (at least hold a reserve commission). But the Regular Army or the regulars never have gotten much respect (and still don't).

I wouldn't go into my paean to today's young service men and women ... I will just say they truly are the best.

Random Thoughts 3

2007-07-24T20:33:00.000-04:00

A few passing comments on the news.

I didn't watch the debate in Charleston because they really are inane. They really are just beauty pageants with very little substance. They seem to add little to the discourse or really to outline solutions to pressing issues, much less define the subtle differences between candidates -- that being something that takes more than 45 to 60 seconds to explain, which is about all the time the herd of candidates have for each to explain their answer to the questions. I thought the question presentations were clever, from the clips I have seen on the Web today, if not all that probing.
I wonder what the reaction would be today if debates on the model of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850's were held. First, I doubt very much that any of today's political figures could mount such a sustained conversation. Second, I doubt very much our ADD-afflicted society could sit still and try to hear both sides out ... although in the current atmosphere, with like 18 people vying for two slots on the ballot, such a debate format would be difficult ... no, impossible to accomplish.
Another thing that bugs the devil out of me is that the MSM, in true and usual fashion, is treating the 2008 presidential campaign like it is a horse race ... unfortunately, the real race won't be run for about 16 months and everything that is so breathlessly reported today will be meaningless then. This is something I fought at the papers I worked at for more than 30 years.
I really think the founders had a better idea, because there is no provision for political parties in the constitution. Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for political parties, I just don't think it is government's role to supervise their internal fights for leadership and power.
In my utopian world, both the federal government and the states would get out of the business of holding primary elections (unless it was necessary to narrow the field to the top two candidates). In a way, I like the parliamentary system in that when it comes to elections ... call an election and six weeks later it happens, but that doesn't fit the bill for our political elites. Actually, what I would like to do is have (for federal races, which the states could piggyback on) a national primary held the first Tuesday in September, with the national general election held the first Tuesday in November. Now, here is my way of screening candidates and it leaves a major role for the political parties: In order to qualify for being a candidate on the ballot, each candidate has to get a petition signed by (pulling a number out of the hat) 5 percent of the registered voters. In keeping with the federal nature of our government, a national candidate (president) would have to get some percentage, say 5 percent, in each of the 53 federal jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam). Senate candidates would have to get 5 percent in each county in their state, while House candidates also would have to get 5 percent of the voters in their district within a state.
In a digression, we would retain the electoral college with its proportional representation, with the addition of one vote for non-state federal jurisdictions.
Each state or jurisdiction would verify the petitions and the candidate's name would be on the primary ballot. In the national election, only candidates who qualify in all 53 jurisdictions, would appear on the ballot. These petitions would be validated no later than July 1 or a candidate would not be on the ballot.
There would be no "state-run" party primaries. The parties could stage partisan primaries, but they would have to foot the bill as well as organize and hold them. State and local governments would not be involved, unless it was to hand out current voter registration lists. The beauty of this approach is that it offers opportunities for a third option.
Now it would be nice if the MSM would acknowledge there sometimes are third options or fourth options, but in their myopia they remain focused on the dicotomy of the Democrat/Republican divide. I image it would surprise most people to know that there were third options in the last several elections, with the same candidate qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states (an example being the Libertarian candidate in every election since about 1992), but the MSM ignores this potentially viable (because it is on the ballot in all states) option because it is not between the familiar options.
But then, my opinion truly is utopian ... so I don't expect anything to come of my idea.

Random Thoughts 2

2007-07-23T14:38:00.000-04:00

There are a few words I would like to share, not my own, but I will add my thoughts.

Supposedly, in like 1803, there was this New York State Superior Court Judge who said:

"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature sits."

I find that thought chillingly true two centuries later while our national (U.S.) legislature sits in Washington, D.C.

An editorialist for many years, I often have been driven to comment on the workings of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches. Today, the Congressional leadership drives me to distraction. They speak as demigods who have lost touch with reality and offer no coherent plan or program that is both intellectually and emotionally consistent.

What probably distresses me the most is that it seems that we Americans seem to have lost all perspective and no longer think beyond the next quarter's bottom line. We must, and we must come up with cogent and coherent plans to deal with not just the next quarter but the next 100 quarters.

My Canadian relatives sometimes ask me my views of the current political landscape in my country and I always seem to speak with tones of anguish and disappointment. Not only in our leadership but also in the body politic at large. It truly is distressing that there seems to be a large body of people out there who have little to no understanding of the American system of governance. The United States is not a pure democracy but it is a democratic republic (if, as Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, we "can keep it."). It is not a parliamentary democracy but rather a federal republic with a written constitution that means what it says and often not what a lot of people think it says. It is designed (with malice aforethought, me thinks) to be inefficient and unwieldy, so its integral checks and balances have time to play out. But today, in an era of instant gratification and amusement, there are those who tolerances for delay have never been developed. I am reminded of two quotes from my childhood -- "Patience is a learned virtue" and "If it is good, then it is worth waiting for." Patience is a virtue we seem in desperately short supply of.

As a nation, we also seem to have this perverse habit of looking back on things we can not change and probably do not accept and lay it at the feet of some grand conspiracy.

For example, to those whose view of George W. Bush is so slanted that they still accuse him of stealing the 2000 election, I find that -- like those of us in the South who still view the Confederacy as something to venerate -- I want to tell them that (a) that battle is over and (b) the point is now moot, so it is time to get over it. Of course, like I sometimes point out to my Southern brethren, that any way you want to look at it -- slavery was at the bottom of the reasons that prompted the War of Yankee Aggression. To those who still accuse Bush of stealing the election, it is uncomfortable to remind them that a recount conducted by the leading outlets of what is now called the MSM (main stream media) in 2001 found that in just about all the scenarios, Bush still won by small numbers of votes. So, in a way, it could be argued that Gore was attempting to steal the election in Florida by way of the judicial branch. The end result of the first Tuesday in November 2000 found three days later being the same as the one that was found in May and June of 2001.

I won't go into my dissertation on the rationale and reasons for the electoral college and the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing it today but will save that for a later post.

To the great conspiracy theorists: I wish they knew the government like I know the government. To this day, I remain surprised that anything classified remains a secret.

As for the Iraq War, the great issue of the current generation: It is a just cause and a noble effort. It is still ours to lose ... or win, although, like Vietnam, I believe we lack the political will to do so. That is unfortunate, for all the soldiers I know who have been over there want and think we can achieve victory, if we keep at it.

To those who subscribe to the view that "Bush lied, people died!" perspective: I view these people with great sadness. There was no grand neo-conservative conspiracy to take the U.S. to war in Iraq. What there was was an effort by essentially well-meaning people, doing what they thought was correct, acting on imperfect and often inaccurate information, trying to build the broadest coalition possible, who made less that perfect decisions.

HELLO, WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

Don't view me as a defender of Dubya. I don't agree with him on a host of issues (although I voted for him twice, that was a matter of my judgement of the lesser of two evils -- id est: voting less for someone as against the other person who had more faults). And his abilities as a communicator and a leader leave a lot to be desired. However, he has earned my grudging respect. In the wake of 9/11, he chose to do something proactive and actively respond to those who wish all Americans ill. This was new, in my life time.

Did Dubya pick the right fights? I don't know. I do know that the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein was unsustainable and would have collapsed. The sustainment of the no fly zones was costly in both lives and treasury and dispatching thousands of troops to sit in the sand while the U.N. arms inspectors were piddled and diddled was unworkable solution. Like those today who augur for the withdrawal from Iraq, I heard no coherent or cogent explanation of what to do after. What is your plan after the sanctions regime collapsed or the troops were withdrawn? What is your plan for the day after today? Under what contingencies are you willing to act? Under what circumstances would you deploy U.S. service members and under what rules of engagement?

Am I only among a few who view this current conflict from an historical perspective and realize that it truly has been fought on the cheap from beginning to end (and that is one of its major problems -- opting for doing it on the cheap). And yes, it is about OIL, but not for us as much as for our trading partners which in the end benefits us. Still, if it wasn't for oil, then we would not be trying to create an oasis of stability, democracy and hopefully tolerance in a region that such concepts seem as alien as something from outer space. It may be a utopian dream but I for one would rather believe that it is a universal dream.

Am I among the few who take people at their word? I don't try to parse what they are saying, but accept their words at face value. If the jihadiis say they want to kill Americans and destroy America, then I don't try to analyze the underlying problems they have or why they think that way ... I take them at face value. There are people out there who hate America, its way of life, its political and economic system and want to destroy it. I take them at their word.

Such as if the president of Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map ... I don't take it as a rhetorical device ... I take it that he means exactly that and if he can find a way to do it, will endeavor to accomplish that act.

And for those who babble about impeachment ... why waste our energy. Bush will be gone in less that 18 months and Dick Cheney along with him. Besides, impeachment would never get 67 votes in the Senate, so it is bound to fail. It really would a major waste of time, money and energy. Is this payback for the Republican effort in 1998 to remove Clinton? Let us not be so petty and have a little faith and patience in the American system of governence.

And another canard repeated by some who seem to be devoting their lives to hating GWB, I have yet to see how Bush has acted as a tyrant ... unless it is his failure the heed to advice of the progressive side of the body politic. I know not where he has violated with intent any law or criminal statute. Granted that he has done many things, advocated many policies that are actively opposed by many of different political perspectives, but he has not confiscated the property of any class of citizens without following the proscriptions of the law. He has not jailed his political opponents or seized their communications outlets as say has Hugo Chavez has in Venezuela. Chavez's latest thing is to expell all outspoken foreign critics. Those seem more the actions of a tyrant. Nor have I seen any effort by Dubya to change the constitution in order to stay in office.

I may be a simple man at heart, but I do judge people by their actions and their rhetoric. And if their rhetoric fails to match the observeable world, then their credibility is suspect.

Tis a strange world we live in ... and I only hope that we will survive.

Random Thoughts 1

2007-07-23T13:57:00.000-04:00

There is a old doggerel (a poem/song - in this case written by the operattists Gilbert and Sullivan) taught to me by my father lo these many years ago that began.

'TWAS on the shores that round our coast

From Deal to Ramsgate span,

That I found alone on a piece of stone

An elderly naval man.

His hair was weedy, his beard was long,

And weedy and long was he,

And I heard this wight on the shore recite,

In a singular minor key:

Oh, I am the cook and the captain bold

And the mate of the Nancy Brig

And a bosun tight and a midshipmite,

and the crew of the captain's gig ...

In a sense this is a my song in my own singular minor key.

And I will be your cook and captain bold, the mate, the bosun tight, the midshipmite and the crew of the captain's gig (its rifleman, if you care to know what position, the same spot I held on the boat crew of the USS Meredith some 35 years ago)