This is my father-in-law, Al Hobson, taken in 1942. He fought in WWII as a tank commander in Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and Germany. He was in the 3d Wave at Normandy. Like most veterans of war, he rarely spoke of his experiences and never with specificity. The highest compliment that can be shared is that in spite of his challenges and failures, his successes and weaknesses, that he is a committed Christian. He is in the last moments of his life as I write this, dying of cancer ... my wife is with him but I cannot be. I have sat staring at the screen for quite a while. No words. Perhaps another time.

Chairman Racicot's Reponse to Man-Boy Kerry

Original

Sunday, February 22, 2004
Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot’s Letter to Senator John Kerry

Senator Kerry:

As the chairman of the President's campaign, we look forward to a debate with the eventual Democratic nominee on President Bush's steady leadership in these times of historic change. He has an optimistic vision and agenda that will move America forward toward greater prosperity, greater security, greater freedom and greater compassion. The American people are eager to hear how the War on Terror will be won, and how we can lead the United States to even greater prosperity here at home.

Steady leadership requires making principled decisions based on what is important to the American people – not advocating policies that would derail our economic recovery and weaken our ability to win the War on Terror.

As you know, our campaign has praised your military service to our nation. Our campaign does not condone any effort to impugn your patriotism. Your letter claims that supporters of our campaign questioned your service and patriotism. In fact, that simply wasn’t the case. Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or military service, but your votes and statements on the issues now facing our country.

Senator Chambliss addressed your Senate record of voting against the weapons systems that are winning the War on Terror. Your proposals and votes as a Senator should be known to the voters as they evaluate the candidates, including: your proposal to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001 (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95), your 1996 proposal to cut defense spending by $6.5 billion (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96), and your support for canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

As we debate these issues, I also ask you to elevate the remarkably negative tone of your campaign and your party over the past year. Your chief surrogate, Senator Edward Kennedy has said that the war to remove Saddam Hussein was “made up in Texas.” The chairman of your party has accused the President of being “AWOL.” During the first days of combat in Iraq, you yourself called for “regime change in the United States.” Of the $6.95 million that your campaign has spent on television ads, 74 percent of those ad dollars have funded a direct attack on the President.

We intend to run a campaign on the issues and each candidate's record on those issues. We hope that in the future you and your surrogates will do the same. Each candidate's record on defense, on national security, on the War on Terror and on the economy is central to his vision for the future and will be central to this debate.

We look forward to that debate with you or with any Democrat that emerges as your Party's nominee.

Sincerely,

Marc Racicot
Campaign Chairman
Bush Cheney '04

Safire fires

The NYT is lucky to have at least one column worth reading. A good take on internationalist economics. Should stoke the dems and unions.

Kerry shows signs of microcracks

Kerry has lost his mind. He wrote President Bush a letter claiming that he, W, started this re-examination of Viet Nam and that W had better call off the hounds.

Expect Edwards to be deathly and deftly quiet on this one. Old political adage - when your opponent is headed for a cliff, stay out of his way.

Kerry is trying to appear as the rough-and-ready tough guy. Trying to control the agenda by labeling W as questioning his patriotism. My children would have vetoed issuing such a letter if asked, and they are in the 7th and 8th grade.

The very first thing I thought of was Dean telling McAullife to call off the dogs. Bad move. An intended move of strength showed just how weak he was.

Kerry is now doing the same thing. And he talks in such extreme terms. He is a man-child. Always in the shadow of Dukakis before and now Kennedy.

My doubts of re-election are going away. It isn't even Super Tuesday 2 and Kerry is losing it. Think of what he will be doing when W actually starts to run. Wow ...

As can be expected through patience and logic, Krauthammer nails Kerry and the Democrats to the wall.

Try to have a constructive conversation ...

Jonathan Alter writes for Newsweek. I stumbled upon an article of his last week (which I cannot link in, sorry - Newsweek charges for such a privilege on archived articles). In the article he discussed whether W could fill the presidency as Reagan did. I found the comparison humorous in light of the mainstream media's relentless assault against Reagan's intellect while in office.

So I wrote to Mr. Alter:

Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:26 PM
To: jonathan.alter@newsweek.com
Subject: W

Dear Jon,

Wow. Only after President Reagan was out of office for years did the press recognize him as a great person. Now you write as if the mainstream media recognized it at the time. You tormented the man, claimed he was stupid, treating the presidency as another Hollywood role, slept through meetings … then, most cruelly of all, when his illness became known, you murmured, “ah, that explains a lot.”

I will enjoy reading the praise of the press in several years about W and his relentless attack against terrorism, how it changed the course of history, how a strong man was needed for a challenging time. I cringe to think of Mr. Gore standing in front of the UN stomping his feet and sobbing “puh-please” as the French and Russians, both with monetary reasons to allow Saddam to stay in power, exercise their Security Council vetoes. “Vladimir, you veto it this time.” “No, no, how gracious of you, Jacques, but, really, it is your turn.” “Well, if you insist … NO!”

Enjoy your day, Jon, and weep come November as you see your diatribe result in a second term for W, and expanded majorities in the House and Senate. Will you then take a quiet moment and reassess your blind devotion to present-day liberalism, which left issues behind when Bobby was killed and slowly but now wholly is consumed with simply defeating conservatives?

And he wrote back:

From: Alter, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Alter@Newsweek.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 6:22 PM
To: 'Clyde Middleton'
Subject: RE: W

thanks for writing, clyde. i'm flattered that you think my diatribe could result in W being elected. i didn't know i had such power!!

So I wrote to him again:

Dear Jon, I appreciate the sophomoric response!!! It is consistent, wouldn’t you agree, that the liberal bias in the media perpetuates itself by showing indignation over some issues and merely changing the topic of discussion over others? You skip over the factual observation of the media’s treatment of Reagan and glibly isolate a poorly structured sentence.

Others may not, Jon, but I want you know that I appreciate your consistency. And in that vein, thank you for concurring with me that your writings are nothing more than diatribe!!!!

Enjoy your day, Clyde

But now I am surfing the net to see where my name is being used or misused and I find this posting by my friend Jon:

The whole post is here, BUT ... here is what he posted under the heading, "Jonathan, You Ignorant Slut!"

“Enjoy your day, Jon, and weep come November as you see your diatribe result in a second term for W, and expanded majorities in the House and Senate. Will you then take a quiet moment and reassess your blind devotion to present-day liberalism?” Clyde Middleton, Sacramento, Calif.

Thanks for writing, Clyde. I’m honored and humbled that you think my “diatribe” could “result” in W. being reelected. That makes me almost as powerful as Justice Scalia!

Now maybe I am being sensitive, but the crack about Scalia was shared on the net, but Jonny seemed to lack the directness to include it in the e he sent to me. Silly on his part. But is that how liberals work? They say a little to your face and a lot behind your back? Oh, well. Enjoy your day, Jon - I mean it.

Nader post below - sources

Some of the sources upon which I relied in the e below:

2000 votes by state - here;
Electoral votes by state 2000 and 2004 - here;
Electoral vote changes - here; and
2000 exit polls - here.

Nader votes going to ... taken from ...

Another e conversation with my friend. She asked about the effect of Nader in the election. Again, forgive the casual nature of the typing ...

nader. what a hoot!!! i watched his half hour with tim russert this morning. nader is an ultra-liberal. he is very much against bush and everything he stands for. he talks about corporations owning washington, and there being little if any difference between the dems and the pubs. if he stays true to his presented ideals, then he should rip the dem nominee as much as bush - but i doubt he will.

his votes will come from three pools - just like any other candidate: people voting for him that would have voted for kerry (presuming lurch gets the nomination); people that would have voted for bush (but vote for nader as a protest, since their positions have virtually no overlap); and those that will vote for him and otherwise would have stayed home.

i suggest that their is no reliable way to predict or know what percentage of nader's votes would fall into the three categories above. but it would seem that the bush protest vote will be the fewest. if the dems really get frustrated with kerry, then the voters switching from kerry may be substantial.

i just looked over some exit polls from the 2000 election and to my surprise, the nader votes do not seem to have been taken overwhelmingly from gore, as one would expect. the polls are not clear on just the issue of who they would have voted for if not for nader, so i had to interpret a bit.

nader got 2.9MM votes in 2000. here are the states and the data where nader's votes were greater than the difference in votes earned by bush and gore:

florida: 25 electoral votes; bush won by 537 votes; nader got 97,488 votes
iowa: 7 electoral votes; gore won by 4,144 votes; nader got 29,374 votes
maine: 4 electoral votes; gore won by 33,335; nader got 37,127 votes
minnesota: 10 electoral votes; gore won by 68,607 votes; nader got 126,696 votes
new hampshire: 4 electoral votes; bush won by 7,211; nader got 22,198 votes
new mexico: 5 electoral votes; gore won by 366 votes; nader got 21,251 votes
oregon: 7 electoral votes; gore won by 6,765; nader got 77,357 votes
wisconsin: 11 electoral votes; gore won by 5,708; nader got 94,070 votes.

so nader was involved in 73 electoral votes, of which 29 was won by bush. but note how close new mexico was - bush chose to respect the first count and mandatory recount, and did not play the same games as gore did in fla. wisconsin was also very close.

i expect nader will turn a couple of states. but also remember that since electoral votes have been apportioned since 2000, if W wins the same states that he won in 2000, the final count would change from bush winning by 271 to 266 to bush winning 278 to 259. this difference will only serve to help W, and compound kerry's exposure to nader (because electoral votes will be a little harder for lurch to come by).

Electing a President

The present manner in which a president is elected - popular vote determining electors - is not specified in the Constitution. The Constitution speaks only of electors. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution. The present manner began in 1872.

Forty-eight of the states are an all-or-nothing basis. The candidate with the most popular votes in the state receive all of the electors available in that state. (The number of electors is equal to the number of people in the congressional delegation.) Two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate electors based upon the votes cast.

With Nader joining the race seeming all but certain, it looks like there will be three choices on the ballots.

There were 21 elections in the "pre-popular-vote" era, and 31 elections since. Seven of the elections in the early era had only two candidates; and only 6 in the present era. Clearly, having only two choices is not the norm.

Interestingly, the third parties have been overwhelming what would be labeled today as "liberal." More on this later ... no time now.

Nader is in

Ralph Nader, according to Fox, is in the race for POTUS. Just a few hours ago, AP was reporting that Nader was to announce his decision on Sunday on Meet the Press.

There is no reasonable way to view this as good news for Kerry, nor as bad news for W. Although Nader did not receive any electoral votes in the 2000 run, he did receive 2.9 million votes. Of those people that will vote for Nader this time, they will fall into two major categories - people who would not have voted otherwise, or would have voted for Kerry. There will be some small amount of folks that would have voted for Bush as a protest (see the Dean for America blog), but not enough to move any state.

In the end result, only Kerry will be hurt by Nader's decision.

Daschle in trouble?

Thune is running Daschle very tightly - 48% for Daschle to 45% ... particularly when you consider the 4.5% MOE. Will Daschle start to speak out more as November approaches, thereby convincing some of the 29% of the conservatives to support Thune? These folks must be looking at Daschle's seniority as power and money back home. What if Kerry tanks? Perhaps he will drag some folks to the bottom of the pond with him. And if Daschle goes on the offensive, well, he has a way of sounding annoyingly like Mario Cuomo at times.

Nuclear bombs and firecrackers

I was reading a rather naive article on the answer to nuclear proliferation - just get rid of all the bombs - and followed the google trail to how nuclear bombs work. Well, instead of sharing that bit of unneeded information, let's learn how a fireworks display works, and why there isn't a channel one on televisions.

Once a legislator, always a legislator

An article supporting (although the author doesn't express it) why legislators lose elections to executives. Legislators don't build teams, they inherit them. Kerry shows his true colors.

Roe v. Wade, Two

Perhaps Roe will be re-opened afterall. If the 5th Circuit takes the case for a ride, then the US Supreme Court could get into the act rather quickly - certainly the 9th is would be acting contrary, thus opening a conflict for the Supremes to resolve. But that seems like a rather quick addressing of a 30 year old issue.

As discussed below, though, the primary issue in Roe was not abortion but the right to privacy. The courts would need to affirm the right to privacy but find that it does not apply to abortion. This could be done by recognizing a fetus as a person having rights co-equal to the mother. Should be interesting.

Your morning-cup-of-coffee read

Krauthammer gives a speech. It is dangerous to post something I have only just begun to read, but you have to trust somebody. Whether I agree with his analysis in the end result is secondary - he always supports his points of view with fact and shared observation.

Liberals are so cute sometimes

Liberals are so cute sometimes, you just want to hug them. Bill Safire writes of the Democratic race post-Wisconsin. Dean can still be a player - not for himself, but for Edwards. Kerry is going to have to say something now - he hasn't given a major policy speech since December. It seems the NYT is no longer happy with fluff. The best part of the article is that Mr. Safire writes as if the matter were serious. Maybe he is writing with tongue in cheek and I am just missing it.

But a very intriguing line ends the piece. "It would mean the weekly Kerry victory parade would be over and the media pendulum could swing again, and that the pressure would be on Edwards to cut the class warfare lest he expose the deep economic split in the Democratic Party."

Cut the class warfare - tax the rich, feed the poor; lest he expose ...

Does that mean that Mr. Safire knows that the Democratic Party has the full range from destitute single moms to limousine liberals, and that if Mr. Edwards presses too hard on increasing taxes on the rich that a backlash will occur? Does Mr. Safire imply that Mr. Edwards can say whatever he pleases about shifting the tax burden, but he better stop well short of actually doing it because the limousine liberals will revolt? It is ok to talk about helping, but don't actually DO IT??!!!!???

Wow.

Bush Wins Re-election Handily; Kerry Disputes (your state here for nominal donation)

The headline blares Top Democrats lead Bush in poll. The text tells us that Kerry would win 55% to 43% over W in the popular vote. Sounds impressive. Good for ole JFK, 3d.

Also good thing for America that we don't elect presidents based upon the popular vote (regardless of the natural skew in the results now because W is patient and allowing Mr. Teresa Heinz to weave his own fabric).

Zogby gives us a more intelligent view. He shows us the red and blue states, gives some data, then offers to sell you the details.

I ran the red/blue states through an Electoral College calculator. W 278; Kerry 260. Close, but a win.

Further, Zogby tells us that Kerry wins the blue states closely - 46% to 45%. The red states are won by W easily - 51% to 39%. That indicates that Kerry has a lot more to lose than gain. Flip NY only and the W states are 309 to 229.

Polls are funny this time of year. People who write headlines are even more funny.

Time for realistic discussion of The Bush Doctrine

A panel of liberals is listened to and dissected here. How easy it is to be a liberal and speak to a friendly audience. Mr. Owens brings reality in this article. Problem is that the panel is done talking, the audience has left, and the impression has been made.

The American Thinker blog shares another writing that analyzes with dispassion and clarity W's views, and how they came to be.

Thomas Donnelly writes of logic and necessity.

Today's reads

Charles Krauthammer is direct and unyielding in this piece about translating Kerry's war experience to the Oval Office.

The Democrats think we are stupid. Kerry "rises above the fray" by calling for the W-Nat'l Guard-AWOL discussions to stop; the DNC insist they can't; after all, it was W who has put this issue so much in the forefront. How old are these people? They think and act like toddlers ...

Religion and the polls. Most people believe the Bible to be literal. But the slope - 3/4's of Protestants, 1/2 of Catholics, 1/4 of those without religion in their lives - is instructive. I suggest that the lower Catholic number is what happens when you design a religion with a lot of stuff in it - added books in the Bible that are not inspired writings, a manual, tons of saints, certain procedures and protocols. The "literal" belief is up to 91% with evangelical protestants. That reflects a different approach to religion: "See that cross? Here's a Bible. Read it." Anything that brings someone to Christ is fine ...

A discussion on abortion

A friend wrote to me and asked about Roe v. Wade. I reproduced the relevant parts below. Forgive me for the loose manner in which it is written.

what is it that needs to happen on the abortion issue. you said roe v wade shouldn't be turned over, but that it needs to be established when life begins, and.... then... what?

a lot of people say roe was simply an abortion case. that is not true. if roe were an abortion case, then the issue of murdering unborn child would be closed - a female could opt out of pregnancy anytime she wanted. that is just not the law.

roe was a right to privacy case. secondly, roe decided when a fetus ceased being a mass of cells and became a person.

starting the late 1800s with a law review article and culminating in roe, the supreme court recognized that we as residents of the united states have a fundamental right to privacy. that is quite a mouthful for someone familiar with constitutional principles. let's take it apart ...

a "right to privacy" has been stated as a right to be left alone, away from government interference in our daily lives. there is not a right to privacy stated in the u.s. constitution.

in the late 1800s (1897/98?) a law review article was written claiming that we had a right to privacy, a right to be left alone. the concept was that the right to privacy is a "penumbra" right in the constitution. a prenumbra is a shadow, like what the sun casts upon the moon during an eclipse. to say that the right to privacy is a penumbra right is to say that there are several rights declared in the constitution and when you look at those they cast a shadow - when you view those declared rights, you see this other right, not declared but just as real ... a penumbra, a shadow - the right to be left alone - the right to privacy.

in the 1920s or so a case came up involving elliot ness (the prohibition atf agent). mr ness wanted to introduce some wire taps of phone conversations into trial. the defendants fought it. the court let them in ... said that the right to privacy was not person based, but place based. seems the taps were done on the telephone pole outside his residence and in the basement of an office building. no expectation of privacy existed for those places. (an expectation of privacy is like when you and me put our foreheads together and whisper - we expect that conversation to be ours; if we were in a restaurant and speaking in normal tones, we would not expect the same respect from other people to not listen and perhaps repeat what we said.)

a similar issue came up maybe 20 years later ... but then in the 1950s/60s griswold happened. griswold was a contraception case. this was during the time when contraceptive devices were like erector sets ... very complicated. a law said that no one could train anyone else in the use of contraceptive devices. the court tossed the law. said it interfered with the privacy of a married couple.

then came roe. 1973. a texas woman, single, wanted an abortion. texas said no. court tossed out law. said the right to privacy was personal to everyone (not just married couple like griswold, and not place based like the elliot ness case). but the issue of privacy is a lot deeper ...

texas argued that they had a right to protect an unborn child. it was human, too. court said it recognized the state's right to protect the interests of all of its residents. but it went on to say that the moment of conception did not guarantee a birth. that the unborn was not a child until it matured within the womb to a stage where it could survive outside the womb. 22 weeks.

so when a child is 22 weeks after conception, the mother loses the absolute right to an abortion.

the murderers have taken the issue through the states and said that abortions after 22 weeks must be allowed if the mother's life or health are at stake. sounds fair. then they expanded the definition of "health" to include physical and mental health. "mental health" includes issues like depression ... such a nebulous word that it includes matters such as fear of financial insecurity.

so roe is first a right to privacy case, then, secondly, it recognizes that a fetus doesn't have a its own right to privacy until it is viable outside the womb. it is at that point that he or she has rights equal to the mother. once viable, the fetus is a person for legal standards.

so the issue becomes whether viability is the proper measure. we always look for consistency in the law. perhaps, then, we should end life when a person ceases to become viable - when the person is no longer able to fed or take care of themselves. clearly, anyone in a coma is in this class. most elderly folks in a nursing home, too - if they cannot take their own meds, feed and bathe and clothe themselves, then they fail the roe viability test and should have their life terminated just like an abortion.

but if that seems unpalatable, then perhaps we can find consistency by looking at the criteria that we use for determining when people die and apply that same criteria for when someone becomes "alive."

a beating heart is the first and primary test to determine if someone is still alive. a heart beat can be heard in a fetus beginning with 18 to 30 days after conception. most women haven't a clue they are even pregnant at this stage.

the heart, however, is the only organ not dependent upon the brain for its basic functioning. and since we can keep lungs going to supplement the heart's activities even though the brain has ceased to function, another test has arisen to see if a person is dead - brain waves. at about 40 days the fetus has measurable brain waves.

so the issue in roe is when the fetus is recognized as a person. for consistency with our view of when life ends, it seems the test for an abortion should be at 0-17 days after conception.

but wait ... if we know that if no matter what medical science does that a particular patient's heart will cease functioning in, say, several days, why don't we just declare that person dead when that determination is made? why do we wait until the heart actually stops?

similarly, if medical science does nothing after conception and the heart begins to pump several days later, at 18 days after conception, why do we say the fetus is not yet alive? not yet a child?

New Temporary Links

I have divided my links to the right into "permanent" and "temporary." The latter are links that may go away. I found them useful at a time, but am not convinced of their long-term value.

Feel free to suggest links or comment on those already here.

CAPPS II - We're Watching You

This document is the government's final version of the CAPPS II system. This is the behind-the-scenes airline passenger screening.

When you get your airline ticket, you are required to tell the airline your full name, home address, home telephone number, and date of birth.

The airline couples that information with "some information" about your itinerary and passes it along to the Transportation Security Administration, part of the Department of Transportation.

The TSA will pass the passenger information onto "commercial data providers" (credit bureaus) for purposes of authentication.

Based upon the quality of the authentication and other added information from government databases, a passenger will be classified as green, yellow, or red. Greens get on the plane; yellows may have further investigation prior to departure; reds may not only be denied entry to the plane, but may be detained.

Everyone has to give something of their own privacy for the security of society. But the concept of CAPPS II is at once a necessary evil and a troubling indication of things to come.

A lot of privacy concerns were raised with the feds since the previously proposed system to the one linked above. Think of it all as the ability of the government to intrude for a good reason today, but to continue intruding for no reason tomorrow.

George Will

When George is on his medications, he writes quite clearly and to great effect. Here he staples Kerry to the wall one staple at a time. When George is done, Kerry can barely move his lips.

Fear-mongering Republicans

SFGate.com is always fun to read. So incredibly blinded by their liberalism that they cannot have a cogent discussion. I came across this gem of an article on how the Republicans will instill fear to win votes, that I just could not contain myself. Here's my e to the author (his e is mmorford@sfgate.com):

Dear Mark,

I lived in the Bay Area for eleven years. I have returned to the East Coast and now teach law. I have been a Republican my entire life and do not see a change in the foreseeable future. I have not been, am not presently, nor do I plan to become fearful.

When you write that we fear environmentalists, I recall earlier presidential election cycles wherein the DNC ran ads stating that Republicans wanted to rape the forests and poison the waters. I was always amused by the simplistic schoolyard bully tactics used by the Democrats. As I studied forensic persuasion at law school, it became clear to me that the Democratic Party thought its audience to be of the lowest intellectual levels. I was torn between feeling pity for the DNC decision makers or sympathy for the party members.

You cite "fear of terrorists" early on as if it is a bad thing. Perhaps living in SF gives you that distance. I'm happy for you. For those of us that lost people we knew in NYC, that still keep finding people (without looking) who knew people that were lost, it isn't as easy to nonchalantly ignore the threat. I do not feel it is paranoid to recognize that terrorists could have a field day with car bombs in front of shopping malls, with crowded subway systems, or overpasses. It is a shocking change from a couple of years ago.

You paint the USA PATRIOT Act (the second word is all caps - it's an acronym) with a broad brush of infringement. Have you read it, along with the long history of cases that led up to it? Or are you just repeating the selected musings of your peers? I do not know you and so I offer that it is unfair of me to be so assuming on this point, but I feel strongly that any broad, condemning statement such as yours is inherently flawed. (Do you see the irony?) Regardless, many aspects of the Act are long overdue in fighting crime. Some aspects are being applied more broadly than the legislators intended. Like any piece of legislation, it needs to be refined through the courts. But that is how our system works, Mark - emotional legislators pass legislation; jurists grounded in precedence refine its application.

Gay marriage: such a touchstone of Bay Area politics. An overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians; an overwhelming minority of Americans identify themselves as homosexual. Are these positions at odds? Surely not, at least not structurally. But there is a strong feeling in the Christian community that homosexuality is a sin. Since we are all sinners, this should not come as a shock. But one should not condone or encourage sin. One should work away from it. The Christian Bible contains many examples of condemning homosexuality and many, many more of encouraging heterosexuality. Then as the argument leaves "beliefs" on each side behind and we search for facts, Christians read an article like this - article - which seems quite reasonably researched and presented. Couple the observations of children born out of wedlock to the American criminal experience, wherein the incidence of crime is significantly higher among juveniles who are raised in a home environment other than a traditional husband/wife, and a reasonable argument against gay marriage begins to form.

Am I a homophobic paranoid delusional police-state loving freak? If you are seeking readers and not cogent discussion, then I suspect you will say so. That is your right. But, Mark, I am actually quite reasonable. I get up every morning and try to raise my children in an understanding, loving manner. I have gay friends that I treat as lovingly as I do my heterosexual friends. I have little political use (which excludes personal use, my friend) for Democrats because I find them intellectually dishonest.

On this point, maybe you can help me with this - just how does a women's rights organization support Bill Clinton when he at least subjected women to his uncontainable sexual desires and perhaps was even more aggressive? Tell me, would you have felt so charitable if he had an orgasm on your daughter's dress? How does a human rights organization support Mr. Clinton when in 1992 he left the campaign trail to be present when Ricky Ray Rector was executed? Mr. Rector was so profoundly mentally incapacitated that he saved his pecan pie for after his "execution." I have no vast amount of dislike for Mr. Clinton. He isn't even on my RADAR (another acronym) screen - but he is such an easy target.

In closing, what I found my amusing about your article is that you are informing your readers to not listen to Republicans, that they should be fearful of Republicans, because Republicans want you to be afraid. It is no small literary feat to achieve such circular and manipulative logic. Good for you!!

I hope you have a wonderful day. Clyde Middleton, Philadelphia, PA.

Kerry, Two

As I was driving to school today, I scanned for Imus and there it was - the Kerry interview live. They talked about several things, Kerry was allowed to pontificate ... something about the American public wanting more honesty. His logic was fine, but someone else wrote it for him.

Imus then reminds us that Kerry has been on the show numerous times and that he (Imus) had told Kerry that he was a Bush supporter. But now he was a Kerry supporter. And he wanted to know if there was anything to this intern story. Kerry said, "There's nothing to report, there's nothing to talk about, I'm not going to talk about it, the answer is no."

And that was it. The interview then went elsewhere, or nowhere - depending upon your point of view.

I find it worthy to note that Kerry chose a second-rate venture for his denial. That would certainly give it the air of not lending credence to the allegations. To underplay it. But he also simply dismissed it in that venue. If any hard eivdence surfaces, he will be publicly flogged. Remember the ducking stool? It was used, by the way, in the Charles River.

I also heard that the woman has been contacted in Kenya and her response to questions was, "No comment." That is not a denial ...

There is some depth to these waters. Let's sit back and watch how the currents pull.

Musings

Just a few moments available ... I do not mean to aggrandize myself when I write that I felt in the unsupportable regions of my logic that there was a there "there" when the story broke about Rush's drug dependence and his first comments on his show were that he wasn't going to comment at length - he didn't fully understand the story yet. I just knew there was something to be learned.

Now comes Kerry and I feel the same disconnect between his actions and this two-year-adulterous relationship story. Here are some of the dots in my mind that do not line up ...

Kerry has been rather free to stand on a soap box and proclaim the depth of his gratitude for serving in Viet Nam. Even statisticians have lost count of how many times he has declared himself a "war hero."

He yells from the rooftops that he was misled into voting for the war, that the country was dupee, and W was the duper.

So now this story breaks. It is an opportunity for free media. He could show up on Good Morning America or whatever of those shows has the largest audience and stand on his soap box. He could have his wife in tow. The questions would be softballs. He could dictate terms - no more than half the interview on this topic. Free nationwide press. An absolute coup. The thing campaigns dream of as they drift off to sleep.

But no. Not even close.

Kerry is going on a radio show with Don Imus.

Imus can be funny. He is also juvenile. It is neither serious journalism (nor does he claim to be) nor is it anywhere near the audience he would receive on television.

Kerry could not be silent - that would be tantamount to an admission. But his voice is being offered in half measures. Something more is out there with this story.

Thursday's Links

Oh my!! The dirt is being tossed far and wide. Maybe John Kerry had an affair in the recent past? Explains Dean's healthy attacks. Well, let's hope it isn't true for his marriage's sake. Maybe commentary from Taiwan omniscient. Maybe something to do with the international date line?

Crime doesn't pay. One minute lifting beer, the next a speed bump. Some aspects of Darwin's theories were right ...

Scientific American notes a gamma ray burst from nine billion light years away. Move it closer to us, a few thousand light years away from Earth, and we all would have been toasted. Wow. Some things are more important that Kerry and his foibles.

This site claims to be the largest cricket site in the world. Still don't understand the game. Any help???

A short primer on what constitutes a Swiss Bank Account. And if you are really interested, here is how to open one!!

Today's Links

Christopher Hitchen's writes a good post mortem on Dr. Dean. I agree with his observations, but still feel it premature. Nothing to do with Dean's abilities, but with Kerry's inabilities. Dean may be the last soldier on the field of battle.

I strongly suspect that Roy Disney is showing the mettle of Uncle Walt in Comcast's unsolicited bid for Disney. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Comcast take over, Eisner booted, and Roy seated?

This article furthers the discussion we have been having about fallout from McAuliffe's decision to front load the primaries. Interesting corollary to Gore's 2000 run. Gore got the early nod because of his incumbency as VP. He then proceeded to take the punishment of an incumbent - a much longer period of time for the opposition to work. Perhaps that is why incumbent VPs have such a difficult time being elected? Does this reflect somewhat upon the time for the assault in addition to the administration record? Kerry may have the weight of time without the power of the administration.

Thomas Sowell writes of ill-placed attempts to makes everyone between the Czechs and Germans.

William Saletan writes for Slate that the Dems are Kerried Away. They have voted for a candidate not because they agree with his views but because they think he can win. That type of support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Musings

I included the full text of the letter below because I was pressed for time (I had just finished teaching for the day), and was, frankly, impressed and relieved to read it. "Relieved" because the press has been glorifying Kerry's war experience. The man who marched with Hanoi Jane and called our soldiers rapists and baby killers has been presently himself with a "band of brothers" from his "Viet Nam years."

I am thinking of how best to format my offerings in this blog. I enjoy sites that offer links to the owner's favorite article or comments of the day. I think I will incorporate that to some degree.

I would ask you all what you think of this idea, but I would want to be democratic about any decision. And if I count my vote (since I go back and read my own writings occasionally), I think a poll of all of the present readers would at worst be a tie, at best unanimous. And since I resolve all ties ... links to articles it is.

Bush & Military Service

The following letter appears in today's Washington Times. It is eloquent, cogent, and to the point. Enjoy your read.

Letters to the Editor
Published February 11, 2004

'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen -- then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5

Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

Executives and Legislators

It seems as if Kerry will be standing tomorrow.

Clark is folding his tent and walking home. He has canceled all activities on his calendar. And the last thing he wants to carry away from this fiasco besides an embittered son is debt.

Edwards desperately wants to stay on, but money and election returns are weighing him down. Can he stay long enough to be VP? As I have said before, Kerry would do best to gather up Evan Bayh and make a break from this group of folks.

Dean will not die. I think he is emboldened by consistent defeat. He'll get up as the others fall away. He believes Kerry is vulnerable. And with only Dean left ...

Who is on history's side - Kerry or Dean? One view is that Kerry is a legislator, Dean from the executive branch. This is important, I suggest. An executive serves for a shorter time, generally. Has built-in protections for bad decisions - an uncooperative legislative branch, an inherited budget crisis. A legislator is accountable for every yes or no vote. The public seems to ignore that some votes are quid pro quo with other legislators.

Regardless, legislators seem to have a more difficult time getting elected to the presidency.

Past elections:
(E) - Executive; (L) - Legislative; (O) - Other; (I) Incumbent
(Note that I indicated the most recently held position)

2000 - George the Younger (E) beat Gore (E) and Nadar (O)
1996 - Clinton (I) beat Dole (L) and Perot (O)
1992 - Clinton (E) beat George the Elder (I) and Perot (O)
1988 - George the Elder (E) beat Dukakis (E)
1984 - Reagan (I) beat Mondale (E)
1980 - Reagan (E) beat Carter (I) and Anderson (O)
1976 - Carter (E) beat Ford (I) and McCarthy (L)
1972 - Nixon (I) beat McGovern (L) and Schmitz (L)
1968 - Nixon (E) beat Humphrey (L) and Wallace (E)
1964 - Johnson (I) beat Goldwater (L)
1960 - Kennedy (L) beat Nixon (E)
1956 - Eisenhower (I) beat Stevenson (E)
1952 - Eisenhower (O) beat Stevenson (E)
1948 - Truman (I) Dewey (E), Thurmond (L), Wallace (E), and Thomas (O)
1944 - Roosevelt (I) beats Dewey (E) and Thomas (O)
1940 - Roosevelt (I) beats Wilkie (O) and Thomas (O)
1936 - Roosevelt (I) beats Landon (E) and Thomas (O)
1932 - Roosevelt (E) beats Hoover (I) and Thomas (O)
1928 - Hoover (O) beats Smith (E) and Thomas (O)
1924 - Coolidge (E) beats Davis (L) and LaFollette (L)
1920 - Harding (L) beats Cox (E) and Debs (L)
1916 - Wilson (I) beats Hughes (E) and Benson (O)
1912 - Wilson (E) beats Roosevelt (E), Taft (I), and Debs (L)
1908 - Taft (O) beats Bryan (L) and Debs (L)
1904 - Roosevelt (I - McKinley term) beats Parker (O) and Debs

Incumbents are 11 and 5. All 5 of the losses have been to executives. No incumbent has lost to a legislator in the past 100 years.

Executives are 4 and 2 against legislators. Kennedy and Harding.

I have heard people speak of Kennedy. People who worked with Kennedy. People who knew Kennedy. Kerry is no John F. Kennedy.

History would indicate that Dean has a better chance against W than Kerry does.

Presidential Futures Market Update

Recall that I entered the game late. I started with $2,500 two days ago. I put everything into selling Edwards short. Dean was too deeply discounted to treat likewise.

My $2,500 has grown to $4,000. Sorry, Johnny E.

I have now put everything into Dean at $10 a share. If I can turn a quick triple I may have enough capital to short Kerry.

I'll keep you posted.

i LOVE this guy!!!!!

Dr. Dean has changed his position. Now he stays regardless of the Wisconsin outcome. Motivated, no doubt, by his strong 2d in Washington.

What is behind Dean's statement of a string of 2d place finishes is the current delegate count. Dean is behind Kerry 432 - 181. I suggest equally of import is that Edwards has scooped up only 117 to date, and Clark only 84.

It must be a two-person race for a period - primary history requires it - and the delegate counts show Dean at the second person. McAuliffe's manipulating of the primary schedule to front-end the delegate counts and thereby chose the standard-bearer sooner seems to be wishful thinking. One cannot change such an important process with a dry eraser and white board.

The second motivator is most likely Dean's continued ability to attract money. And his debt is a quarter of Kerry's.

Add to it that CNN apologizes for running The Scream 633 times in 96 hours (once every 9 minutes!) ... Dean is starting to believe his press clippings - always dangerous.

Another recent change is that he says he'll accept the VP slot. But I cannot shake this feeling, deep within me ... Dean as 3d party. Because he has to, he just has to ... the system is broken ... only he can fix it. If he does, he'll need to do it in the next couple of weeks. He cannot go through March 2d and still be pleased with 2d place.

Intelligence Estimates

The issue of the day seems to be the veracity of W in the lead up to the Iraq War (v.2.0). The manner in which to view this is not in the extremes that the press or that haughty, French-looking guy wants. That is, W lied.
Rather, you need to balance all the information and arrive at a considered position, acting as a rational, thinking person acts.

Let's start with the simplistic position - W lied. The theory is voiced differently depending on how stupid the speaker believes the listener to be. The earth-toned, freshly shaven, Dean-loving ex-VP terms it, "Bush violated our trust." He went on to claim this blind-eyed child devotion he had for President Bush following September 11, 2001, and that the president violated that devotion. Oh, make me yammy!!!!

I read something today from a student that suggested that President Bush personally chartered a plane for OBL's family to leave the US following the WTC attacks. I assured the student that such a position was untenable.

No one, not W for the liberals or BJ Clinton for the conservatives, operate in such a closed-door, windows-shut, cigars-lit environment. Both gentlemen do the best they can under the circumstances with which they have to operate.

How they do their best differs upon what motivates them. President Clinton seemed motivated by public opinion. He wanted to be thought of highly. He wanted to raise as much money as possible not to promote the DNC but to solidify his position.

President Bush is motivated by history. He wants to do big things. Wants to be remembered on par with President Reagan. Yes, that could blind him. But I suspect that he also knows the judgment of history mostly lacks emotion. His actions will be viewed critically. So he is careful to make decisions after due consideration.

Did he lie? Absolutely not. Did he overstate the case? I think one can read his speeches and support whatever conclusion they desire. Does the situation destroy W's credibility? Gimme a break ... the entire situation may have solidified positions, but it did not change positions.

Relax, everyone, the issue isn't that important. On balance, and during this calendar year, it will be very clear that Saddam had to go regardless of anyone's view of W's intelligence pronouncements.

Auschwitz Revisited

Jeff Jacoby writes of an Auschwitz in North Korea. Can we really distinguish Kim Jong Il and Saddam? Can we really say one is or was worse than the other? Are the liberals riding the Iraq decision because it was a bad one or because it represents a tiny chink in W's armor?

It would be nice if liberals exhibited at least a passing concern with devoting their God-given talents to fulfilling their roles in a representative democracy.

Strong Intelligence

In Director Tenet's remarks a couple of days ago (linked below), he spent some time discussing the success in nailing AQ Khan - the Pak father of their bomb. Seems AQ was selling the technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. The press reported other issues ... focused on perceived weaknesses.

When W was attacked by Russert for an hour this morning, W mentioned AQ Khan. Russert moved on as if he didn't understand the issue. He understood all too well - it was a success and Russert was there to hammer away at failures.

This article gives a direct, factual overview of AQ and his activities, and what W was doing out of public view.

Too bad our press can only find fault, can never give praise, to Republicans. But at least they are consistent. Can you imagine the analysis of this world-changing brilliant behind-the-scenes coup if Clinton were still in office? It would be scripted and ready for TV by now ...

Borders to Keep Things Out

Was it the 1972 ABM Treaty under which the USSR claimed that we had no right to construct any form of defense against ICBMs? Apparently they had a right, under certain conditions, to launch weapons against us, but we had no right to interfere with their flight path. We could only launch our own weapons.

Similarly, Israel is being condemned for constructing a fence. It seems the international community is suggesting that they have no right to stop Palestinians from entering the country in that manner.

If Russia, North Korea, or any other country decides to launch missiles at us under any circumstances, we have the right - at the very least - to interfere with the flight path.

If people desire to enter the sovereign area of another country with the intent to kill people, a country has the right to interfere with their flight path.

The reason so much fuss abounds on the Israeli Security Fence, I suggest, is the aftermath - not a reduction of killings, but a clear line of demarcation between the country that is Israel and the country that will become Palestine. Having your own country means being responsible for the acts of your people. An individual act becomes a policy statement - criminal acts becomes acts of war.

The British and French did not end their colonial eras in the Middle East very well. Culminating in 1948, regardless of the individual steps, intents, and desires, the area was left a tinderbox: a newly reconstituted Israel and a hostile group of Arab countries - most of which were new to self-government. The open invitation to battle the Jewish people was never condemned widely or honestly enough. The Palestinians have never disengaged.

After over fifty years of measured diplomacy, with peaks of self-defense, the Israelis are drawing a geographical line and thereby requiring of the Palestinians that which no one has to date - responsibility. A child matures and is held accountable for his or her actions. Since the UN and Arab countries won't act as a parent, the role has fallen to Israel.

If part of that role is to set up a baby gate to stop the child from hurting himself, so be it.

Saddam Lied Because We Made Him Do It

Wow ... Stanley Meisler, author of "United Nations: The First Fifty Years," writes in today's LA Times, in an article entitled, American Policy Gave Hussein Reason to Deceive that we gave Saddam no choice but to act as he did.

Our policy compelled that torturing degenerate to: act as if he had a WMD arsenal; harass UN inspectors; bar entry to certain buildings; and move trucks around in a shell game.

But wait, it gets better. In George the Elder's administration, a speech was given at the UN during which the US said that, "Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in office. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government." Mr. Meisler maintains that this statement "upset" the mission of our UN ambassador. Seems the emotional politicians once again undermined the logical, well-meaning diplomats.

My, how could one possibly take such a stand as the removal of the head of government? This is diplomacy afterall. Everyone must win. No one must feel badly when the end of the day comes. If you say Saddam must leave, then we must understand that he will see no incentive but to rape, torture, and murder thousands upon thousands of people. He will have no choice but to allow his sons to have their pick of Iraqi women on their wedding day, to slowly lower their enemies into plastic shredding machines. I mean, Mr. Politician, can't you see that you have forced him to do these things??!!???

Mr. Meisler goes on to document the culpability of the Clinton and Bush the Younger administrations. In every instance, Saddam was never given an honorable, diplomatic manner in which to have sanctions removed and to stay in power.

The premise to Mr. Meisler's position, then, is that the only manner in which Saddam would have behaved himself in accordance with international requirements is if we simply ignored his behavior to date. Mr. Meisler has constructed for himself a world without retributive justice.

Anyone at any time can behave in any manner whatsoever no matter how egregiously as long as they stop when they are told to stop. Anyone can do anything out of sight, hidden, to the harm and detriment of anyone provided that they stop when discovered. And if we as the international community think that we will seek retribution of any kind, then we must accept that the aggressor will continue to aggress ... like a butler who simply must butle.

How utterly simplistic.

Um, Dean ... no, wait a minute ... um, maybe Kerry ... hang on ...

One day not so long ago, the 1.4 million strong American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Union endorsed Howard Dean for president. In case they pull the posting presently gracing their home page, it follows in full text here:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Roberta Heine, 202-429-1145

AFSCME Endorses Howard Dean for President

Public Service Union Puts Political Power of
Working Families Behind Howard Dean

WASHINGTON — The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, officially endorsed Howard Dean for President today.

The AFSCME International Executive Board voted unanimously to endorse Howard Dean based on his record, his position on the issues, the strength of his campaign and the overwhelming and enthusiastic support for his candidacy among AFSCME's membership.

'We have a candidate who represents our values and who can defeat this President,' AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee said. 'AFSCME is going to mobilize the largest and most aggressive grassroots campaign this nation has ever seen. Together with Governor Dean, America's working families will take back the White House in 2004.'"
(http://www.afscme.org/publications/political/pr031112.htm)

So full of promise, so principled, so ... gosh ...energetic!!! They picked Dean because of his positions, strength, and the enthusiasm he generates. They turned their 1.4 million members lose on unsuspecting Iowans in the largest and most aggressive grassroots campaign ever and won 11 of 51 state delegates, which translates to slightly more than 1 national delegate ... only 2,160 to go!! The power of unions. Simply awesome!!

Well, not one to be discouraged, the AFSCME Union has made their position clear: their support of Dean is being pulled. Something about being concerned about "Dean's ailing campaign on the union." Not quite sure what that means.

Perhaps it reflects upon the "overwhelming and enthusiastic support" no longer being so overwhelming or enthusiastic. Perhaps the members are depressed over backing a losing horse. Depression leads to illness, lost work, decreased productivity ... all things a union stands in opposition to (at least in theory).

In light of that, pulling the support seems prudent.

Poor Ho-Ho ... even a strong 2d in Washington isn't enough.

But wait! What if Kerry falters, Edwards is recognized as the child he is, Clark as the neophite politician that he is ... and Dean is the only one left standing? Oh, my!!

Canadians are so CUTE!!!!

The subtitle informs that "only 15 per cent of us would vote for the President." "Us" are Canadians; "the President" is W.

Um, I like your beer. I prefer Irish whiskey (it's triple distilled!). Your fishing has dropped off a lot. You control guns more than we do - so your murder rate is lower, but your rates of burglary, car theft, and rape are higher than ours. My, relying on the same data sources it seems a person is twice as likely to be a victim of fraud in Canada than in the United States. Must be a lot of time to sit and think up there, eh?

But let's cut to the chase, shall we? Canada's middle class owes its very existence to the United States. Without our constant purchasing of your goods, your economic model would have collapsed decades ago. Socialism cannot exist without a capitalistic economy from which to suckle.

So, like, your opinion of W is irrelevant, eh?

Just to mark time ...

I need to post this just to mark time - similar to mailing a potential patent to yourself to preserve the postmark.

The Democratic Party is presently run by, controlled by, and offers only candidates and solutions from an era no longer viable. Their limited successes reflect inertia rather than value.

The party will not die, it will be reborn. It will shed the LBJ-to-BJ Clinton continuum of suspicion and deserved mistrust. Mrs. Clinton is not the party's future - she is its past. No one looks at someone as "fresh" who shows up with a train car full of baggage. Terry McAullife, similarly, will pass into the darkness of history.

The new growth will be by and through people like Sen. Evan Bahy.

It remains to be seen if Sen. Bahy will see the value in a failed run as VP under Kerry in 2004 (or whomever else the DNC will offer and will fail in this cycle) or if he will wait patiently for the Democratic beast to implode.

Kerry's "Populist Claptrap"

I'm not sure why I felt this article would be relentlessly condemning from the first line through to the last. I had to go 3/4's of the way down to find the demeaning phrase in the title offered above. But even before I clicked on the link from a news site, I knew venom was waiting. I wasn't dissuaded nor proven wrong.

A good argument is frequently made by taking politician's soundbites and applying logic, reason, and data. This aritcle does a fair job of doing just that - if only in the first portion.

Kerry and The Others demagogue "big business." Easy target. Many people have a boss, and many of those people think they can do their boss's job better. But just because a belief is common does not correlate to its truth. Many employees have very little insight into the totality of their boss's job.

Many people view drug prices as outrageously high. Many of those same people could not begin to discuss Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, could not see the value in millions of dollars spent on R&D with no marketed product to show. But those same people have opinions that sway from deeply suspicious to profoundly grateful when a med brings down their BP or lowers their cholesterol. Even though their poor medical condition reflected their poor lifestyle choices.

So Kerry and The Others condemn the bosses, the corporate profiteers, the gluttonous drug companies. The working class resoundingly moans and groans in sway with the music. They vote their conscious. They continue with their lives. They wait four years. They hear the condemnations again - the names have changed, but the drum beat is the same. They vote their conscious again.

Are people stupid for participating in this endless cycle? No. Instead I offer that people are endlessly hopeful.

I think the issue is that the politicians out of power - at present Kerry and The Others - treat people as if they are stupid. They change condemnations like a hunter changes game calls. If one didn't work, perhaps another will. The process has little if anything to do with the feelings of the blower ... just the reaction of the game - and any game will do. Numbers are all that matter. Perhaps the electoral system requires it.

But doesn't it seem as if the Democrats are more inclined to share blame rather than vision?

Clark Posts

The Washington Post has an interesting read this morning based upon certain papers shared by Gen. Clark.

Anything of a historical nature offered by a floundering candidate for the presidency needs to be viewed as presumptuously self-serving. So let's go beyond the things that seem to serve Clark and consider the things that give insights elsewhere.

Regardless of back-door conversations, the eventual record will establish the veracity of Clinton's dictate to approve each and every bombing target. How pitiful. Shades of Carter setting the WH Tennis Court schedule.

There are several back-and-forths about ending the war before the presidential campaign. Clinton wanted the war ended at any cost - just ended. Sandy Berger says that was just not true.

And then this unattributed statement is fun - "A former senior administration official, however, said Clark might have been referring to a Washington meeting of top policymakers in late spring at which Gore allegedly expressed concern that the war might interfere with his campaign."

Gore did not respond directly, but one of his people said that politics were not discussed at White House national security meetings, and that while Gore opposed preparing for a ground war, he supported continuing the bombing as long as necessary to win. Gore "was prepared to take a political hit."

First, a "Washington meeting of top policymakers" is not a "White House national security meeting." Second, stating that Gore was willing to take a political hit is too general to be useful. The allegation stands.

Vice President Gore was concerned that an on-going war would negatively impact his campaign? That makes little sense. A war is a time of national unity. The electorate accepts an argument of continued leadership. Was Mr. Gore concerned that the war would not stand up to scrutiny? I do not recall the war being an election issue - why was it avoided? Could it have been to avoid comparing a National Guard pilot to an in-theatre combat reporter who was a Senator's son? Makes little sense. I suspect Gore was watching the polls of his anticipated base too closely. Too concerned about earth-tone clothes and not enough about genocide in eastern Europe.

Presidential Futures Market

Not sure yet if this commodity-market approach to viewing the election is well-designed or just novel.

The game started on January 19, 2004. Each player was given $2,500, and can buy and sell long and short positions. The top player is presently at $264K. You just know he sold Dean short before Iowa. He must have loved The Scream.

I put all of my money into selling Edwards short. I don't think he'll be out of it after Michigan and Washington - I am presuming that this market will behave emotionally just like the real markets. And I have a lot of ground to make up ...

The Beginning of Discovery

Following the news since Kay's recent pronouncements, it seems that the Democrats are overplaying their hand - Bush lied. Lying is a conscious, intentional act. I actually thought the leaders of the Democratic party were more sophisticated than to adopt this approach. Recall their all-eggs-in-one-basket approach on the economy ... which has blown back in their faces. They scream one issue in extreme terms, then faced with the error of their ways, they scream another issue. How Kohlberg Stage 1 of them.

It is becoming increasingly curious to read the media's reaction to Director Tenet's speech yesterday. In an article published today, entitled "Tenet defends CIA," by Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay (KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS), the claim was made that Tenet "seemed determined to subtly retarget the blame toward top Bush administration policy-makers ..." Isn't that a perception of an unstated intention?

The article attempts to play a strong hand in the first several paragraphs, but relies too much on the writers' collective biases rather than the fact of what was said. "[S]tepping openly into a heated battle over blame for faulty assessments" presupposes the structure of the discusses - that the goal has been determined and only the means to achieve it needs to be resolved and applied. How sad. No. How pathetic ...

To establish an appropriate frame of reference for the WMD discussion, it is instructive to start with the 2003 SOTU Address. One can cut it a thousand different ways, the key phrase was and always will be - "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." The implication is clear to any thinking person - the threat is not at present imminent.

A comprehensive argument for the Iraq War (v2.0) is compelling reading.

Regardless of such cogent arguments, let's buy into the French way of thinking for a moment. I don't mean the Chiraq-has-something-to-hide mentality ... I mean the haughty, French-looking Kerry mentality. In that world, the war against Iraq may be properly grounded in Iraq's defiance of UN Security Counsel Resolutions. Read a comprehensive listing of the applicable Resolutions.

Now, in Director Tenet's speech, help me find where Mr. Tenet is trying to blame someone in the Bush Administration hierarchy. Why is the media trying to guide and direct the discussion into tight dimly lit corners rather than the clearer views available when all of the evidence is viewed, all of the facts welcomed? And why isn't the media giving credit where it is due on the Pakistan nuclear secrets sale issue discussed therein?

Kerry adds to this folly by asserting W was AWOL during Wartime. Kerry is pressing the issue softly now, and promising it as a post-coronation issue. The defense is readily available. And the Democrats wonder why they are losing their base and the mainstream media is losing viewers ...

W is known as a good poker player. I have never had the pleasure of sharing a table. But it is clear that Kerry and McAuliffe would be donating ...

Opening Statement

I am not a Democrat, but I have empathy. The party is a ship without a beacon. Millions of people seated in rows, oars in hand, desirous of unified movement ... but it's a moonless night and no one on deck can see, no one is capable of inspired leadership.

The powers of the party and the press rejected Kerry in the Fall and early Winter of 2003. I haven't read anything definitive to explain the rejection, but it may be safe to assume it was Kerry's lack of legislative substance. Nineteen years and no major legislation. Maybe living in the shadow of a Kennedy can have that effect. Regardless, the first loud voice to come along - Dean - pushed Kerry to the dust bin.

But, alas, Dean enjoyed the warmth of his own glow. His focus was less on where he would lead his party and more on where he was at the present moment. It didn't take long for Iowans to see through his shallow offering - which he hurried along with his pitiful claims about Christianity.

So Dean falls and the next one past the office door is Kerry, again.

I feel badly for the Democrats. I watched as the Republicans put Bob Dole up in 1996. It was painful. In 1992, I knew the election was lost when George the Elder checked his watch during the debate. But I still had hope. In 1996, hope was lost much earlier in the process. I felt, I suspect, much as Democrats do now ... and Michigan is coming, and Washington, and then Dean loses Wisconsin (can you believe he has pegged his candidancy on a liberal state (good) where he has an 18% favorable (bad)?) ... and then Edwards smirk goes from flat to flat lined as Cal and NY put him to rest.

My dear Democratic friends, I feel your pain ... Clyde