Trial lawyers and attorneys in general occupy the appropriate rung of societal acceptance the bottom one. This is not simply another slam at Democrats but a view of a cultural sub-group that claims to work for the disadvantaged, the injured. All you have to do to see this in action is turn on your television set, very soon you will barraged with ads about how much money you might be entitled to based on some drug or disease you or a loved one has either suffered and / or died from.
The Bush administration has attempted something called tort reform that will limit the money damages that can be awarded. This of course is anathema to trial lawyers who, as a group, are one of the largest contributors to the Democrat party. While the Democrats scream corruption about Jack Abramoff the rest of us take it for granted that trial lawyers are innocent of any such behavior. Lawyers, on the whole, are among the most liberal of our citizens, no problem, but they are also among the most influential. They have the law at their disposal; and dispose of it they do. There will be only marginal tort reform in this country because Republicans are lawyers too.
Recently the ABA, the associative body of lawyers nationally, and an accrediting body for law schools, has pushed for extralegal requirements to certify law schools. Any law school that does not abide by the ABA rules will lose its accreditation. The most onerous of these is to require affirmative action. They have deliberately misconstrued recent Supreme Court decisions to justify this action. This is simply another feel good act that is perceived to reflect well on the ABA and its members. In truth it is a power grab and an insult to those it purports to help.
There was a local class action suit here in which the plaintiffs were awarded $6 million. After costs and legal fees were subtracted each member of the class got a check for less than $50.00. The law firm received a check for more than $4 million dollars, to be divided up among the partners. When I asked my own attorney about the justification for this lopsided payment he simply replied that the lawyers had worked very hard and should get paid. Of course the fact that the “injured parties” who formed the basis for the lawsuit did not really have their “injuries” compensated bothered him not.
This is the reason that trial lawyers oppose tort reform. So what if insurance costs skyrocket, that’s a result, not a cause for damage solution. So what if many lawsuits are frivolous, in the US anyone can sue anyone else for anything. If monetary awards are limited then the lawyers lose, their clients already lost when they hired the attorney. If you have the money a lawyer will take your case if it is a difficult one charging by the hour. If they think it is a “slam-dunk” then they will take it on a contingency, which means the law firm is going to get most of the award at least one third if not more. There are few contingency cases that are losers, this only occurs when the attorney has misjudged the circumstances of the case.
At the moment lawyers are a necessary evil and should make an effort to fulfill their role as champions and not simply satisfy their greed.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Nancy Doesn't Get It
Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article by Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader in the House of Representatives. It is a very strange article in that she supports all the Bush administration policies but doesn’t think they go far enough. Most of her arguments are very weak, and she leaves out who is going to pay for all the Democrat “investments.”
She complains that the United States is only graduation 70,000 engineers this year while China and India are graduating 600,000 and 700,000 respectively. Is there a surprise here? In terms of population comparison alone I think the US is doing very well; we have 300 million people while China has 2 billion and India nearly one billion. So why wouldn’t they graduate more of anything? To highlight this number and use it to point out the failure of the US in research and development is specious to say the least.
Her main thrust is that the education system in the United States is lacking and she is 100% correct. As long as the teacher’s unions get the lion’s share of new tax dollars for education they system will remain broken. Stricter curriculum and discipline is what is needed. Administrator’s who have been teachers are needed instead of the so-called Doctors of Education that currently pollute our school systems. Teacher pay should be higher, and the number of vice-principals should be lower.
The next thing the Democrats are going to do is to gain energy independence within 10 years. This is going to be done through green initiatives that are currently failing in the EU. We should extract all the fossil fuels we have been blessed with, the caribou will find a way to survive, and we should emphasize development of alternate chemical fuels. This development should be done carefully so that the problem eliminated is not replaced by a worse solution whose effects can only be felt in the long term.
If this is the Democrat plan for our future, and it is told with have truths and lies, then they are doomed.
She complains that the United States is only graduation 70,000 engineers this year while China and India are graduating 600,000 and 700,000 respectively. Is there a surprise here? In terms of population comparison alone I think the US is doing very well; we have 300 million people while China has 2 billion and India nearly one billion. So why wouldn’t they graduate more of anything? To highlight this number and use it to point out the failure of the US in research and development is specious to say the least.
Her main thrust is that the education system in the United States is lacking and she is 100% correct. As long as the teacher’s unions get the lion’s share of new tax dollars for education they system will remain broken. Stricter curriculum and discipline is what is needed. Administrator’s who have been teachers are needed instead of the so-called Doctors of Education that currently pollute our school systems. Teacher pay should be higher, and the number of vice-principals should be lower.
The next thing the Democrats are going to do is to gain energy independence within 10 years. This is going to be done through green initiatives that are currently failing in the EU. We should extract all the fossil fuels we have been blessed with, the caribou will find a way to survive, and we should emphasize development of alternate chemical fuels. This development should be done carefully so that the problem eliminated is not replaced by a worse solution whose effects can only be felt in the long term.
If this is the Democrat plan for our future, and it is told with have truths and lies, then they are doomed.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Winter Games - So Far So Good
I usually don’t return to a topic the next day but in this case it is justified. As a freelance writer I often write about sports and sporting events. I watched NBC’s coverage last night and was pleasantly surprised. While it was necessarily choppy because of the choices that must be made, the program of events was well chosen. I particularly enjoyed the 5000 meter speed skating, even though the outcome was already known, the Hedrick story is a very good one and amazing to boot. His performance was outstanding and was enough to pique my interest in watching his efforts yet to come.
The women’s mogul was exciting if short lived. I thought Ms. Traa had a good chance of capturing the gold again, and was surprised when France came through a winner. The luge qualifier was very exciting, I particularly like these speed events as the skill differences between competitors is so small that even the slightest mistake can spell disaster. The spectators often cannot even tell when a mistake that costs a mili-second is made.
Of course the figure skating is one of the premiere events generating the most interest and yet it is almost completely subjective in its outcome. The American pair completed a throw triple axel, the first time ever in Olympic competition, but we knew at the beginning that they were not considered to be a factor in the medal chase. From my perspective the judges got it right last night, the Russians were clearly the best during the short program.
I wasn’t really planning on watching the televised coverage, but NBC is doing such a great job, for a change, that I will continue to enjoy the Games on their network.
The women’s mogul was exciting if short lived. I thought Ms. Traa had a good chance of capturing the gold again, and was surprised when France came through a winner. The luge qualifier was very exciting, I particularly like these speed events as the skill differences between competitors is so small that even the slightest mistake can spell disaster. The spectators often cannot even tell when a mistake that costs a mili-second is made.
Of course the figure skating is one of the premiere events generating the most interest and yet it is almost completely subjective in its outcome. The American pair completed a throw triple axel, the first time ever in Olympic competition, but we knew at the beginning that they were not considered to be a factor in the medal chase. From my perspective the judges got it right last night, the Russians were clearly the best during the short program.
I wasn’t really planning on watching the televised coverage, but NBC is doing such a great job, for a change, that I will continue to enjoy the Games on their network.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Winter Olympics
Ah! The Winter Olympics are here at last. While these Games will be tainted with some sort of scandal, they will be most entertaining. The Winter Games have become more important than the Summer Games. The events garner more interest simply because so many recreational athletes participate in them. Skiing, skating, cross-country skiing, and others are no longer relegated to their countries of origin. This also explains why there are now so many different nations putting teams forward. What used to be the almost exclusive province of the Europeans is now a true world competition.
The medal count will certainly be more diverse and the results more interesting due to the suspense created by the appearance of well conditioned athletes world wide. So far there is no appearance of the financial scandal of Salt Lake City, and we can hope that the figure skating will not be marred by corrupt judging. There will be cheating, there always is.
The need for approbation is so great in human nature that winning by cheating is often tried. The problem of course is that winning in this fashion is not winning at all. The most famous examples, once revealed, have left ashes in the mouths of the victors and stained their national honor. They can no longer be taken seriously in competition, which is undoubtedly one of the worst things that can happen to the human psyche.
The East German transformation of women athletes to quasi men, the Russian victory in the 1972 basketball final, the South Korean silver medal in boxing, are all examples of national interest taking the place of sportsmanship and true achievement. These incidents may be favorably compared to Islamic violence. In both cases the actions are predicated on weakness, fear, and the feeling of being powerless in the world at large and specifically at home. All these hopes and fears are exposed under the pressure of the international spotlight. I hope these games will offer us an insight in the true meaning of sport, which is that hard work and discipline will be rewarded in the marketplace of competition. The best, like the truth, will out.
The medal count will certainly be more diverse and the results more interesting due to the suspense created by the appearance of well conditioned athletes world wide. So far there is no appearance of the financial scandal of Salt Lake City, and we can hope that the figure skating will not be marred by corrupt judging. There will be cheating, there always is.
The need for approbation is so great in human nature that winning by cheating is often tried. The problem of course is that winning in this fashion is not winning at all. The most famous examples, once revealed, have left ashes in the mouths of the victors and stained their national honor. They can no longer be taken seriously in competition, which is undoubtedly one of the worst things that can happen to the human psyche.
The East German transformation of women athletes to quasi men, the Russian victory in the 1972 basketball final, the South Korean silver medal in boxing, are all examples of national interest taking the place of sportsmanship and true achievement. These incidents may be favorably compared to Islamic violence. In both cases the actions are predicated on weakness, fear, and the feeling of being powerless in the world at large and specifically at home. All these hopes and fears are exposed under the pressure of the international spotlight. I hope these games will offer us an insight in the true meaning of sport, which is that hard work and discipline will be rewarded in the marketplace of competition. The best, like the truth, will out.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Al-Qaeda's Next Attack
I predict that OBL will mount another attack on the USA and that we will be surprised. I am amazed that no such attack has taken place since 9/11/2001. Since it has been nearly five years since the last successful major attack, the timing seems right for another. It will be easier now that Al-Qaeda knows some of the methods used by the USA to thwart such actions, and will be easier still if the demogogues in congress have their way. This applies equally to Democrats and Republicans who put their personal power and perogatives above the safety of the nation and its people.
As citizens we expect our government, hired by and paid for by us, to protect us. That is the primary function of any government. The other jobs that can be taken on like environmental policies, welfare, etc., are of secondary concern. During every conflict the presidents of the United States have excercised extraordinary powers. From Abraham Lincoln who suspended haebeus corpus, Woodrow Wilson who got the Sedition Act passed and imprisoned war critics, to Franklin Roosevelt who not only spied on US citizens, but actually imprisoned 30,000 in concentration camps because of their ethnicity, we agreed to allow such actions.
During the Civil Rights struggle Kennedy and Johnson frequently engaged in illegal wiretapping to monitor the activities of Dr. King, and of course Nixon did it as a matter of policy to keep track of his personal political enemies. Nixon was the catalyst for the notion that congress should rule and the president should be a ceremonial ornament.
The War Powers Act was passed, over the objection of the Ford White House and was vetoed. It was overruled. FISA and the War Powers Act are probably unconstitutional and will be so found when they are finally challenged. When the next Al-Qaeda attack is successful within our borders the protestors will be blamed. This may or may not be fair, but it will happen. The problems created by this action will be much more severe than most think.
A new, successful attack will create a backlash that will be hard to control. Laws will be passed authorizing all kinds of defensive measures and restrictions that will be far worse than those minor problems complained of now. The internal divisions of a democracy and the free expression thereof are the hallmarks of freedom. They are often viewed as weakness by those that would never allow such things in a population ruled by them, be it Al-Qaeda, Wahhabbists, Baathists, Communists, or Facists. The real strength of a democratice republic is that such freedom of expression creates mutual respect, in the long run, which may not be obvious. We can put aside our differences to defend ourselves; we have in the past and will do so now and in the future.
Totalitarian governments misjudge freedom and liberty for weakness. For that reason a truck bomb will explode in Manhattan, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Charlotte, or somewhere, maybe in each place. The reaction to such an event will be over the top and devasting to the Arab nations. The problem of Iranian nukes will be resolved almost immediately after the next Al-Qaeda attack on the United States.
As citizens we expect our government, hired by and paid for by us, to protect us. That is the primary function of any government. The other jobs that can be taken on like environmental policies, welfare, etc., are of secondary concern. During every conflict the presidents of the United States have excercised extraordinary powers. From Abraham Lincoln who suspended haebeus corpus, Woodrow Wilson who got the Sedition Act passed and imprisoned war critics, to Franklin Roosevelt who not only spied on US citizens, but actually imprisoned 30,000 in concentration camps because of their ethnicity, we agreed to allow such actions.
During the Civil Rights struggle Kennedy and Johnson frequently engaged in illegal wiretapping to monitor the activities of Dr. King, and of course Nixon did it as a matter of policy to keep track of his personal political enemies. Nixon was the catalyst for the notion that congress should rule and the president should be a ceremonial ornament.
The War Powers Act was passed, over the objection of the Ford White House and was vetoed. It was overruled. FISA and the War Powers Act are probably unconstitutional and will be so found when they are finally challenged. When the next Al-Qaeda attack is successful within our borders the protestors will be blamed. This may or may not be fair, but it will happen. The problems created by this action will be much more severe than most think.
A new, successful attack will create a backlash that will be hard to control. Laws will be passed authorizing all kinds of defensive measures and restrictions that will be far worse than those minor problems complained of now. The internal divisions of a democracy and the free expression thereof are the hallmarks of freedom. They are often viewed as weakness by those that would never allow such things in a population ruled by them, be it Al-Qaeda, Wahhabbists, Baathists, Communists, or Facists. The real strength of a democratice republic is that such freedom of expression creates mutual respect, in the long run, which may not be obvious. We can put aside our differences to defend ourselves; we have in the past and will do so now and in the future.
Totalitarian governments misjudge freedom and liberty for weakness. For that reason a truck bomb will explode in Manhattan, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Charlotte, or somewhere, maybe in each place. The reaction to such an event will be over the top and devasting to the Arab nations. The problem of Iranian nukes will be resolved almost immediately after the next Al-Qaeda attack on the United States.
Not again!!
Well, there they go again. The Democrats, especially Jimmy Carter, are still lost in the wilderness. They still cannot believe that a majority of the American public have rejected them. The odd thing is that the Democrat party is anti-democracy. They remind me of the Mexican ruling party that was displaced for the first time about 10 years ago. The lack of class and taste runs high among the Democrat leadership. Was Coretta Scott King’s funeral the place to dishonor George Bush, something that can be and is done everyday, or to honor the life of the woman who stood by her husband through thick and thin? A woman who raised two children to be good citizens and leadersafter the assassination of Dr. King, and should be recognized, and honored for such instead of having her coffin be a platform for showing off in such a childish manner.
Jimmy Carter, the worst American President ever, played true to form. He has a tin ear and a giant ego. If he is a representative of Christian and American values, give me atheism and Hugo Chavez. The Democrats are worried that the slaves will leave the plantation and start thinking for themselves. That they will be ungrateful for the gains made at the behest of whites in the Democrat party. Blacks are too stupid to make it without the help of the Democrats, stay home boy it’s a tough world out there. That seems to be the prevailing opinion among feel good leftists. Here, have some food stamps, don’t get a job, we’ll take care of you, just be sure you vote Democrat. Don’t worry about those illegal immigrants taking your place at the cotton gin, there’s plenty of tax dollars to go around.
Mrs. King’s funeral was a warning to the faithful when it should have been a day to reflect on what has been accomplished and at what price. The King family is one the most heroic American families, much more so than the Kennedys who are a group of cynical rich criminals. The King family has sacrificed and basically lived for others, the Kennedys, the Jacksons, and the Sharptons of the world live for themselves, and desire to rule others.
Black Americans should be a term that does not exist, but it does and will as long as the race card gets played by politicians. Why is the Bush administration the first to have a multicultural and multiracial government with real power being in the hands of the competent minority memebers instead of the white males?
Jimmy Carter, the worst American President ever, played true to form. He has a tin ear and a giant ego. If he is a representative of Christian and American values, give me atheism and Hugo Chavez. The Democrats are worried that the slaves will leave the plantation and start thinking for themselves. That they will be ungrateful for the gains made at the behest of whites in the Democrat party. Blacks are too stupid to make it without the help of the Democrats, stay home boy it’s a tough world out there. That seems to be the prevailing opinion among feel good leftists. Here, have some food stamps, don’t get a job, we’ll take care of you, just be sure you vote Democrat. Don’t worry about those illegal immigrants taking your place at the cotton gin, there’s plenty of tax dollars to go around.
Mrs. King’s funeral was a warning to the faithful when it should have been a day to reflect on what has been accomplished and at what price. The King family is one the most heroic American families, much more so than the Kennedys who are a group of cynical rich criminals. The King family has sacrificed and basically lived for others, the Kennedys, the Jacksons, and the Sharptons of the world live for themselves, and desire to rule others.
Black Americans should be a term that does not exist, but it does and will as long as the race card gets played by politicians. Why is the Bush administration the first to have a multicultural and multiracial government with real power being in the hands of the competent minority memebers instead of the white males?
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Spying? - Of Course We Are
Hypocrisy on the American Left reigns supreme. The USA and the rest of Western Civilization is at war, this much is true even if many will not admit it. The current violence supposedly engendered by Danish cartoons makes this manifest. In my opinion it is simply an excuse to burn something and to kill someone. As I have said political violence is generally the result of feeling powerless because either your views are not espoused by the population in general or because the regime is a police state in which the free expression of political views is prohibited by force.
In the United States we are giving up our safety so that politicians can posture and grasp for power. I guess the US has evolved to the point that the Hitlerian accusation of decadence has finally come to pass. Russ Feingold, who on the basis of his name alone would be immediately executed by Muslim fundamentalists, is one of the weakest senators currently serving. He is the archetype Wisconsin liberal who in the 60s would have said “Better Red than Dead.” Do the liberal bloviators, Republican and Democrat, really think the American public wants to be attacked by Al-Qaeda or anyone else? Yet, using a false premise, they are willing to risk it to usurp the president’s ability to protect the nation.
Of course we are spying on our enemies. They are spying on us too, only they just have to turn on the television; a low risk espionage operation at the least. Senator Spector is a little schizophrenic in his views, he feels safe now that he has shepherded two nominees to the Supreme Court safely through the process. Now his true colors can be flown. I don’t expect him to get in the car with Ted Kennedy, that’s too dangerous, but he and Lincoln Chaffee will find their way to placate their Democrat soul mates.
Who in their right mind actually believes the tripe being bruited about by the Left regarding the NSA surveillance? It’s difficult to believe but the Left is letting its hatred for George Bush to endanger the general population of the country. This will not win them votes.
In the United States we are giving up our safety so that politicians can posture and grasp for power. I guess the US has evolved to the point that the Hitlerian accusation of decadence has finally come to pass. Russ Feingold, who on the basis of his name alone would be immediately executed by Muslim fundamentalists, is one of the weakest senators currently serving. He is the archetype Wisconsin liberal who in the 60s would have said “Better Red than Dead.” Do the liberal bloviators, Republican and Democrat, really think the American public wants to be attacked by Al-Qaeda or anyone else? Yet, using a false premise, they are willing to risk it to usurp the president’s ability to protect the nation.
Of course we are spying on our enemies. They are spying on us too, only they just have to turn on the television; a low risk espionage operation at the least. Senator Spector is a little schizophrenic in his views, he feels safe now that he has shepherded two nominees to the Supreme Court safely through the process. Now his true colors can be flown. I don’t expect him to get in the car with Ted Kennedy, that’s too dangerous, but he and Lincoln Chaffee will find their way to placate their Democrat soul mates.
Who in their right mind actually believes the tripe being bruited about by the Left regarding the NSA surveillance? It’s difficult to believe but the Left is letting its hatred for George Bush to endanger the general population of the country. This will not win them votes.
Monday, February 06, 2006
You read it here first
You read it here first; four weeks ago I predicted the Super Bowl would be contested by the Steelers and the Seahawks and that the Steelers would prevail. What, no applause? Oh well, I was still right, though I must admit I had a few worries during the game. At one point, Herndon’s interception, I thought that young Ben had thrown the game away. Pun intended.
The first half was a see-saw battle that saw the Steelers ahead by four points. The touchdown was very iffy from the view on television. The teams battled on. The halftime program was pathetic. I have been a Stones fan since 1964 when I was a junior in high school they were great then and they are not now.
The second half of the game was better, but I doubt that the game will go down as the most thrilling. At least Jerome Bettis got his Super Bowl ring, much deserved and the Steelers became only the third franchise to win five Super Bowls. Anyway back to normal today. Another article to stimulate your thinking is on its way later today.
The first half was a see-saw battle that saw the Steelers ahead by four points. The touchdown was very iffy from the view on television. The teams battled on. The halftime program was pathetic. I have been a Stones fan since 1964 when I was a junior in high school they were great then and they are not now.
The second half of the game was better, but I doubt that the game will go down as the most thrilling. At least Jerome Bettis got his Super Bowl ring, much deserved and the Steelers became only the third franchise to win five Super Bowls. Anyway back to normal today. Another article to stimulate your thinking is on its way later today.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Muslims Aren't Ready
It’s obvious that Muslims are not ready for the modern world. Political cartoons are often hurtful to those whose view they attack, however there is no excuse for violence in response to them. The impulse for discourse does not exist in many fundamentalists world view. They are right, you are wrong, and therefore you must be killed.
I reiterate a previous thought that violence is often the only path the powerless see open to them. Their leaders or should I say miss-leaders make this alternative seem to be the only road to be taken. Clearly the best option is to work to gain some kind of power within the society in which they find themselves. This is actually the key to the success of the USA, groups can get political attention, but they must work for it.
Take Hamas for example, if this group would take a chance and repudiate their wish to destroy Israel, then the future of current and unborn Palestinians will be much brighter. A big step has been taken in the elections, and Fatah has learned a powerful lesson: unity is better than splintering to retain control. Alas Islamic Fundamentalists live in a world where only they count. No amount of accommodation will placate them. Even when educated they cannot escape their security blanket of Allah’s will. Fatalism ne’er won social well being.
The violent response to criticism is completely hypocritical of course. Islamic press cartoons are completely disrespectful of all infidels. The fact that that word is still current demonstrates the attitude of Muslims towards the rest of the world’s people.
I would venture one more position. Islam, as it is being bruited about the Middle East violates its own principles. The current crop of Muslims has elevated Mohammed to the level of Allah. Blasphemy is reserved for deities only, unless Islam has more than one God, editorial cartoons are not a transgression. One cannot blaspheme Mohammed as he is not divine.
On that note I bid you farewell for now, but leave you with this question: beyond Judaism is there a single religion that is truly monotheistic?
I reiterate a previous thought that violence is often the only path the powerless see open to them. Their leaders or should I say miss-leaders make this alternative seem to be the only road to be taken. Clearly the best option is to work to gain some kind of power within the society in which they find themselves. This is actually the key to the success of the USA, groups can get political attention, but they must work for it.
Take Hamas for example, if this group would take a chance and repudiate their wish to destroy Israel, then the future of current and unborn Palestinians will be much brighter. A big step has been taken in the elections, and Fatah has learned a powerful lesson: unity is better than splintering to retain control. Alas Islamic Fundamentalists live in a world where only they count. No amount of accommodation will placate them. Even when educated they cannot escape their security blanket of Allah’s will. Fatalism ne’er won social well being.
The violent response to criticism is completely hypocritical of course. Islamic press cartoons are completely disrespectful of all infidels. The fact that that word is still current demonstrates the attitude of Muslims towards the rest of the world’s people.
I would venture one more position. Islam, as it is being bruited about the Middle East violates its own principles. The current crop of Muslims has elevated Mohammed to the level of Allah. Blasphemy is reserved for deities only, unless Islam has more than one God, editorial cartoons are not a transgression. One cannot blaspheme Mohammed as he is not divine.
On that note I bid you farewell for now, but leave you with this question: beyond Judaism is there a single religion that is truly monotheistic?
Friday, February 03, 2006
War Is Not The Answer- Most of the Time
War is not the answer, I keep seeing this on bumper stickers; and it is true. The problem with this oversimplification is that its argument is an appeal to emotion. The fact is that wars have and will continue to occur, despite the fact that there is nothing more destructive, unhelpful, and stupid as a human endeavor. Violence is usually the option of the powerless; those who feel they are correct in all their assumptions and that they must eliminate anyone that fails to agree with them or see their point. Their frustration in not being able to convince others and their fear that they might be wrong is the motivation to violence. This is the case with Muslim fundamentalists. They might best be compared with cornered animals, they are frightened and are lashing out with as much energy as they can.
I have actually been in a war, and I can assure you that it is not much fun. There is a strange thing about war for the individual though; it can be exhilarating. The closer you come to dying or being hurt, the more alive you feel. It is very odd to return to civilian life and find that at first life has not the charm one expected. Edginess and expectation is the norm, this goes away gradually but never really leaves you. War fighting is truly boring until something happened, waiting for something to respond to, waiting for time to pass. When your comrades are injured or killed the feeling is more than that of loss, there is an emptiness that you sort of get used to, and gladness that you are still alive or not hurt and an awareness of the transient nature of life.
There is another war on the way, I am referring to the apparent inevitability of war with Iran. I hope I’m wrong about this but I don’t think so. Let’s face it Iran intends to blow something up, most likely Israel. At the least they intend nuclear blackmail in an effort to dominate their neighbors. There can be no doubt that the cruel and brutal regime that rules Iran wants to expand its reach to the Arab nations. Now what?
Even the Europeans and Canadians must pause and consider the situation. The problem with war is it’s often forced upon unwilling combatants. No one, not even the much maligned Pentagon, actually wants to step into a hail of hot metal shards or bullets. The human body does not react well to large puncture wounds. This war is coming and it will begin in the form of a series of allied air raids on key points in the Iranian countryside where known installations are located. There will be so-called collateral damage.
No war has ever been won and very few have ever been completely finished. Today’s world is the direct descendant of World War I, which can be traced back to the Napoleonic Wars, which go back to the French Revolution, you can do the rest. So I agree that war is not the answer, but it is an argument and a last resort. In the case of Iraq it is undoubtedly true that the idea was good but the execution was bad. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld definitely underestimated the task of cleaning up; if they estimated it at all. I am a big fan of President Bush and believe he operates in what he thinks is the best action to take. For this reason you can get ready for Chapter whatever in the continuation of the War to End All Wars which started in August 1914 and which continues today with a few breaks to rearm.
I have actually been in a war, and I can assure you that it is not much fun. There is a strange thing about war for the individual though; it can be exhilarating. The closer you come to dying or being hurt, the more alive you feel. It is very odd to return to civilian life and find that at first life has not the charm one expected. Edginess and expectation is the norm, this goes away gradually but never really leaves you. War fighting is truly boring until something happened, waiting for something to respond to, waiting for time to pass. When your comrades are injured or killed the feeling is more than that of loss, there is an emptiness that you sort of get used to, and gladness that you are still alive or not hurt and an awareness of the transient nature of life.
There is another war on the way, I am referring to the apparent inevitability of war with Iran. I hope I’m wrong about this but I don’t think so. Let’s face it Iran intends to blow something up, most likely Israel. At the least they intend nuclear blackmail in an effort to dominate their neighbors. There can be no doubt that the cruel and brutal regime that rules Iran wants to expand its reach to the Arab nations. Now what?
Even the Europeans and Canadians must pause and consider the situation. The problem with war is it’s often forced upon unwilling combatants. No one, not even the much maligned Pentagon, actually wants to step into a hail of hot metal shards or bullets. The human body does not react well to large puncture wounds. This war is coming and it will begin in the form of a series of allied air raids on key points in the Iranian countryside where known installations are located. There will be so-called collateral damage.
No war has ever been won and very few have ever been completely finished. Today’s world is the direct descendant of World War I, which can be traced back to the Napoleonic Wars, which go back to the French Revolution, you can do the rest. So I agree that war is not the answer, but it is an argument and a last resort. In the case of Iraq it is undoubtedly true that the idea was good but the execution was bad. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld definitely underestimated the task of cleaning up; if they estimated it at all. I am a big fan of President Bush and believe he operates in what he thinks is the best action to take. For this reason you can get ready for Chapter whatever in the continuation of the War to End All Wars which started in August 1914 and which continues today with a few breaks to rearm.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
2006 A special year in Sport
2006 is one of those years when, in the sporting world, a sort of harmonic convergence occurs. Beginning Sunday with the Superbowl in Detroit, Michigan, continuing with the Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy, and finally July’s World Cup Final in Berlin, Germany spectators should be sated with fabulous examples of athleticism. Of all these events the World Cup Final will be the most watched, both in person and through radio and television. The claims of commercial success will be mooted by excitement of the fans.
The Superbowl is the premier event in the United States; of course there are other championships of importance, for example the World Series in baseball, the NBA championship of professional basketball and “March Madness” to determine the National Champions of Collegiate Basketball. There is no satisfactory tournament to declare a clear collegiate football national champion, so the Superbowl must suffice. Most years this contest is unremarkable with one team clearly dominating the other; its anticlimactic nature has often cast doubts upon its value.
This year will be one of those different years. I am picking the Pittsburgh Steelers to win, though it could easily go the other way. I like the Steelers for the simple reason that the unquantifiable sports element of emotion is on their side. In such a case any athlete will tell you that all else being equal the team with the most heart or will or desire will prevail. The game will be close and exciting. There will be a large audience for this event, but the best is yet to come.
Turin will present an opposite picture. The Olympics, except for certain events, is all about individual achievement. These athletes have trained for years, often in a solitary state and without much financial support, to earn the right to compete. There is fire in their souls. The sad thing is that corruption has diminished the importance of the Olympics and reduced it to simply another commercial production that showcases athletic ability. Its audience is shrinking and not just because of a plethora of competing sporting events. The Olympics has become the UN of athletics meaning that politics, money, and power have become the object rather than the good of sport. Yes, hypocrisy has always been in evidence; Jim Thorpe is probably the best example of this. Yes, politics have always been a key factor in presentation and site selection, Berlin 1936 being the most outrageous example. The Winter Games in Salt Lake City saw the bubbling over of the corrosive impact of money on sport. Still, the events will be exciting, the athleticism simply wonderful, the victories, and defeats heart-warming and heart-breaking. For extended drama the Olympic Games still offer and experience worth having.
Now to the greatest event on earth; the FIFA World Cup Final, an event not to be missed. This event will have the largest audience, approximately 37 million, and generate the most interest worldwide of any sporting contest. In the United States it will be mostly overlooked, but everywhere else the world will stop turning in places like Iran, Argentina, and England when their teams are playing. It is simply amazing how much interest and emotion is invested in this event. Suicides have resulted when teams lose; players have been assassinated when their side has been defeated. Since its inception in 1930 there have been only seven different winners yet the interest borders on the fanatical. Football is the number one sport in the world, it is played in practically every country and each of them wants to simply participate in the Cup Final; to win is the Holy Grail of sport. It is unlikely that the winner trend will change. I am picking Brazil to win for the sixth time, though England has a good chance of an upset. England is one of the gang of seven. Germany will have a chance to present itself as a premiere sporting nation and a beautiful locale. The rest of the world will wear its heart on its sleeve and be left gasping at the achievements on the field. What a year this promises to be.
The Superbowl is the premier event in the United States; of course there are other championships of importance, for example the World Series in baseball, the NBA championship of professional basketball and “March Madness” to determine the National Champions of Collegiate Basketball. There is no satisfactory tournament to declare a clear collegiate football national champion, so the Superbowl must suffice. Most years this contest is unremarkable with one team clearly dominating the other; its anticlimactic nature has often cast doubts upon its value.
This year will be one of those different years. I am picking the Pittsburgh Steelers to win, though it could easily go the other way. I like the Steelers for the simple reason that the unquantifiable sports element of emotion is on their side. In such a case any athlete will tell you that all else being equal the team with the most heart or will or desire will prevail. The game will be close and exciting. There will be a large audience for this event, but the best is yet to come.
Turin will present an opposite picture. The Olympics, except for certain events, is all about individual achievement. These athletes have trained for years, often in a solitary state and without much financial support, to earn the right to compete. There is fire in their souls. The sad thing is that corruption has diminished the importance of the Olympics and reduced it to simply another commercial production that showcases athletic ability. Its audience is shrinking and not just because of a plethora of competing sporting events. The Olympics has become the UN of athletics meaning that politics, money, and power have become the object rather than the good of sport. Yes, hypocrisy has always been in evidence; Jim Thorpe is probably the best example of this. Yes, politics have always been a key factor in presentation and site selection, Berlin 1936 being the most outrageous example. The Winter Games in Salt Lake City saw the bubbling over of the corrosive impact of money on sport. Still, the events will be exciting, the athleticism simply wonderful, the victories, and defeats heart-warming and heart-breaking. For extended drama the Olympic Games still offer and experience worth having.
Now to the greatest event on earth; the FIFA World Cup Final, an event not to be missed. This event will have the largest audience, approximately 37 million, and generate the most interest worldwide of any sporting contest. In the United States it will be mostly overlooked, but everywhere else the world will stop turning in places like Iran, Argentina, and England when their teams are playing. It is simply amazing how much interest and emotion is invested in this event. Suicides have resulted when teams lose; players have been assassinated when their side has been defeated. Since its inception in 1930 there have been only seven different winners yet the interest borders on the fanatical. Football is the number one sport in the world, it is played in practically every country and each of them wants to simply participate in the Cup Final; to win is the Holy Grail of sport. It is unlikely that the winner trend will change. I am picking Brazil to win for the sixth time, though England has a good chance of an upset. England is one of the gang of seven. Germany will have a chance to present itself as a premiere sporting nation and a beautiful locale. The rest of the world will wear its heart on its sleeve and be left gasping at the achievements on the field. What a year this promises to be.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Science? Not Again!
Ah, science it can be put to so many uses; actually helping humanity, starting and finishing arguments, interpreted in any way that suits, providing an appeal to authority, and best of all perfect for media distortion. Let's take a look at the latest in genetics. Hooray! We can now go about our daily lives guilt free. No matter what our behavior it's not our fault, it's all in the genes. Of course it makes one wonder about a time behavior wasn't programmed genetically. Was there such a time? If so how did the behavior get programmed genetically, if not how did the Big Bang come to have such an influence over pedophilia, murder, good works, compassion, height, weight, etc.
The study released yesterday claimed that all humanity is racist and this is due to genetic programming. I must say this conclusion raise questions about the relevance or usefulness of advanced education as certified by university degrees. This discussion ties in nicely to the end of the world environmental crisis described in the Sunday newspapers. Are these reports symptomatic of a larger malaise in the scientific community? Is there frustration about not being taken seriously? Or is this simply another case of an editor taking something from a report, perhaps even two lines, that suits their opinion and stipulating its factual nature? I really don't know. I do know that anyone who buys into these hypotheses has stopped, if they ever started, thinking.
Of course there is Global Warming it started about 16 thousand years ago and thank goodness, without it you wouldn't be here to read these words of wisdom. We poor humans have such a short life span and are so egotistical that we tend to think that our lives should be static, no changes from the time we step on earth until we depart. Nature should be immutable, of course that excludes the Theory of Evolution, but so what. Hurricanes may not exceed a certain number per year or else human emissions are too high.
This goes back to the earth's limits. Since we don't know and can't find out what exactly the weather was 30,000 years ago, except that it was frightfully cold in most parts, what baseline are we to use? Of course some scientists will say this, others will say that, who is correct. The answer is neither because the question is insoluble. When you hear that the weather is the worst in 500 years, you must ask how was the weather in the years preceeding.
When you awaken each morning make sure to enjoy the short time you have left, time after all is relative to each unique case, and don't worry about what you read in the newspaper, hear on the radio, or see on television. They may be right or they may be wrong but believe me there a plenty of neurotics ready and willing to take these worries for you.
The study released yesterday claimed that all humanity is racist and this is due to genetic programming. I must say this conclusion raise questions about the relevance or usefulness of advanced education as certified by university degrees. This discussion ties in nicely to the end of the world environmental crisis described in the Sunday newspapers. Are these reports symptomatic of a larger malaise in the scientific community? Is there frustration about not being taken seriously? Or is this simply another case of an editor taking something from a report, perhaps even two lines, that suits their opinion and stipulating its factual nature? I really don't know. I do know that anyone who buys into these hypotheses has stopped, if they ever started, thinking.
Of course there is Global Warming it started about 16 thousand years ago and thank goodness, without it you wouldn't be here to read these words of wisdom. We poor humans have such a short life span and are so egotistical that we tend to think that our lives should be static, no changes from the time we step on earth until we depart. Nature should be immutable, of course that excludes the Theory of Evolution, but so what. Hurricanes may not exceed a certain number per year or else human emissions are too high.
This goes back to the earth's limits. Since we don't know and can't find out what exactly the weather was 30,000 years ago, except that it was frightfully cold in most parts, what baseline are we to use? Of course some scientists will say this, others will say that, who is correct. The answer is neither because the question is insoluble. When you hear that the weather is the worst in 500 years, you must ask how was the weather in the years preceeding.
When you awaken each morning make sure to enjoy the short time you have left, time after all is relative to each unique case, and don't worry about what you read in the newspaper, hear on the radio, or see on television. They may be right or they may be wrong but believe me there a plenty of neurotics ready and willing to take these worries for you.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Can Dissent Be Unpatriotic?
I had a very thoughtful email in response to my comments about Jimmy Carter, whom I stipulated was the worst president ever. Part of the reader's response was that as an "ultra-lefty" he or she was tired of being called unpatriotic for dissenting from the Bush Administration policies. It is difficult to respond to this as I have no idea what kind of dissent has been expressed by the writer, but I will take a stab at it. First let me be clear there is not nor can there be unpatriotic dissent.
Where I think the left goes wrong is in thinking that when they are name calling and flat out lying that they are dissenting. This is of course wrong. When Senator Rockefeller or Senator Kennedy come out against decisions they were consulted on and deny the fact, that is a lie and not dissent. Now, lying is also not unpatriotic. If it were there would be no patriots in the government and there damn few enough now.
Until the left can get over the fact that they must propose something rather than carp, moan, and agonize while ignoring the fact that they are becoming passe, then we will not have dissent only gripes.
What then is dissent? In the modern context it would be statements that George Bush has made poor choices in certain areas, made in such a way as to encourage dialogue. Dissent is not to ignore the actual events as in the who is responsible for the defeat of the Kyoto treaty debate; which was defeated 99-0 in the Senate prior to Bush being elected. Dissent is trivialized by accusing George Bush of causing hurricanes.
Dissent should propose a reasonable alternative. Simply trying to reveal techniques employed by the government to protect the nation, attempting to overturn an election through impeachment (Republicans were guilty of this too), and being thorough dissemblers is not dissent; it is war against the nation itself.
Why don't we see Conservative demostraters protesting the Liberals? Why are fundraising letters 80% scare tactics, why, as an electorate, do we tolerate intellectual dishonesty on both sides? I fear the answer lies in the inability of the general population to think critically or worse they are apathetic to the point of not caring at all. This attitude leaves the field to the wackos on the far left and far right.
The Liberals are going to protect our constitutional rights, especially those made explicit in the constitution. So how do we explain the massacre of the Branch Dividians by Bill Clinton? How do we explain the gutting of private property rights by the expansion of eminent domain? How do we explain Elian Gonzalez being taken from a legal guardian and returned to Cuba? How do we explain the internment of Japanese- American citizens, some second and third generation, during World War II? All these actions were taken by Democrat leadership and any dissent was blithely ignored.
No dear reader dissent can never be unpatriotic in the United States, it is one our core values. The problem arises when only one side is allowed to dissent. Go to a college graduation where a liberal speaker is making the commencement address and see how many conservatives protest, then do the same where a conservative is performing this duty. I think the contrast will be obvious and marked.
Where I think the left goes wrong is in thinking that when they are name calling and flat out lying that they are dissenting. This is of course wrong. When Senator Rockefeller or Senator Kennedy come out against decisions they were consulted on and deny the fact, that is a lie and not dissent. Now, lying is also not unpatriotic. If it were there would be no patriots in the government and there damn few enough now.
Until the left can get over the fact that they must propose something rather than carp, moan, and agonize while ignoring the fact that they are becoming passe, then we will not have dissent only gripes.
What then is dissent? In the modern context it would be statements that George Bush has made poor choices in certain areas, made in such a way as to encourage dialogue. Dissent is not to ignore the actual events as in the who is responsible for the defeat of the Kyoto treaty debate; which was defeated 99-0 in the Senate prior to Bush being elected. Dissent is trivialized by accusing George Bush of causing hurricanes.
Dissent should propose a reasonable alternative. Simply trying to reveal techniques employed by the government to protect the nation, attempting to overturn an election through impeachment (Republicans were guilty of this too), and being thorough dissemblers is not dissent; it is war against the nation itself.
Why don't we see Conservative demostraters protesting the Liberals? Why are fundraising letters 80% scare tactics, why, as an electorate, do we tolerate intellectual dishonesty on both sides? I fear the answer lies in the inability of the general population to think critically or worse they are apathetic to the point of not caring at all. This attitude leaves the field to the wackos on the far left and far right.
The Liberals are going to protect our constitutional rights, especially those made explicit in the constitution. So how do we explain the massacre of the Branch Dividians by Bill Clinton? How do we explain the gutting of private property rights by the expansion of eminent domain? How do we explain Elian Gonzalez being taken from a legal guardian and returned to Cuba? How do we explain the internment of Japanese- American citizens, some second and third generation, during World War II? All these actions were taken by Democrat leadership and any dissent was blithely ignored.
No dear reader dissent can never be unpatriotic in the United States, it is one our core values. The problem arises when only one side is allowed to dissent. Go to a college graduation where a liberal speaker is making the commencement address and see how many conservatives protest, then do the same where a conservative is performing this duty. I think the contrast will be obvious and marked.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Another Environmental Crock
I heard the news today, oh Boy! Too much emission in the atmosphere! (with apologies to the Beatles). I really wonder if there is intelligent life on earth, besides me of course, when something like this can be printed as a serious news story. “Scientists say that emissions are pushing the Earth to its limits.” I have rarely heard any thing so ridiculous, especially given that no one knows if the Earth has limited recovery capacity or even what those limits are. OK, I understand that headline writers have the job of scaring the hell out of everyone, but why not scare people with something scary?
The only time anyone will know what the Earth’s limits are is when, or more likely if, they have been inexorably exceeded, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Remember Paul Ehrlich? We were supposed to extinct as a species by now according to his 1989 book. What about Silent Spring, it now turns out that the entire book was a hoax. How much of this environmental drivel are we supposed to swallow? Oh it makes great press, and the mass of humanity is hysterical enough to believe it, but what prediction other than the return of Christ has been so often wrong?
Guess what? This ecological nightmare is the fault of the United States of America, now there’s a surprise. The USA has assumed a mind-boggling bogey man power on every issue. I think this alone proves the premise that most human beings are pretty dopey. The news media are a modern day PT Barnum, anything to sell newspapers. Unfortunately for them the cable news networks are co-opting the public’s dirty little secret; everyone loves tabloid journalism. What’s worse is that once seen on TV it is assumed to be true.
My fellow earthlings, do not despair you may continue your lives without fear of spontaneous combustion, the rapture, or choking on greenhouse gases.
The only time anyone will know what the Earth’s limits are is when, or more likely if, they have been inexorably exceeded, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Remember Paul Ehrlich? We were supposed to extinct as a species by now according to his 1989 book. What about Silent Spring, it now turns out that the entire book was a hoax. How much of this environmental drivel are we supposed to swallow? Oh it makes great press, and the mass of humanity is hysterical enough to believe it, but what prediction other than the return of Christ has been so often wrong?
Guess what? This ecological nightmare is the fault of the United States of America, now there’s a surprise. The USA has assumed a mind-boggling bogey man power on every issue. I think this alone proves the premise that most human beings are pretty dopey. The news media are a modern day PT Barnum, anything to sell newspapers. Unfortunately for them the cable news networks are co-opting the public’s dirty little secret; everyone loves tabloid journalism. What’s worse is that once seen on TV it is assumed to be true.
My fellow earthlings, do not despair you may continue your lives without fear of spontaneous combustion, the rapture, or choking on greenhouse gases.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
What about Latin America?
Undoubtedly the Palestinian Elections are of paramount importance to the United States and Europe, but what of the United States’ relationship with Mexico, Central, and South America? The United States has been losing the ideological and economic war in that part of its sphere of influence even before Fidel Castro came to power. Yet there is hope for reconciliation and good relations. There are two major factors that will come into play. First Fidel and his acolytes are actually weak and fearful, despite the Cindy Shehans of the world. Second immigration, legal and illegal, will tilt American public opinion in favor of a gentler view of the Southern Hemisphere.
I say Fidel and his acolytes are fearful, let me present a recent example of this. Recently the US Consulate has be electronically passing world news along to the Cuban people in the form of an electronic ticker-tape. Castro is incensed of course because even though there is undoubtedly some element of propaganda, it is a news outlet he cannot control. In response he is building some kind of shield to prevent its viewing by the Cuban people. Why would he do this if his is a free and open society?
The Southern Hemisphere is a large and diverse place, but many if not most, Americans think of it as monolithic. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cultural and ethnic makeup of each nation is very different as are the agricultural and mineral resources each possesses. The United States has always been Eurocentric which explains the attention paid there and to the Middle East. The Arabian and European history is so intertwined it’s amazing that we are at war there. The simple explanation is Islam v. Christianity, but that doesn’t work anymore. The truth is exploitation of resources without a thought to the people who are ruled by tyrants.
At the moment the United States is about to slip into the same situation south of its borders. The historical relationship of the US to its southern neighbors is that of exploitation and dominance. This does not mean it has been all bad; rather the assumptions are mostly wrong when it comes to even thinking about Mexico and Latin America let alone interacting with its population. The United States assumes that because it is richer, not larger mind you, and stronger that these nations should naturally bend to our will. That this is a mistaken view must seem obvious; it is not I can assure you. The education system in the United States is so poorly constructed that I doubt if one in ten can name all the nations let alone their location on the continent.
This condition will change over the next 50 years. During that time the United States will become more sympathetic to this region simply because many more of our citizens will be second generation immigrants from there. They will become politicians with influence, judges, business people etc. The true union of these two regions northern and southern hemispheres based on trust and respect, will form a block that will be a force to be reckoned with. We must start now if its energy is to be harnessed for good.
A productive dialogue, even with Castro, Chavez, Evo, and company, must be started. By productive I mean the United States should be slow to react to the stupid things said by these “leaders” and a sympathetic vision of how to meet the general population’s expectations and wants should be put forward. An application of the protestant work ethic would be most helpful. The US should delay gratification of its desire for strong influence by laying a solid foundation for the future. This can be done by ignoring, to a certain extent, the demagogue’s that seize power from time to time and prod them along a path that benefits their people and ours.
I say Fidel and his acolytes are fearful, let me present a recent example of this. Recently the US Consulate has be electronically passing world news along to the Cuban people in the form of an electronic ticker-tape. Castro is incensed of course because even though there is undoubtedly some element of propaganda, it is a news outlet he cannot control. In response he is building some kind of shield to prevent its viewing by the Cuban people. Why would he do this if his is a free and open society?
The Southern Hemisphere is a large and diverse place, but many if not most, Americans think of it as monolithic. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cultural and ethnic makeup of each nation is very different as are the agricultural and mineral resources each possesses. The United States has always been Eurocentric which explains the attention paid there and to the Middle East. The Arabian and European history is so intertwined it’s amazing that we are at war there. The simple explanation is Islam v. Christianity, but that doesn’t work anymore. The truth is exploitation of resources without a thought to the people who are ruled by tyrants.
At the moment the United States is about to slip into the same situation south of its borders. The historical relationship of the US to its southern neighbors is that of exploitation and dominance. This does not mean it has been all bad; rather the assumptions are mostly wrong when it comes to even thinking about Mexico and Latin America let alone interacting with its population. The United States assumes that because it is richer, not larger mind you, and stronger that these nations should naturally bend to our will. That this is a mistaken view must seem obvious; it is not I can assure you. The education system in the United States is so poorly constructed that I doubt if one in ten can name all the nations let alone their location on the continent.
This condition will change over the next 50 years. During that time the United States will become more sympathetic to this region simply because many more of our citizens will be second generation immigrants from there. They will become politicians with influence, judges, business people etc. The true union of these two regions northern and southern hemispheres based on trust and respect, will form a block that will be a force to be reckoned with. We must start now if its energy is to be harnessed for good.
A productive dialogue, even with Castro, Chavez, Evo, and company, must be started. By productive I mean the United States should be slow to react to the stupid things said by these “leaders” and a sympathetic vision of how to meet the general population’s expectations and wants should be put forward. An application of the protestant work ethic would be most helpful. The US should delay gratification of its desire for strong influence by laying a solid foundation for the future. This can be done by ignoring, to a certain extent, the demagogue’s that seize power from time to time and prod them along a path that benefits their people and ours.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Some Major Issues for the Next US Elections.
There will be several major issues in the next US election, perhaps lasting even through the 2008 elections. These will include illegal immigration from Mexico, Iran’s nuclear program, Palestine, dependence on foreign energy sources, all of which are losers for the Democrats as presently constructed. Why, oh why can’t they come up with a reason to support them? George Bush is a good president, not a great one as I had first thought, and at least tries to do what he set out to do. This is confusing to the opposition.
The Democrats are so distracted by anger that they have forgotten that being trusted with the government implies passing legislation that has something to do with real life, not just their donation base. Bush has missed the boat on a critical issue, that of illegal immigration. By failing to address this problem he should be in danger of losing support; and he is. The only saving grace for him is that the Democrats are doing a worse job. They see votes in the illegal population, which just shows how intellectually bankrupt they really are. Bush on the other hand doesn’t seem to care one way or the other. Meanwhile the American voters are getting fed up with the situation.
There will be another war or at least some kind of military action against Iran if a reasonable solution is not found and it will not be. The Iranians are overestimating their situation. A joint strike force of US and European bombers can wreak havoc on Iran and its nuclear construction facilities. This would provide a short term solution, but might result in the loss of any good will that can presently be found among dissident Iranians. A better solution would be sanctions that are tough and that all nations participate in fully. This would put pressure on the mullahs and the population and most likely a rebellion would be fomented. This is the best long term solution.
The elections in Palestine prove the worth of the Bush plan to spread democracy throughout the Middle East; though it is fraught with danger. There should be some dialogue with Hamas, limited perhaps or even secret. To promote democracy and ignore the elected party seems a bit strange; after all we do have diplomatic relations with China, Venezuela, Egypt, and other undesirable governments. We can best support Israel by trying to help Hamas mature. The American Jewish lobby may make this untenable.
Dependence on foreign energy sources is a real loser for the Democrats as they will oppose any development of domestic resources. Cynical at worst naïve at best they are held hostage by a minority of environmental wackos. The new configuration of the Supreme Court may change this and give the Democrats a way out. This is very appropriate as recent studies have shown that the Europeans greenhouse emissions have risen despite their endorsement of the Kyoto treaty while those of the US have actually been reduced even though we did not endorse Kyoto. This simple fact will, or should, begin to defang those on the far left who are willing to see us crawl instead of standing up for ourselves.
The moral failure of the left is starting to hurt them. They dance to the tune of the ultra left strident ravings from Michael Moore, George Soros, and others. Why do you think Ted Kennedy, the killer of Mary Jo Kopechne, and John Kerry, the false hero, are suggesting a filibuster against Alito? It is simple: money.
The Democrats are so distracted by anger that they have forgotten that being trusted with the government implies passing legislation that has something to do with real life, not just their donation base. Bush has missed the boat on a critical issue, that of illegal immigration. By failing to address this problem he should be in danger of losing support; and he is. The only saving grace for him is that the Democrats are doing a worse job. They see votes in the illegal population, which just shows how intellectually bankrupt they really are. Bush on the other hand doesn’t seem to care one way or the other. Meanwhile the American voters are getting fed up with the situation.
There will be another war or at least some kind of military action against Iran if a reasonable solution is not found and it will not be. The Iranians are overestimating their situation. A joint strike force of US and European bombers can wreak havoc on Iran and its nuclear construction facilities. This would provide a short term solution, but might result in the loss of any good will that can presently be found among dissident Iranians. A better solution would be sanctions that are tough and that all nations participate in fully. This would put pressure on the mullahs and the population and most likely a rebellion would be fomented. This is the best long term solution.
The elections in Palestine prove the worth of the Bush plan to spread democracy throughout the Middle East; though it is fraught with danger. There should be some dialogue with Hamas, limited perhaps or even secret. To promote democracy and ignore the elected party seems a bit strange; after all we do have diplomatic relations with China, Venezuela, Egypt, and other undesirable governments. We can best support Israel by trying to help Hamas mature. The American Jewish lobby may make this untenable.
Dependence on foreign energy sources is a real loser for the Democrats as they will oppose any development of domestic resources. Cynical at worst naïve at best they are held hostage by a minority of environmental wackos. The new configuration of the Supreme Court may change this and give the Democrats a way out. This is very appropriate as recent studies have shown that the Europeans greenhouse emissions have risen despite their endorsement of the Kyoto treaty while those of the US have actually been reduced even though we did not endorse Kyoto. This simple fact will, or should, begin to defang those on the far left who are willing to see us crawl instead of standing up for ourselves.
The moral failure of the left is starting to hurt them. They dance to the tune of the ultra left strident ravings from Michael Moore, George Soros, and others. Why do you think Ted Kennedy, the killer of Mary Jo Kopechne, and John Kerry, the false hero, are suggesting a filibuster against Alito? It is simple: money.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Jimmy Carter - The worst ever?
Who was the worst president of the United States? For my money it is Jimmy Carter. He is primarily responsible for the emergence of Iran as an Islamic state. His actions and policies at the time have come to haunt us and the world. I think his “stature” among our enemies is proof of this assertion. Without Carter’s insistence that the Shah be overthrown and Khomeini installed as chief mullah we would not be facing another military “option” in the region. Many people either don’t remember or fail to remember that the US and France insisted upon Khomeini being allowed back to Iran from self-imposed exile. The ostensible rationale was that the Shah was unbearably cruel to his subjects, that he had been illegitimately installed as ruler in 1953, and that an Islamic Republic would be a kinder, gentler, place. Since then tens, if not hundreds of thousands have been executed for various Islamic violations. People like Sean Penn are willing tools of the mullahs. Carter’s plan backfired almost immediately as the mullahs allowed “students” to storm the US Embassy and capture the staff. I had a friend stationed in Iran at the time, a civilian, working on telecommunications for Iran. As an American his situation was tenuous at best. He managed to escape but it was touch and go for a while.
Jimmy Carter’s domestic economic policies were disastrous as interest rates reached 21% and inflation was also in double digits, prices changed almost daily. Being in debt was a good thing because the debt was being paid off in ever cheaper dollars. Savings accounts paid more than 12% but the money was worth less and less each month. Carter was a vacillator, afraid to make decisions. He did follow-up on the Nixon plan to bring China into a full relationship with the US and in fact Carter did establish a full diplomatic relationship with China.
Today Jimmy Carter is an America hater, what could be worse and more ridiculous? He thinks Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are role models for leadership and morality. Carter is like all ultra left wing wackos: he hates himself, his country, and his lucky birth as a white person in the USA. He is ashamed without reason. Anyone born in the United States is luckier than most people on earth. The personal opportunities here are without parallel, try to better yourself in Cuba, it's worth 10 years in prison.
There were other presidents that were weak, venal, and vain: McKinley, Grant, Fillmore, and Cleveland to name a few. None of them went around the world legitimizing false elections and calling their country the greatest threat to world peace, a statement that flies in the face of the evidence.
Jimmy Carter’s domestic economic policies were disastrous as interest rates reached 21% and inflation was also in double digits, prices changed almost daily. Being in debt was a good thing because the debt was being paid off in ever cheaper dollars. Savings accounts paid more than 12% but the money was worth less and less each month. Carter was a vacillator, afraid to make decisions. He did follow-up on the Nixon plan to bring China into a full relationship with the US and in fact Carter did establish a full diplomatic relationship with China.
Today Jimmy Carter is an America hater, what could be worse and more ridiculous? He thinks Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are role models for leadership and morality. Carter is like all ultra left wing wackos: he hates himself, his country, and his lucky birth as a white person in the USA. He is ashamed without reason. Anyone born in the United States is luckier than most people on earth. The personal opportunities here are without parallel, try to better yourself in Cuba, it's worth 10 years in prison.
There were other presidents that were weak, venal, and vain: McKinley, Grant, Fillmore, and Cleveland to name a few. None of them went around the world legitimizing false elections and calling their country the greatest threat to world peace, a statement that flies in the face of the evidence.
The Death Penalty is Unneccessary
The execution of murderers is unnecessary. I won’t make it a moral issue and say it is wrong, even though the risks involved might make it so. The death penalty is risky simply because of the lack of checks and balances in the justice system. Yes, it is true that the convicted have many opportunities to appeal, but are these appeals really taken seriously. There have been too many instances where prosecutors have behaved, at the least badly, and at the worst illegally themselves. It is odd to me that the justice system of the United States appears to be interested only in the conviction rate, not in making certain that the correct person is apprehended and punished. Box scores are inappropriate in judging how effective a justice system is. In my state, North Carolina, we have had occasions where the prosecutors and governor refuse to reconsider a case even in the face of new evidence. The typical response is “The jury has spoken” which is true but did they have enough information to decide?
We all know of DNA rescues, death bed confessions by others, and accidental evidence finding while investigating another case, why then, do members of the prosecutorial side resist making amends? The death penalty does something else; it coarsens society itself making life taking that much easier. It also excuses abortion, which is amazing from both points of view. The pro-choice side is opposed to the death penalty yet endorse abortion, and pro-life is generally in favor the death penalty but opposed to abortion; go figure.
Why not consider an alternative? I have for years proposed that murderers should not be executed simply because death is too easy for them. This is especially true in the case of torture killings and child murder. It is my opinion that these criminals should be housed in someplace cold like Alaska, North Dakota, and Idaho, someplace where escape is not an option. They should be kept in solitary confinement, no communication with their families, television, newspapers, magazines, and take their meals alone in their cell. This is equivalent to death without putting pressure on society. When these murderers die in prison their families may be given the option to claim the body or they will be buried in the prison graveyard. The graveyard should be visible from the prison to remind these monsters of what awaits them.
In every case new evidence must considered and the prosecutors may have little or no say so in the matter. I also propose that prosecutors that “railroad” a suspect should be severely disciplined with a minimum prison sentence of five years hard time with no chance parole. It is time to realize that technology makes it possible to prove innocence and there is no need to execute criminals to punish them.
We all know of DNA rescues, death bed confessions by others, and accidental evidence finding while investigating another case, why then, do members of the prosecutorial side resist making amends? The death penalty does something else; it coarsens society itself making life taking that much easier. It also excuses abortion, which is amazing from both points of view. The pro-choice side is opposed to the death penalty yet endorse abortion, and pro-life is generally in favor the death penalty but opposed to abortion; go figure.
Why not consider an alternative? I have for years proposed that murderers should not be executed simply because death is too easy for them. This is especially true in the case of torture killings and child murder. It is my opinion that these criminals should be housed in someplace cold like Alaska, North Dakota, and Idaho, someplace where escape is not an option. They should be kept in solitary confinement, no communication with their families, television, newspapers, magazines, and take their meals alone in their cell. This is equivalent to death without putting pressure on society. When these murderers die in prison their families may be given the option to claim the body or they will be buried in the prison graveyard. The graveyard should be visible from the prison to remind these monsters of what awaits them.
In every case new evidence must considered and the prosecutors may have little or no say so in the matter. I also propose that prosecutors that “railroad” a suspect should be severely disciplined with a minimum prison sentence of five years hard time with no chance parole. It is time to realize that technology makes it possible to prove innocence and there is no need to execute criminals to punish them.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Roe v Wade The Return to the States
I’m just thinking about yesterday’s anti-abortion demonstration, Judge Alito’s confirmation floor debate and vote, and an article about sonograms in the Wall Street Journal. The abortion debate has undoubtedly divided the nation’s electorate and brought forth evidence of hatred and intolerance on both sides; not to mention the pandering to voters by politicians that consider them too stupid to think for themselves. This issue will definitely come before the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade will be reversed if only on a limited scale. The legislative authority for abortion regulation will be returned to the states; Judge Alito’s confirmation practically guarantees this. So what? Does it really matter?
The liberal side of the debate frames the argument as a right of privacy, a “woman’s right to choose” and as the definition of women’s rights in society. This argument does not really stand up under today’s conditions. At this point nearly all scholars left and right agree that there is no right to privacy explicit in the constitution, reading between the lines is tricky and unreliable. Further medical advances are making it a difficult “choice” because an accidental pregnancy is quite unnecessary, given the many prevention tools that are currently available; abortion must not be allowed as a method of birth control. Technological advances are impinging on this problem as sonograms become more sophisticated and the evidence of a living human being waiting to complete its development is clearer, many women (and men) will hesitate before killing the baby. The last part of the argument is specious. Women can advance in their careers without abortion; to suggest otherwise is insulting and demeaning to women who want a career. The interest groups promoting these arguments are now institutions and offer careers of their own. I don’t know the answer to this question, but how many people are employed by NARAL to promote abortion?
The conservative view is presented in two ways: as a moral issue and as an issue that the voters in each state have a right to decide the question instead of receiving the answer as a court dictum. As a moral issue I think the argument is accurate but weak in today’s American society; morality doesn’t seem to count for much even at the highest levels. The morality part does resonate with me as the killing of defenseless people is reprehensible. There can be no doubt that the fetus is a human being, even if its still in training. Another thing about the conservative argument that has always interested me is the fact that the Pro-Life leaders are almost exclusively men, which to my mind weakens its credibility. I don’t mean the credibility that abortion is inherently wrong, I mean that the motives of some of these leaders must be considered suspect. The stronger argument is to let each state have its own view of the situation, which I think was the original intent of the Roe v. Wade decision. The more liberal states will have a more liberal view and the same goes for the more conservative states. Such a situation would actually help develop a greater sense of personal responsibility and “morality” as the people will be in charge of their destinies in this case.
No matter, until the voters get the power to decide this issue it will continue to burn brightly. There are other forces at work as I mentioned but they will take time to have an effect. Our country needs to get this divisive question behind us we are facing great threats and cannot continue to waste our time on this. Unfortunately the two bases of the Democrat party; Afro-Americans and Pro-Choice voters will make resolution difficult, though it may still be a problem for the Democrats. They are beginning to lose their monopoly on black folks, a single issue party is difficult to maintain.
The liberal side of the debate frames the argument as a right of privacy, a “woman’s right to choose” and as the definition of women’s rights in society. This argument does not really stand up under today’s conditions. At this point nearly all scholars left and right agree that there is no right to privacy explicit in the constitution, reading between the lines is tricky and unreliable. Further medical advances are making it a difficult “choice” because an accidental pregnancy is quite unnecessary, given the many prevention tools that are currently available; abortion must not be allowed as a method of birth control. Technological advances are impinging on this problem as sonograms become more sophisticated and the evidence of a living human being waiting to complete its development is clearer, many women (and men) will hesitate before killing the baby. The last part of the argument is specious. Women can advance in their careers without abortion; to suggest otherwise is insulting and demeaning to women who want a career. The interest groups promoting these arguments are now institutions and offer careers of their own. I don’t know the answer to this question, but how many people are employed by NARAL to promote abortion?
The conservative view is presented in two ways: as a moral issue and as an issue that the voters in each state have a right to decide the question instead of receiving the answer as a court dictum. As a moral issue I think the argument is accurate but weak in today’s American society; morality doesn’t seem to count for much even at the highest levels. The morality part does resonate with me as the killing of defenseless people is reprehensible. There can be no doubt that the fetus is a human being, even if its still in training. Another thing about the conservative argument that has always interested me is the fact that the Pro-Life leaders are almost exclusively men, which to my mind weakens its credibility. I don’t mean the credibility that abortion is inherently wrong, I mean that the motives of some of these leaders must be considered suspect. The stronger argument is to let each state have its own view of the situation, which I think was the original intent of the Roe v. Wade decision. The more liberal states will have a more liberal view and the same goes for the more conservative states. Such a situation would actually help develop a greater sense of personal responsibility and “morality” as the people will be in charge of their destinies in this case.
No matter, until the voters get the power to decide this issue it will continue to burn brightly. There are other forces at work as I mentioned but they will take time to have an effect. Our country needs to get this divisive question behind us we are facing great threats and cannot continue to waste our time on this. Unfortunately the two bases of the Democrat party; Afro-Americans and Pro-Choice voters will make resolution difficult, though it may still be a problem for the Democrats. They are beginning to lose their monopoly on black folks, a single issue party is difficult to maintain.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Seahawks 34- Panthers 14
The Superbowl is set: Pittsburgh v. Seattle. I had already predicted the outcome of this week’s play and the winner of the Superbowl to be played in Detroit in two weeks. I was correct then and I am correct now. At least the Bronco’s stayed in the game when compared to the Panthers, but neither team played up to their potential. Jake Plummer may be the Bronco’s main offensive asset but he is also one of the team’s biggest weaknesses. The Steelers handled the Bronco’s in the same way they handled the Patriots: they simply dominated them. Still the Bronco’s had a chance to pull the victory off. The Panthers on the other hand didn’t even put up a fight.
Admittedly Carolina was lacking offensive weapons due to injury, but as usual the Panther’s early game performance reveals which team has shown up for the game. In last night’s case it was the losing team. Their timing was off; penalties hurt them and definitely helped the Seahawks. The Panther’s are a very nervous team and they are not able to control their collective anxiety. I never expected Carolina to win in their depleted state, but they should have been able to make it a contest. It was obvious from the first set of downs that they game was already over, at least to the keen observer of Carolina Panther behavior it was clear.
The future is not clear for Carolina much depends on the off season and physical conditioning. Steve Smith will be back and so will most of the team, but John Fox must acquire a better running back to support DeShaun Foster and perhaps replace him. Last night the team rushed for 34 yards while Shaun Alexander rushed for 132 yards an absolute disgrace for Carolina. Had they advanced the Panthers still would have lost to Pittsburgh as will the Seahawks.
Admittedly Carolina was lacking offensive weapons due to injury, but as usual the Panther’s early game performance reveals which team has shown up for the game. In last night’s case it was the losing team. Their timing was off; penalties hurt them and definitely helped the Seahawks. The Panther’s are a very nervous team and they are not able to control their collective anxiety. I never expected Carolina to win in their depleted state, but they should have been able to make it a contest. It was obvious from the first set of downs that they game was already over, at least to the keen observer of Carolina Panther behavior it was clear.
The future is not clear for Carolina much depends on the off season and physical conditioning. Steve Smith will be back and so will most of the team, but John Fox must acquire a better running back to support DeShaun Foster and perhaps replace him. Last night the team rushed for 34 yards while Shaun Alexander rushed for 132 yards an absolute disgrace for Carolina. Had they advanced the Panthers still would have lost to Pittsburgh as will the Seahawks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
