There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.' Mitt Romney Address: "Faith in America"
I think most of us are tired of the war on religion. The fact that Mitt Romney was called upon to explain his own religion should, and probably does, rankle a good number of us. Personally, I thought JFK put the matter to bed in 1960. Yet, here are Romney's detractors telling him he has to justify having a different religion. And this from the same people who want to diminish the meaning of religion.
So Mitt Romney, calling their bluff, gets out there and says something 90% of us believe: That there is a higher authority than government, and none of us have the right to usurp His role. The beauty of that is that now that Romney has said this, everybody else either has to say "me, too" or attempt to refute it. I'd like to see somebody try the latter.
George W. Bush was a man of faith, too. He was no theologian, but he, too, understood the difference between providence and Providence. Turns out that his simple, resolute faith was a significant difference maker in the election. If the areligious minority out there wants to paint Mitt Romney with that color of GWB, I think they have made a big tactical error. Going a little further; this event could very well cause religion to be the defining issue for the election. In that case, I'm betting on God.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Edwards signs in.
Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual's wages for purposes of collecting "back premiums with interest and collection costs." --ABC News: Political Radar
For a while there, I was afraid we were never going to see the color of Edwards' stripe. He's probably no different from the average Dem candidate in this respect; however by actually coming out and saying he wants another piece of our paychecks, well, it is remarkable for that alone.
It has been about controlling our lives for so long, they are no longer sensitive or shy about exposing their ultimate and final target... Your wallet!
For a while there, I was afraid we were never going to see the color of Edwards' stripe. He's probably no different from the average Dem candidate in this respect; however by actually coming out and saying he wants another piece of our paychecks, well, it is remarkable for that alone.
It has been about controlling our lives for so long, they are no longer sensitive or shy about exposing their ultimate and final target... Your wallet!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Obama makes a point
"We can spend billion after billion on education in this country. We can develop a program for every problem imaginable and we can fund those programs with every last dime we have. But there is no program and no policy that can substitute for a parent who is involved in their child's education from day one," he said.
Obama said he would accredit college programs, remove poorly performing teachers from classrooms and increase time spent on math and science instruction. He said mentoring programs are key to keeping good teachers involved and improving struggling ones.
Barry O. has a point, even if it is buried in the context of a very Democrat-like 18 Billion dollar spending bill. Actually, a Democrat telling the truth about his spending plans is kind of different by itself. Anyway, the accountability angle wins him a point.
Obama said he would accredit college programs, remove poorly performing teachers from classrooms and increase time spent on math and science instruction. He said mentoring programs are key to keeping good teachers involved and improving struggling ones.
Barry O. has a point, even if it is buried in the context of a very Democrat-like 18 Billion dollar spending bill. Actually, a Democrat telling the truth about his spending plans is kind of different by itself. Anyway, the accountability angle wins him a point.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Huckabee whiffs
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
Dear Mike: The law of this land requires that these issues be left to the states. Regardless of how you feel about slavery or abortion, you would first have to change how laws are made. Or is government to become whatever you want it to be? That's precisely how we got into this mess. Mike, we were hoping you would make some progress here. Instead, you lose a point.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
Dear Mike: The law of this land requires that these issues be left to the states. Regardless of how you feel about slavery or abortion, you would first have to change how laws are made. Or is government to become whatever you want it to be? That's precisely how we got into this mess. Mike, we were hoping you would make some progress here. Instead, you lose a point.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Debate Double Feature
Politico's Roger Simon reports:
Though often accused of not being clear on what she would do to save the Social Security system, Clinton was very clear during the debate about one thing: She was against Obama’s plan to increase Social Security taxes on some people making more than $97,000 a year. “I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors,” she said.
“If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.” A visibly upset Obama responded: “Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 a year. So six percent is not the middle class. It is the upper class!”
Score one for Hillary, and take one away from Barry.
Dodd, McCain, Clinton +1
Obama, Thompson -1
Though often accused of not being clear on what she would do to save the Social Security system, Clinton was very clear during the debate about one thing: She was against Obama’s plan to increase Social Security taxes on some people making more than $97,000 a year. “I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors,” she said.
“If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.” A visibly upset Obama responded: “Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 a year. So six percent is not the middle class. It is the upper class!”
Score one for Hillary, and take one away from Barry.
Dodd, McCain, Clinton +1
Obama, Thompson -1
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Globaloney Comes Full Circle
According to a recent report, we're ostensibly not offsetting enough carbon molecules.
First the "scientists" tell us that emissions are not pure enough. So engineers invent scrubbers, now emissions can be pure. Then the "scientists" say the pure emissions (carbon dioxide) are the problem, so the politicians invent carbon offsets. Everybody plants trees. The "scientists" tell us it isn't working.
I see where this is going. I say we tell the "scientists" to take a long hike off a short pier.
First the "scientists" tell us that emissions are not pure enough. So engineers invent scrubbers, now emissions can be pure. Then the "scientists" say the pure emissions (carbon dioxide) are the problem, so the politicians invent carbon offsets. Everybody plants trees. The "scientists" tell us it isn't working.
I see where this is going. I say we tell the "scientists" to take a long hike off a short pier.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Fred Fumbles
"I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a [federal] law" that "would take young, young girls . . . and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail." -- Fred Thompson, NBC's Meet the Press, Sunday 11/4/2007
Letting liberals frame the issues is the surest sign of a weak candidate. This issue is too important to let outlying/spurious/inflammatory arguments see the light of day. This issue of Roe v. Wade is about many important things, especially about States rights, and the over-reach of the judiciary, and how laws are made in this country. To even suggest that it is about "putting little girls in jail" is an argument only an irrational leftist would would be expected to advance. Fred, I have to deduct a point. Thanks for playing, and do try to keep up.
(Dodd 1; McCain 1; Thompson -1).
Letting liberals frame the issues is the surest sign of a weak candidate. This issue is too important to let outlying/spurious/inflammatory arguments see the light of day. This issue of Roe v. Wade is about many important things, especially about States rights, and the over-reach of the judiciary, and how laws are made in this country. To even suggest that it is about "putting little girls in jail" is an argument only an irrational leftist would would be expected to advance. Fred, I have to deduct a point. Thanks for playing, and do try to keep up.
(Dodd 1; McCain 1; Thompson -1).
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
McCain scores in Iowa
News item: Ames, Ia. - Presidential candidate John McCain told biofuel proponents here Monday night that he opposes government subsidies on ethanol the same way he opposes subsidies on other products, including oil. --The Des Moines Register
What's remarkable about John McCain's statement is that he went into Ames Iowa to say it. Getting it right in the middle of people praying to hear the other answer takes a lot of guts. John McCain gets a point for being right. Meanwhile, Chris Dodd at the same confab couldn't resist mentioning global warming and talking up a carbon tax. I was tempted to deduct a point for that, but it's not exceptionally bright or stupid to talk about such things if you are a democrat.
Tally: (Dodd 1, McCain 1)
What's remarkable about John McCain's statement is that he went into Ames Iowa to say it. Getting it right in the middle of people praying to hear the other answer takes a lot of guts. John McCain gets a point for being right. Meanwhile, Chris Dodd at the same confab couldn't resist mentioning global warming and talking up a carbon tax. I was tempted to deduct a point for that, but it's not exceptionally bright or stupid to talk about such things if you are a democrat.
Tally: (Dodd 1, McCain 1)
Monday, November 05, 2007
Dodd Draws First Blood
I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we're dealing with a serious problem here ... The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it."
"We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here. But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view." -- Christopher Dodd, Oct 31, 2007.
Christopher Dodd wasn't even on my radar; and here he is scoring the first points in the debate. I gave it to him as the only Democrat to get it right. The republicans may also get it right, but they don't get the score. They're supposed to get this one right. (Score: Dodd, 1, everyone else, 0).
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Election Season Begins
A democracy is a place where numerous elections are held, at great cost, without issues, and with interchangeable candidates. – Gore Vidal
Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery. – Frank Chodorov
An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose Bierce
I thought I would take more interest in the election by this time, it being now one year from the 2008 presidential election. Generating enthusiasm is difficult when all the leading candidates have voiced their continuing support for "the error of big government". At this point, the choice now has to be made among those who have already declared to run. So let's see where we are with that:
On the Republican side, the two most presidential candidates (Huckabee and Hunter) act like they are running for vice-president, which leaves the field of true aspirants to Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul, and McCain. Of them, only Paul supports the constitution, but in such a way to make people tired of hearing about it. McCain waffles on the most important issues, and takes strong stands on the least of them. Thompson took extra time to plan his entry, and then tired of the race almost immediately. Who does that leave? Rudy and Mitt. Mitt probably is more qualified, but could easily disappear in his own photo op. This leaves Rudy, who has quite a few eliminating attributes himself.
Fortunately, they only have to beat the Democrats. We have Barack Obama whose best hope is to become the next Dan Quayle. We have John Edwards who comes across as the ambulance chasing con-artist he is. Finally, there's Hillary. A recent poll showed that there were 56% of likely votors who would never vote for her. I'll leave the math to you, but in a two party election, that would have to be a concern.
With this field of candidates, I would suppose that a large number of likely voters would start to become less likely to vote as November approaches. I think at this point we have to give everybody a do-over. I'll resolve to do my part. I intend to watch and listen carefully to the candidates, and if they say something that fits in the top 10% of profundity or in the bottom 10%. We can keep a running score on who would be the best candidates.
If there are few postings here, that would signal that nobody has earned your vote, and neither has anybody disearned it. The fun starts tomorrow, so be sure and check with us often.
Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery. – Frank Chodorov
An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose Bierce
I thought I would take more interest in the election by this time, it being now one year from the 2008 presidential election. Generating enthusiasm is difficult when all the leading candidates have voiced their continuing support for "the error of big government". At this point, the choice now has to be made among those who have already declared to run. So let's see where we are with that:
On the Republican side, the two most presidential candidates (Huckabee and Hunter) act like they are running for vice-president, which leaves the field of true aspirants to Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul, and McCain. Of them, only Paul supports the constitution, but in such a way to make people tired of hearing about it. McCain waffles on the most important issues, and takes strong stands on the least of them. Thompson took extra time to plan his entry, and then tired of the race almost immediately. Who does that leave? Rudy and Mitt. Mitt probably is more qualified, but could easily disappear in his own photo op. This leaves Rudy, who has quite a few eliminating attributes himself.
Fortunately, they only have to beat the Democrats. We have Barack Obama whose best hope is to become the next Dan Quayle. We have John Edwards who comes across as the ambulance chasing con-artist he is. Finally, there's Hillary. A recent poll showed that there were 56% of likely votors who would never vote for her. I'll leave the math to you, but in a two party election, that would have to be a concern.
With this field of candidates, I would suppose that a large number of likely voters would start to become less likely to vote as November approaches. I think at this point we have to give everybody a do-over. I'll resolve to do my part. I intend to watch and listen carefully to the candidates, and if they say something that fits in the top 10% of profundity or in the bottom 10%. We can keep a running score on who would be the best candidates.
If there are few postings here, that would signal that nobody has earned your vote, and neither has anybody disearned it. The fun starts tomorrow, so be sure and check with us often.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wizer One-Liner #13
Sitting through a John Kerry meeting isn't painful enough, you have to be tased, too.
Friday, August 31, 2007
We need better scandals
News item: Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez resigns on August 27, 2007
In the article Connecting the Dots, we pointed out why only a grossly distorted view of facts and history could discern the trees of scandal within this political forest. Yet it was enough to stop the wheels of progress and derail a much needed makeover for the Justice Department. And you thought Bush was too stubborn to surrender.
Public service has taken its toll on a remarkably high number of executives in this administration. Every time I see a John Ashcroft or a Karl Rove bail out, it's evident that at least in part, it's because they don't need the kind of aggravation that comes with trying to do the right thing--or in many cases, undo the wrong thing. The staff at the Justice department as well as those at the UN and the State department had come to enjoy their positions with no regard for accountability. The one attribute that characterizes most leaders as they charge up a hill, is the fact that they have as many arrows in their backs as in their fronts. That comes with the territory. Yes, the arrows come from the sides, too when you are a republican. The press will seldom stay out of an otherwise fair fight, when it involves a republican leader.
Take a look at this list of scandal-tainted victims: Tom DeLay, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld. All of these individuals fought their respective systems, and have only dissilusionment to show for their troubles. Some who fought the good fight continue that fight, and I give them credit for that (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, John Roberts, and many more). All of these individuals are just that, individuals, standing up for what they believe is right.
Contrast that with the conspiracy-centric nature of scandals from the previous administration:
Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, The Vince Foster Murder, the Paula Jones affair, Cattlegate, Nannygate; we could go on. These are surely far better scandals than any we are getting today. And note few of these have a primary "conspirator" -- Thos Clintons sure knew how to put a team together. Along with the more recent Sandy Berger and William Jefferson indiscretions; they all make much better crises of leadership stories than any that can be ascribed to the current administration.
It was still bloody unnecessary for the president's lieutenants to take all the heat, but that's what happens when you leave staff in important places that can become problems later, as Bush did by not firing all 93 of the US attorneys. But also, it should be clear by now that in the preparation for future leaders, all candidates should be issued iron underwear prior to being allowed to take the job.
In the article Connecting the Dots, we pointed out why only a grossly distorted view of facts and history could discern the trees of scandal within this political forest. Yet it was enough to stop the wheels of progress and derail a much needed makeover for the Justice Department. And you thought Bush was too stubborn to surrender.
Public service has taken its toll on a remarkably high number of executives in this administration. Every time I see a John Ashcroft or a Karl Rove bail out, it's evident that at least in part, it's because they don't need the kind of aggravation that comes with trying to do the right thing--or in many cases, undo the wrong thing. The staff at the Justice department as well as those at the UN and the State department had come to enjoy their positions with no regard for accountability. The one attribute that characterizes most leaders as they charge up a hill, is the fact that they have as many arrows in their backs as in their fronts. That comes with the territory. Yes, the arrows come from the sides, too when you are a republican. The press will seldom stay out of an otherwise fair fight, when it involves a republican leader.
Take a look at this list of scandal-tainted victims: Tom DeLay, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld. All of these individuals fought their respective systems, and have only dissilusionment to show for their troubles. Some who fought the good fight continue that fight, and I give them credit for that (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, John Roberts, and many more). All of these individuals are just that, individuals, standing up for what they believe is right.
Contrast that with the conspiracy-centric nature of scandals from the previous administration:
Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, The Vince Foster Murder, the Paula Jones affair, Cattlegate, Nannygate; we could go on. These are surely far better scandals than any we are getting today. And note few of these have a primary "conspirator" -- Thos Clintons sure knew how to put a team together. Along with the more recent Sandy Berger and William Jefferson indiscretions; they all make much better crises of leadership stories than any that can be ascribed to the current administration.
It was still bloody unnecessary for the president's lieutenants to take all the heat, but that's what happens when you leave staff in important places that can become problems later, as Bush did by not firing all 93 of the US attorneys. But also, it should be clear by now that in the preparation for future leaders, all candidates should be issued iron underwear prior to being allowed to take the job.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The 2020 Vision
..it is not just that there will be additional forces in Baghdad; it is what they will do and how they will do it that is important. -- General David Petraeus, 12/2006
..In fact, typically, I think, historically, counter insurgency operations have gone at least 9 or 10 years -- General David Petraeus, 6/2007
I suppose I should acknowledge that the troop surge is working. I did after all predict that it would not. It seems to have had the intended effect, and is about as positive an outcome as any of us could have wanted. The question that does keep popping into my mind though, is what are the 120,000 non-surge troops doing there, and why did we need another 30 k to quell Al Qaeda? I don't pretend to know how to run a war, but I do know that this army, the world's best fighting force could go into any country in the world a week after Easter, accomplish every meaningful military objective, and be home for the World Series. Here we are 4-1/2 years later; dealing with what must be "security" plus a myriad of non-military objectives.
The non-military ones are always better left to the people themselves. So, the only reasonable goals are enhancement of security. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean restricting the rights of law abiding citizens like we do at home? I'm sure that's making a lot of friends. ...but I digress.
Historically, we have World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to compare to. Well, WWII left us with troops located to this very day in Germany and scattered in a multitude of islands across the Pacific. We are still in nearly all these spaces. Doing what? I dunno. Nation building, I guess. Security doesn't seem to be at play.
We are only now talking about leaving Korea. Why did it take 50 years to close that book? Security might seem a little shakier there now with a madman across the border. So, what has improved here, that allows us to go home..has Kim Jong Il opened up his first McDonald's?
In Vietnam, we skedaddled pretty quickly and the people lost millions of lives in the subsequant Pol Pot invasion. In view of that fiasco, we certainly can't get away immediately in the sense that the nitwits in Congress suggest we can. That means the optimum time frame is somewhere between 0 and 50 years. Let's say 10 years to make sure things go smoothly. As I've said before, we are not good at ending these relationships. So, Petraeus may be right with his estimate of 9-10. Add a few more years for gross inefficiency by the occasionally and accidentally elected Democrats, and we're looking at 2020.
Might as well settle in. Maybe sometime between now and then, we'll stop referring to it as a war, and with any luck we'll probably see a petition for statehood from the Iraqis.
..In fact, typically, I think, historically, counter insurgency operations have gone at least 9 or 10 years -- General David Petraeus, 6/2007
I suppose I should acknowledge that the troop surge is working. I did after all predict that it would not. It seems to have had the intended effect, and is about as positive an outcome as any of us could have wanted. The question that does keep popping into my mind though, is what are the 120,000 non-surge troops doing there, and why did we need another 30 k to quell Al Qaeda? I don't pretend to know how to run a war, but I do know that this army, the world's best fighting force could go into any country in the world a week after Easter, accomplish every meaningful military objective, and be home for the World Series. Here we are 4-1/2 years later; dealing with what must be "security" plus a myriad of non-military objectives.
The non-military ones are always better left to the people themselves. So, the only reasonable goals are enhancement of security. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean restricting the rights of law abiding citizens like we do at home? I'm sure that's making a lot of friends. ...but I digress.
Historically, we have World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to compare to. Well, WWII left us with troops located to this very day in Germany and scattered in a multitude of islands across the Pacific. We are still in nearly all these spaces. Doing what? I dunno. Nation building, I guess. Security doesn't seem to be at play.
We are only now talking about leaving Korea. Why did it take 50 years to close that book? Security might seem a little shakier there now with a madman across the border. So, what has improved here, that allows us to go home..has Kim Jong Il opened up his first McDonald's?
In Vietnam, we skedaddled pretty quickly and the people lost millions of lives in the subsequant Pol Pot invasion. In view of that fiasco, we certainly can't get away immediately in the sense that the nitwits in Congress suggest we can. That means the optimum time frame is somewhere between 0 and 50 years. Let's say 10 years to make sure things go smoothly. As I've said before, we are not good at ending these relationships. So, Petraeus may be right with his estimate of 9-10. Add a few more years for gross inefficiency by the occasionally and accidentally elected Democrats, and we're looking at 2020.
Might as well settle in. Maybe sometime between now and then, we'll stop referring to it as a war, and with any luck we'll probably see a petition for statehood from the Iraqis.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Home Run Records
Can I smoke now without someone taking my picture? --Hank Aaron
It's been about the homers for as long as I can remember. Since I was a boy, it was obvious that the best home run hitters got their pictures in the papers. Hammerin' Hank (who the Milwaukee natives called "Snowshoes" because of the way he ran as a rookie), Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, all of them. If they could get the longball launched by 9:15 they'd be on the evening sportscast.
It was fun to watch them compete against each other, swinging large for the fences. It was abundantly clear that homers were the currency of the day. We should not be at all surprised that players would take every measure to maximize their proficiency at home runs. So, some players used seven herbs and spices, some used extra strength Tinactin, what's the difference? Babe Ruth did worse things to his body than 95% of today's ballplayers, and we don't judge him harshly for it.
When we begin to catalog the various drugs and salves that a player puts on, in, or around his body, we have certainly lost track of the sport. The sportsters are spending way too much time having the players pee into a cup, and not enough time figuring out how to keep the game interesting and relevant.
Look, the guy is going to hit the home runs, and that's what we wanted him to do. He cannot un-hit them, so it will be a record sure as we're sitting here. If we love the game, we should celebrate this achievement, and stop worrying if we have created a monster. Barry Bonds will be the all-time home run king.
It's been about the homers for as long as I can remember. Since I was a boy, it was obvious that the best home run hitters got their pictures in the papers. Hammerin' Hank (who the Milwaukee natives called "Snowshoes" because of the way he ran as a rookie), Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, all of them. If they could get the longball launched by 9:15 they'd be on the evening sportscast.
It was fun to watch them compete against each other, swinging large for the fences. It was abundantly clear that homers were the currency of the day. We should not be at all surprised that players would take every measure to maximize their proficiency at home runs. So, some players used seven herbs and spices, some used extra strength Tinactin, what's the difference? Babe Ruth did worse things to his body than 95% of today's ballplayers, and we don't judge him harshly for it.
When we begin to catalog the various drugs and salves that a player puts on, in, or around his body, we have certainly lost track of the sport. The sportsters are spending way too much time having the players pee into a cup, and not enough time figuring out how to keep the game interesting and relevant.
Look, the guy is going to hit the home runs, and that's what we wanted him to do. He cannot un-hit them, so it will be a record sure as we're sitting here. If we love the game, we should celebrate this achievement, and stop worrying if we have created a monster. Barry Bonds will be the all-time home run king.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Wizer One-Liner #11
Like him or not, Ward Churchill should probably not have referred to them as "nappy headed ho's"
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Wizer One Liner #10
Global warming happens every 10,000 years, and we had better start getting used to it.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Wizer One-liner #9
When the issue of "fair and balanced" news comes up, the question that always pops into my mind is 'how do you "balance" the truth?'.
Friday, June 15, 2007
A New (OLD) Idea
A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds. --Mark Twain
The crankiest guy in the Republican field is this guy, Ron Paul. When you hear some of what he says, it will tick you off, but then you have to think about it (it won't hurt, I promise).
First, you must understand that we have not had a Republican in the white house since the end of 1988. Since then, we have one neocon after another hiding behind the banner of compassionate whateverism. Once you realize that there were and are imposters lined up for the office since then, only then can you triangulate to somewhere any of us would care to be.
I do watch the polls starting around this time of year, and I've found the real interesting stuff comes out of the Iowa Electronic Market. In the IEM, people bet real money on who will be the next president. The two most interesting things are that Hillary is even money against all other candidates to be the Democrat nominee, and in the Republican side, "None of the Above" beats out Rudy, McC, and Mitt. None of the Above? That means people betting real money see none of these jamokes making the cut. So, who then?
No, I don't think it will be Ron Paul. Ron is too much like Phil Gramm was in 1996, and Howard Dean in 2004. A lot of noisy fans, but not much real support. These candidates (all of whom embodied what their party stood for) didn't make the critical breakthroughs, and none of them looked particularly presidential. That's not to say Ron Paul isn't worth voting for, though.
Among the new ideas Ron Paul is espousing are: The first amendment. The 10th amendment. The fourth amendment. The 2nd amendment,...hmmm, I think I'm spotting a trend here.
He may actually be the only Republican in the field by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, and likely the only one carrying around a copy of the constitution with him (that's where the new/old comes from--it's so old it's new...kinda retro, you know?)
And ---since the smart money seems to be saying that the field is not set yet, it should be very interesting to watch.
UPDATE: Now the Iowa Electronic Market. has posted Fred Thompson's name and it turns out that the smart money was on him all along. They say the market does not lie...
The crankiest guy in the Republican field is this guy, Ron Paul. When you hear some of what he says, it will tick you off, but then you have to think about it (it won't hurt, I promise).
First, you must understand that we have not had a Republican in the white house since the end of 1988. Since then, we have one neocon after another hiding behind the banner of compassionate whateverism. Once you realize that there were and are imposters lined up for the office since then, only then can you triangulate to somewhere any of us would care to be.
I do watch the polls starting around this time of year, and I've found the real interesting stuff comes out of the Iowa Electronic Market. In the IEM, people bet real money on who will be the next president. The two most interesting things are that Hillary is even money against all other candidates to be the Democrat nominee, and in the Republican side, "None of the Above" beats out Rudy, McC, and Mitt. None of the Above? That means people betting real money see none of these jamokes making the cut. So, who then?
No, I don't think it will be Ron Paul. Ron is too much like Phil Gramm was in 1996, and Howard Dean in 2004. A lot of noisy fans, but not much real support. These candidates (all of whom embodied what their party stood for) didn't make the critical breakthroughs, and none of them looked particularly presidential. That's not to say Ron Paul isn't worth voting for, though.
Among the new ideas Ron Paul is espousing are: The first amendment. The 10th amendment. The fourth amendment. The 2nd amendment,...hmmm, I think I'm spotting a trend here.
He may actually be the only Republican in the field by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, and likely the only one carrying around a copy of the constitution with him (that's where the new/old comes from--it's so old it's new...kinda retro, you know?)
And ---since the smart money seems to be saying that the field is not set yet, it should be very interesting to watch.
UPDATE: Now the Iowa Electronic Market. has posted Fred Thompson's name and it turns out that the smart money was on him all along. They say the market does not lie...
Monday, May 21, 2007
Wizer One-Liner #8
The media are asking the wrong questions in the Wolfowitz flap; the real question is "should there be a World Bank?".
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
It's Debateable
Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. – Walter Williams
Liberals and Conservatives own the political dialog, and there ain't a dime's worth of difference between them, (Hoss). So at some point you just have to wonder who is going to step up and differentiate himself in this mess. Since I don't believe there is even a scant majority of people that would vote for a Democrat, especially since they couldn't even beat George Bush (twice, and blindfolded), it wouldn't take much of a Republican to win the thing handily. So, that's why the debate carried last night is probably as serious a bellwether we are likely to see in 2007.
Before we start the American Idol-like reduction in candidates, it is important to get out on the table what we want our next president to be. Since I am the Wizer, it behooves me to put it out there for all to embrace. So, here goes:
Liberals and Conservatives own the political dialog, and there ain't a dime's worth of difference between them, (Hoss). So at some point you just have to wonder who is going to step up and differentiate himself in this mess. Since I don't believe there is even a scant majority of people that would vote for a Democrat, especially since they couldn't even beat George Bush (twice, and blindfolded), it wouldn't take much of a Republican to win the thing handily. So, that's why the debate carried last night is probably as serious a bellwether we are likely to see in 2007.
Before we start the American Idol-like reduction in candidates, it is important to get out on the table what we want our next president to be. Since I am the Wizer, it behooves me to put it out there for all to embrace. So, here goes:
- He/she can be conservative, only to the extent that conservatism means adherence to the constitution as written; not the status quo of their own institutions.
- He/she can be liberal, only to the extent that all freedoms are to be protected at all costs, not just the ones liberals find convenient for their own agendas.
- He/she must support the markets for goods and services, as they are the way clear for all those who are disadvantaged.
- He/she must not promote markets for the degrading and debasing of human life, especially those most vulnerable.
- He/she must use the tools and resources of defense in a strict defensive manner, and not use them as a tool of geopolitical influence-peddling, graft, and corruption.
- He/she will finally find a way to declare victory before the good of the effort is simply forgotten by the masses, and misconstrued for the history books.
- He/she will not pretend that Ronald Reagan and Ted Kennedy were statesmen of equal stature.
I can come up with a few others, but those seven off the top of my head are enough to eliminate everyone who has declared so far. This is probably a good time for Fred Thompson to declare. On the other hand, he is sure to violate one or more of these requirements the longer he's in the race. Perhaps he should wait until Next January to run....
During the debate, everybody, including Ron Paul got it wrong. I don't know why both sides of "the debate" refer to the war as still in progress. It's no longer a war. And I might vote for the first guy who says this out loud. It's not a war, and hasn't been since the Iraqi army turned into a band of desert rats. What it is now, is influence peddling on a massive scale.
The Democrats are so out of touch, they fail to recognize that this amounts to a massive welfare scheme, and if they were to be intellectually honest, they would seek to end welfare here too.
The Republicans say that we should seek victory, but we've already achieved all the victory that can be achieved, and by failing to properly frame it as a victory when victory was quite obvious, it looks a lot like defeat.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Connecting the Dots
Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse. -- Adlai E. Stevenson
You no doubt remember those coloring book connect-the-dots games. A pattern of dots that does not always reveal itself until you connect them, usually by a numbered sequence. By the time you are done connecting them up, a recognizeable picture emerges.
If any of those dots are connected out of order, or out of logical connection, a very strange, unrecognizeable picture results. Also, when certain unrelated dots are placed into the field, or conversely, certain key dots are missing, the picture is unrecognizeable, or at least unrepresentative.
Think of any collection of related facts as being a field of dots. Those who are able to connect the dots have a very clear picture of what those facts mean. People who can connect the dots are a treasure to us, because without them, many elements of the facts are obscured.
Let me use an example. The attorney general's office recently dismissed eight US attorneys. These attorneys were thought to be doing a poor job. Since the administration, and the AG's office were the sole arbiters over whether these guys did a good job or not, it should be a relatively small set of dots, easily connected, and therefore totally uninteresting. But wait, these 8 were not only incompetent, they were Democrats. If you ask me, that's two reasons to fire the bunch, but I digress. Somehow, the Democrat elite feel that firing these incompetent attorneys is cause for investigation. Why? because ostensibly these attorneys may have been investigating Republican shenanigans. Oh, is that a problem? Perhaps some may have missed this other set of dots over here from 1993, when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys. He said it was routine (which turned out to be another Clinton lie...it was an unprecedented sweep of US Attorneys). The dirty little secret was that two of those attorneys were ready within the next 10 days to indict Rostenkowski, and the Whitewater gang. That's why they had to go.
All right, so politics has its advantages. Presidents can shut down stuff like that and call it routine. Understand that those dots are still there. You cannot "connect" these 8 dots over here without also including those 93 dots over there. To draw around those while claiming to see a different picture is disingenuous and deceitful. Can you ignore 93 dots out of a 101 dot picture, and still have the truth? I didn't think so.
Take another example: In order to find fault with Scooter Libby in the Joe Wilson treason case, you would have to find it on the same page as Hillary's whitewater file dots. And you would also have to ignore a lot of the other dots in that case and in a dozen others of its type.
History Happens: Democrats have a way of distorting many of the pictures that come our way. Usually it is in the context of downplaying historical facts. It is necessary for Democrats to ignore the constitution to achieve an increasing amount of what they desire. They have to ignore the 10th amendment dots to draw up a Roe vs. Wade decision. They have to ignore the first amendment dots to create their campaign finance rules. Moreover, they seek to discount and distort history so that it presents a set of pseudo dots that show a different picture. Where do you suppose 9/11 is in their dot grouping? In 17 proposals to defund the military action in the middle east, they don't connect to the 9/11 dots. Why is that? To do so would have meant that they would have had to see the whole picture. I can tell you most of us regular folks see those dots over there, and this picture is not coming together like the Dems are wishing it would.
In any connect-the-dots scenario, all the dots are there for a reason. To draw around them, erase them, ignore them, or to move them around does nothing for the truth. They are hoping we won't remember, because it is all about history.
Why trust anyone who does not connect all the dots?
You no doubt remember those coloring book connect-the-dots games. A pattern of dots that does not always reveal itself until you connect them, usually by a numbered sequence. By the time you are done connecting them up, a recognizeable picture emerges.
If any of those dots are connected out of order, or out of logical connection, a very strange, unrecognizeable picture results. Also, when certain unrelated dots are placed into the field, or conversely, certain key dots are missing, the picture is unrecognizeable, or at least unrepresentative.
Think of any collection of related facts as being a field of dots. Those who are able to connect the dots have a very clear picture of what those facts mean. People who can connect the dots are a treasure to us, because without them, many elements of the facts are obscured.
Let me use an example. The attorney general's office recently dismissed eight US attorneys. These attorneys were thought to be doing a poor job. Since the administration, and the AG's office were the sole arbiters over whether these guys did a good job or not, it should be a relatively small set of dots, easily connected, and therefore totally uninteresting. But wait, these 8 were not only incompetent, they were Democrats. If you ask me, that's two reasons to fire the bunch, but I digress. Somehow, the Democrat elite feel that firing these incompetent attorneys is cause for investigation. Why? because ostensibly these attorneys may have been investigating Republican shenanigans. Oh, is that a problem? Perhaps some may have missed this other set of dots over here from 1993, when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys. He said it was routine (which turned out to be another Clinton lie...it was an unprecedented sweep of US Attorneys). The dirty little secret was that two of those attorneys were ready within the next 10 days to indict Rostenkowski, and the Whitewater gang. That's why they had to go.
All right, so politics has its advantages. Presidents can shut down stuff like that and call it routine. Understand that those dots are still there. You cannot "connect" these 8 dots over here without also including those 93 dots over there. To draw around those while claiming to see a different picture is disingenuous and deceitful. Can you ignore 93 dots out of a 101 dot picture, and still have the truth? I didn't think so.
Take another example: In order to find fault with Scooter Libby in the Joe Wilson treason case, you would have to find it on the same page as Hillary's whitewater file dots. And you would also have to ignore a lot of the other dots in that case and in a dozen others of its type.
History Happens: Democrats have a way of distorting many of the pictures that come our way. Usually it is in the context of downplaying historical facts. It is necessary for Democrats to ignore the constitution to achieve an increasing amount of what they desire. They have to ignore the 10th amendment dots to draw up a Roe vs. Wade decision. They have to ignore the first amendment dots to create their campaign finance rules. Moreover, they seek to discount and distort history so that it presents a set of pseudo dots that show a different picture. Where do you suppose 9/11 is in their dot grouping? In 17 proposals to defund the military action in the middle east, they don't connect to the 9/11 dots. Why is that? To do so would have meant that they would have had to see the whole picture. I can tell you most of us regular folks see those dots over there, and this picture is not coming together like the Dems are wishing it would.
In any connect-the-dots scenario, all the dots are there for a reason. To draw around them, erase them, ignore them, or to move them around does nothing for the truth. They are hoping we won't remember, because it is all about history.
Why trust anyone who does not connect all the dots?
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Lessons of Vietnam
And it's One, Two, Three, What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. --Country Joe & the Fish
I always had a problem with that line. It was one of the more vocalized music phrases of the Vietnam era, and it attempted to persuade that the task at hand had no relevance. Don't ask me what we're fighting about, the song said. I don't really care. Like a lot of people of that time, Country Joe and his followers did not seek to learn what it was we were fighting for in Vietnam in the first place. I remember thinking at the time how stressful it must be to be that ignorant.
We've had a lot of time to reflect on the lessons of Viet Nam, and since some of those same ignorati are drawing comparisons between the two wars, I think it might be helpful for me to sort out some of the similarities and the differences, if for no other reason than to clarify what it is we are fighting for. That way, we wouldn't necessarily have to repeat the historical mistakes of either conflict.
We had 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam. (source) Two thirds of them were volunteers. It was not a conscriptor's war, as many would have you believe. Over 300,000 had enough reason of their own to go over there and fight. Don't tell them that they were wasting their time.
In comparison, there are 120,000-140,000 serving or having served in Iraq. All of them are volunteers. I doubt if you'd find 10,000 of them who felt the cause wasn't just.
We were invited to Indochina by the government of South Vietnam. Our motivation and national interest was in preventing the scenario known as the Domino Theory. We finally won the overarching conflict in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down.
Nobody in Iraq asked us over, but our motivation was not that different. The regimes of terrorism are every bit as evil as those of communism, fascism, naziism and the multitude of other isms. We do not know yet when the final battle will be fought and won over terrorism; however the fanaticism of the enemy suggests a longer time frame than 1964-1989.
We won the Vietnam War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. It was only when our objectives transformed into "nation building" that the problems began cropping up. We started financial backing of governmental entities who took the opportunity to profit from the corruption, and we learned that no useful solution can ever be secured by throwing money around (this also pertains to welfare and education, but that's a topic for another day). We withdrew from Vietnam having won the war, and having run out of useful military things to do. Things got messier for a while, after that. That happens in all the wars that matter.
We won the Iraq War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. Now we are trying our hand at nation building once again. This is perhaps the most important lesson we did not learn from Vietnam. By sticking around in Iraq dropping bags of money on every street corner, we are building another corrupt welfare state. We are also delaying the inevitable "fall of Saigon" moment, the Vietnam version being identified by the press as the "evidence of having lost that war".
We're pretty good at achieving the military objectives. It's those other non-military objectives we have found unwinnable. After the current troop surge, there must be an accounting. There simply must be a point where we decide whether we've done all that we can. If there are honestly more military objectives to be met, the government will have my complete confidence and blessing. Short of true military necessity, I can't figure out why we're still there.
There are still lessons to be learned from Vietnam, notably who are the equivalent entities to the Khmer Rouge, and who it is that will eventually rush in to occupy Iraq when we are gone. As I see it, unless we want to occupy Iraq as some latter day Roman Empire, our job is done.
We will have many more wars, and no feel-good collection of John Lennon, Country Joe or the mindless chants of countless ignorati will have any affect on that. The main lesson left to learn is that we just have to know when to declare Peace and get out of the friggin way.
I always had a problem with that line. It was one of the more vocalized music phrases of the Vietnam era, and it attempted to persuade that the task at hand had no relevance. Don't ask me what we're fighting about, the song said. I don't really care. Like a lot of people of that time, Country Joe and his followers did not seek to learn what it was we were fighting for in Vietnam in the first place. I remember thinking at the time how stressful it must be to be that ignorant.
We've had a lot of time to reflect on the lessons of Viet Nam, and since some of those same ignorati are drawing comparisons between the two wars, I think it might be helpful for me to sort out some of the similarities and the differences, if for no other reason than to clarify what it is we are fighting for. That way, we wouldn't necessarily have to repeat the historical mistakes of either conflict.
We had 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam. (source) Two thirds of them were volunteers. It was not a conscriptor's war, as many would have you believe. Over 300,000 had enough reason of their own to go over there and fight. Don't tell them that they were wasting their time.
In comparison, there are 120,000-140,000 serving or having served in Iraq. All of them are volunteers. I doubt if you'd find 10,000 of them who felt the cause wasn't just.
We were invited to Indochina by the government of South Vietnam. Our motivation and national interest was in preventing the scenario known as the Domino Theory. We finally won the overarching conflict in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down.
Nobody in Iraq asked us over, but our motivation was not that different. The regimes of terrorism are every bit as evil as those of communism, fascism, naziism and the multitude of other isms. We do not know yet when the final battle will be fought and won over terrorism; however the fanaticism of the enemy suggests a longer time frame than 1964-1989.
We won the Vietnam War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. It was only when our objectives transformed into "nation building" that the problems began cropping up. We started financial backing of governmental entities who took the opportunity to profit from the corruption, and we learned that no useful solution can ever be secured by throwing money around (this also pertains to welfare and education, but that's a topic for another day). We withdrew from Vietnam having won the war, and having run out of useful military things to do. Things got messier for a while, after that. That happens in all the wars that matter.
We won the Iraq War (New York Times notwithstanding). We lost not a single battle, and met every military objective. Now we are trying our hand at nation building once again. This is perhaps the most important lesson we did not learn from Vietnam. By sticking around in Iraq dropping bags of money on every street corner, we are building another corrupt welfare state. We are also delaying the inevitable "fall of Saigon" moment, the Vietnam version being identified by the press as the "evidence of having lost that war".
We're pretty good at achieving the military objectives. It's those other non-military objectives we have found unwinnable. After the current troop surge, there must be an accounting. There simply must be a point where we decide whether we've done all that we can. If there are honestly more military objectives to be met, the government will have my complete confidence and blessing. Short of true military necessity, I can't figure out why we're still there.
There are still lessons to be learned from Vietnam, notably who are the equivalent entities to the Khmer Rouge, and who it is that will eventually rush in to occupy Iraq when we are gone. As I see it, unless we want to occupy Iraq as some latter day Roman Empire, our job is done.
We will have many more wars, and no feel-good collection of John Lennon, Country Joe or the mindless chants of countless ignorati will have any affect on that. The main lesson left to learn is that we just have to know when to declare Peace and get out of the friggin way.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Historical Footnote
Didja hear that both head coaches in the Super Bowl are black? Ordinarily, this should not have been more than a statistical coincidence like you always get at Super Bowl time; like the first father and son combination to play in the big game, or which quarterback was actually born in Indiana vs. the other one, etc.;,,, except for one thing. There are people who think this is a big deal, and people who think this is nothing special.
I can tell you that it is the former group that comprises all racists. Think about it. If the color of the skin doesn't matter (and it doesn't) why would this be much different from the first Italian American coach to win the Super Bowl (it's not).
Only the people with an axe to grind make note of this. People who are supremacists, or people who gain by maximizing the distinction. If the ideal world is color blind, only racists can see the difference. The idea that this game is special because of the color of the coaches diminishes their accomplishment. They are where they are today, because they are the best. To make them "special" because they are black is demeaning, and it diminishes their accomplishment. If I'm Rex Grossman, I don't want to be known as the kid from Bloomington, I want to be known for winning the big game. If I'm Vince Lombardi, proud as I am of my Italian American heritage, I want to be known for winning the Super Bowl.
So, if the coaches for the big game are black, let it be a mere historical footnote, because to call attention to their color is something only a racist would do.
That brings us to Barack Obama. Judging by the news, it sure looks like the racists are lining up on his side. Me, I don't care what color he is. Let's see the color of his plan. That I do care about.
I can tell you that it is the former group that comprises all racists. Think about it. If the color of the skin doesn't matter (and it doesn't) why would this be much different from the first Italian American coach to win the Super Bowl (it's not).
Only the people with an axe to grind make note of this. People who are supremacists, or people who gain by maximizing the distinction. If the ideal world is color blind, only racists can see the difference. The idea that this game is special because of the color of the coaches diminishes their accomplishment. They are where they are today, because they are the best. To make them "special" because they are black is demeaning, and it diminishes their accomplishment. If I'm Rex Grossman, I don't want to be known as the kid from Bloomington, I want to be known for winning the big game. If I'm Vince Lombardi, proud as I am of my Italian American heritage, I want to be known for winning the Super Bowl.
So, if the coaches for the big game are black, let it be a mere historical footnote, because to call attention to their color is something only a racist would do.
That brings us to Barack Obama. Judging by the news, it sure looks like the racists are lining up on his side. Me, I don't care what color he is. Let's see the color of his plan. That I do care about.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hello George. Nice of you to call.
Yes, I did happen to see the state of the union, or at least enough to get the general picture. You want us to support "The Surge" with another 30,000 troops. I had to wonder what the 120,000 guys who are already there are doing. Oh, that's right. They're school bus drivers, sanitation engineers, and embassy clerks. Sheesh. No wonder 35% of the people think you're doing a poor job. Out of the other 65%, I believe most of us still would like to win the damn war. It's just that you don't seem to be fighting to win the war. You are spending our resources apparently to broker some kind of legacy deal so we can pull the strings later. It's misguided and wasteful to conduct a war like that. Do you mean to tell me that our 120,000 troops are too busy to root out the last of the terrorists? Even the Republicans aren't dumb enough to buy that. Even Lugar, who loves the whole notion of creating one homogeneous world isn't going for the plan.
Dammit George. Let's win this war and come home. What happens after that is going to be Europe's problem, not ours.
Let's see...on the domestic side....hmmm. That's a non-starter....So's that... That too.
Use 20% less gasoline? Next ten years? Driving what, George? Ethanol cars? I don't care how much of our money you want to spend subsidizing the Ethanol cartel, people will not buy it while gas is a buck eighty. This ear-candy is pure pandering, enriches only corn farmers and ADM, and has nothing to do with energy security.
What else you got? Ah, so you dropped the notion of amnesty. That was smart. At least now you can get the Republicans back on your side. The Democrats? No, they wouldn't want law abiding immigrants. That would work against their "immigrants as victims" strategy. Only half of legally registered immigrants are likely to vote for them once their freedoms are guaranteed. Until then (and until they learn English) the dems have their way with the illegal votes. So, you're not likely to get any help there, George. Just make sure the plan fixes the problem. The political fallout is way too hard to predict in any scenario. Just fix the problem and let the votes fall where they may.
While I got the calculator out, I want to give you a little lesson in election math. about a third of the republicans stayed home in the last election leaving the democrats to win 41-39. Of those, 21% to 20% or a 1 % plurality are pretty much running things now. The loud 21%. They want a lot of changes that the rest of us 79% don't want. What that means is that you need to do several things to ensure that we are not irreversibly harmed. One, don't ever let go of your veto pen. Two, keep appointing judges who understand and respect the constitution (that being OUR constitution, not Denmark's). Three, restore all lost property and liberty rights that have come under fire since you came into office. You need to fix everything from Kelo to Gitmo, and while you are at it, take another close look at the Patriot Act. I bet we have another 120,000 people there who are miscast, and have nothing better to do but follow their own pet conspiracy theories.
Fix these things George. Then and only then will there be a legacy you can still be proud of.
Dammit George. Let's win this war and come home. What happens after that is going to be Europe's problem, not ours.
Let's see...on the domestic side....hmmm. That's a non-starter....So's that... That too.
Use 20% less gasoline? Next ten years? Driving what, George? Ethanol cars? I don't care how much of our money you want to spend subsidizing the Ethanol cartel, people will not buy it while gas is a buck eighty. This ear-candy is pure pandering, enriches only corn farmers and ADM, and has nothing to do with energy security.
What else you got? Ah, so you dropped the notion of amnesty. That was smart. At least now you can get the Republicans back on your side. The Democrats? No, they wouldn't want law abiding immigrants. That would work against their "immigrants as victims" strategy. Only half of legally registered immigrants are likely to vote for them once their freedoms are guaranteed. Until then (and until they learn English) the dems have their way with the illegal votes. So, you're not likely to get any help there, George. Just make sure the plan fixes the problem. The political fallout is way too hard to predict in any scenario. Just fix the problem and let the votes fall where they may.
While I got the calculator out, I want to give you a little lesson in election math. about a third of the republicans stayed home in the last election leaving the democrats to win 41-39. Of those, 21% to 20% or a 1 % plurality are pretty much running things now. The loud 21%. They want a lot of changes that the rest of us 79% don't want. What that means is that you need to do several things to ensure that we are not irreversibly harmed. One, don't ever let go of your veto pen. Two, keep appointing judges who understand and respect the constitution (that being OUR constitution, not Denmark's). Three, restore all lost property and liberty rights that have come under fire since you came into office. You need to fix everything from Kelo to Gitmo, and while you are at it, take another close look at the Patriot Act. I bet we have another 120,000 people there who are miscast, and have nothing better to do but follow their own pet conspiracy theories.
Fix these things George. Then and only then will there be a legacy you can still be proud of.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Gerald Ford, R.I.P.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. -- Gerald R. Ford
Oh sure, they all love him now, but those of us 40 and over (some of us who only remember him by Chevy Chase's parodies) remember a day when Jerry Ford couldn't catch a break . He was constantly lampooned and derided as 1) a stumbling dimwit, 2) a Nixon apologist, 3) the latest in a long line of evil republican masterminds, 4) the bringer of stagflation, 5) party hack, and etc. Now, we hear that he was a statesman, a solid, respectable guy, who did the right thing in pardoning Nixon, and "healed the fissures of the political landscape". So what is the truth about his legacy? Let's explore...
One of the things he was ridiculed for was his campaign to have everybody wear a "whip inflation now" (WIN) button. I always thought those were somewhere between benign and cruel; because citizens had no more control over inflation than they had over the phases of the moon. But there was something wonderfully insidious about the act. By giving people some hope that they as individuals had power to change things, he planted an important seed. It took until Reagan's election to actually unleash the power of the people, but it might not have happened if we were still conditioned to leave everything up to the government.
So, was this positive kernel arrived at by accident? Well, let's go to the record. Jerry was right about tax cuts, spending vetoes, and hiring Alan Greenspan (as economic policy director). That's all good.
Jerry Ford gave us John Paul Stevens. Uh-oh. Supreme Court Justice Stevens is the worst enemy of the US Constitution in our nation's history. That didn't work out so well.
And then there's the matter of Nixon's pardon. On the one hand, criminal hearings would have been a good chance to focus on the hypocrisy of the elected, and I for one was hoping for the fight. The famous white house tapes were surely inadmissable as evidence, and they would have had a hard time proving a lot of what Nixon was accused of doing. It would have accelerated our understanding of the political biases in the newspaper business. On the other hand, a show trial is not a very good use of our country's resources.
Jerry Ford was also a member of the Warren Commission; that group of politicians who conspired to protect the "magic bullet theory" and forever obscure the identity of John Kennedy's assassin. Maybe he just wanted that national nightmare to end prematurely, as well.
I heard some pundits this morning say that he was not on anybody's "best presidents" list, but he wasn't on their worst list either. That's no doubt true, because we require our leaders to be politicians first. And Jerry was put there because he was a politician. Consider this quote:
The political lesson of Watergate is this: Never again must America allow an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents to by-pass the regular party organization and dictate the terms of a national election. -- Gerald R. Ford
So, Jerry was blaming Watergate on those who operated outside the network. The fact that he was an insider was what ultimately cost him a redo in 1976. Political insiders are forever bound to disappoint at the end of the day.
Jerry, you had a good run. You probably made fewer mistakes than others who had your job. Some of those mistakes (read Stevens, Warren) we still pay dearly for, but at least we know you did it out of a sense of political propriety, and not because you were dumb or evil. Those distinctions are preserved for other presidents.
Oh sure, they all love him now, but those of us 40 and over (some of us who only remember him by Chevy Chase's parodies) remember a day when Jerry Ford couldn't catch a break . He was constantly lampooned and derided as 1) a stumbling dimwit, 2) a Nixon apologist, 3) the latest in a long line of evil republican masterminds, 4) the bringer of stagflation, 5) party hack, and etc. Now, we hear that he was a statesman, a solid, respectable guy, who did the right thing in pardoning Nixon, and "healed the fissures of the political landscape". So what is the truth about his legacy? Let's explore...
One of the things he was ridiculed for was his campaign to have everybody wear a "whip inflation now" (WIN) button. I always thought those were somewhere between benign and cruel; because citizens had no more control over inflation than they had over the phases of the moon. But there was something wonderfully insidious about the act. By giving people some hope that they as individuals had power to change things, he planted an important seed. It took until Reagan's election to actually unleash the power of the people, but it might not have happened if we were still conditioned to leave everything up to the government.
So, was this positive kernel arrived at by accident? Well, let's go to the record. Jerry was right about tax cuts, spending vetoes, and hiring Alan Greenspan (as economic policy director). That's all good.
Jerry Ford gave us John Paul Stevens. Uh-oh. Supreme Court Justice Stevens is the worst enemy of the US Constitution in our nation's history. That didn't work out so well.
And then there's the matter of Nixon's pardon. On the one hand, criminal hearings would have been a good chance to focus on the hypocrisy of the elected, and I for one was hoping for the fight. The famous white house tapes were surely inadmissable as evidence, and they would have had a hard time proving a lot of what Nixon was accused of doing. It would have accelerated our understanding of the political biases in the newspaper business. On the other hand, a show trial is not a very good use of our country's resources.
Jerry Ford was also a member of the Warren Commission; that group of politicians who conspired to protect the "magic bullet theory" and forever obscure the identity of John Kennedy's assassin. Maybe he just wanted that national nightmare to end prematurely, as well.
I heard some pundits this morning say that he was not on anybody's "best presidents" list, but he wasn't on their worst list either. That's no doubt true, because we require our leaders to be politicians first. And Jerry was put there because he was a politician. Consider this quote:
The political lesson of Watergate is this: Never again must America allow an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents to by-pass the regular party organization and dictate the terms of a national election. -- Gerald R. Ford
So, Jerry was blaming Watergate on those who operated outside the network. The fact that he was an insider was what ultimately cost him a redo in 1976. Political insiders are forever bound to disappoint at the end of the day.
Jerry, you had a good run. You probably made fewer mistakes than others who had your job. Some of those mistakes (read Stevens, Warren) we still pay dearly for, but at least we know you did it out of a sense of political propriety, and not because you were dumb or evil. Those distinctions are preserved for other presidents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)