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.

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.

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.

Wizer One-Liner #11

Like him or not, Ward Churchill should probably not have referred to them as "nappy headed ho's"

Quotable

The way to stop discrimination based on race, is to stop discriminating based on
race. -- Chief Justice John Roberts.

I'm gratified that the CJOTSCOTUS reads my blog. Discrimination based on color is and should be a thing of the past. Finally we see some rationality on the subject.

Wizer One Liner #10

Global warming happens every 10,000 years, and we had better start getting used to it.

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?'.

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...

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?".

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. He/she must support the markets for goods and services, as they are the way clear for all those who are disadvantaged.
4. He/she must not promote markets for the degrading and debasing of human life, especially those most vulnerable.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.