American foreign policy should be about America

Somewhere along the way, we got distracted from looking out for America first, and delved into trying to fix or improve many of the world’s most tenuous problems, some thousands of years old. Many of these problems are intractable, and many of these problems drain our treasury of valuable monies that could be used elsewhere, as in reducing the borrowing necessary to pay the bills. America is not all-powerful and all rich.

During the Cold War of many decades, our Foreign Policy could be construed as being part of our National Interest campaign to protect our interests and allies. That’s fine, but real leaders look forward, not backward. The Cold War is long gone, and it looks like foreign policy changed to more do-gooder policies like uninvited nation building and intervening in the world’s most media promoted civil wars full of atrocities, at least atrocities by western standards. Seldom, if ever, did I hear discussion of American National Interests. Using American blood and money to constrain these more terrible situations is usually not in the American National Interests.

And in this discussion, the ideas of free trade and globalization must be debated in our Congress, to include a report card on our American negotiator’s agreements to date. This is foreign policy, also. Especially in its impact on millions of citizens, and their communities.

I did hear some astute use of the National Interest term by the Clinton administration, but it was easy to read between the lines that it was playing with words. There we ventured into video foreign policy, which for a President who lead by focus groups and polling numbers, makes sense for his style. Except the National Interest was not truly served. The Bush administration seems more idealistic in its promotion of democracy and religious freedom in general, but I never hear the term National Interests at all mentioned in the same breath. Now I hear do-gooders wanting Americans to intercede in Darfur even as they oppose the war in Iraq. And you decide, what is more important to we in America: the Hamas-Fatah conflict in Palestine or the wars in the South American narco-states?

It’s time to take care of ourselves, again, as the number one priority. The Cold War is long over, the world is still full of rotten places, and our Foreign Policy must look out for American National Interests first. This change in Foreign Policy will not blossom up like some wellspring of peace, love, and harmony. It will most likely emerge from the hard fought use of the vote to elect a President and a Congress that refocuses Foreign Policy on National Interests. These most terrible conflicts and killings around the world do rip our hearts out, but our children and way of life is still more important.

The Duke case is why we as a nation can lead the world

Many things can come from the results, so far. Other than they are innocent, a big deal, everything else was rotten, to include the 88 faculty vote. I suspect all contributions to Duke will suffer accordingly. After all, Albion college on Ohio just went down business wise, and why not Duke next.

Why did Duke get its reputation for academic excellence, as in send your kid and he or she will have an advantage in life. I still wonder given the liberal lynching that went on over the athletes in question. The obvious answer is that they were the Harvard of the South (reputation wise) , but that has all changed. Not too long ago, Notre Dame was the role model for American education.

Those who seek advantages for their kids might seek other alternatives. The debates of parents include ideas like engineering compared to liberal arts. These days most parents choose liberal arts. They may have done their kids a disservice. They don’t have to live it necessarily, but the discipline will do wonders.

Are you willing to be manipulated?

Right or wrong, others are trying to do this, that is manipulate us. In the old days it was called propaganda, and now it is called news releases, or internet video releases from servers (computers) we cannot find on the internet.

Many think some part of any conflict includes the media. We might kill them all, but lose in the media war is the idea. This point of view has reason.

The affront is our way or life, and our inherent instinct to protect our families. Media can dress up any point of view, including those of the suicidal thousands, but it cannot also change the point of view of the millions of family members who just seek an opportunity for their kids.

It will be interesting to sort out. My vote is the old European view will be out voted by the people who live there. The new Europeans will never this happen. Stand by for much increased legal immigration requests from Europe.

In the meantime, go American.

Being in love and just getting old together

The advertisements today about the Glycemic Index, trophy wives, hot bodies at age 40, and my wife no longer thinks of me as disgusting have exceeded my tolerance level.

These TV advertisements promote a lifestyle most of Americans don’t even think about or live by. Spontaneous sex when young is so wonderful, but marriage and families have a way to tone down the sex, and promote the wonderful things about having a nurtured family.

We all know women want to be young forever in their minds. This is terrible in its implications in America today when even girls want to look like teenage boys. What is distressing is when adult mothers perpetrate this stupid idea. Most mother’s are smarter, but then we have the TV advertisements to stress things out for them, mostly.

So let’s fathers encourage mothers to be themselves. Married mothers can be in love and get older just fine. Nobody invented this idea, especially an advertiser.

A future President and a future Congress

In the present crop of presidential candidates from all parties does anyone see an individual so far who even sees the need for knocking heads to gain unity of effort? Do any candidates even see the need to hire and fire those not measuring up to the bosses requirements? And sooner rather than later. All seem more like the half-measure individuals who mix up their hired people’s feelings and their bureaucracy’s existence with the country’s needs. The present half-measures in the Iraq war have got us to where we are, and now is seems like the choices are all variations of more of same. Maybe the politics of personal destruction are driving enough of our best and brightest away from volunteering, and maybe just old fashioned head knocking is called for. After all, powerful egos are always involved; and cooperation between agencies and bureaucracies such as demonstrated in World War Two and now between General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are the exception rather than the rule.

Some attribute the apparent decline of America to its people. This is an excuse for poor leadership of the worst kind. This excuse has been heard before, most recently in the decline of the quality of American automobiles and associated sales beginning in the 1970’s. The blame first was on the slovenly workers, but as foreign car makers came in and using the same workers made the most high quality automobiles that sold says much. Anyone on the inside then could see it coming, and could do little to halt the effects of the leaders in charge at the time. Now, we have an entire industry down in the dumps. Let’s be more specific, the leadership is in the dumps. The workers are still making automobiles using American rules and customs, to include health care. And the old leaders did the decline, not the citizens/workers. With this example, we citizens must take back the nation before the equivalent professional politicians have the same effect on a national level. As one who has gotten around the world, we Americans are good, and the rest of the world knows it.

I read an article by a Newsweek fellow today about his recent visit to the grand bazaar in Tehran, Iran. At the end of the visit and article, the Iranian fellows asked for help with visas to the USA. I laughed as this has been going on for decades, and he just figured it out. Much as in this example, America needs savvy experienced leaders, as in a President, who leads us towards our strengths, and leads us away from our weaknesses. This type of leader does not use focus groups to say what people want to hear. This type of leader is not a Newsweek reporter on a visit to Tehran.

Many citizens in general are frustrated and disgusted with too many who serve in Congress. The history and reasons are many many, but the simple theme is we are from two worlds. Since the people are in charge, not the Congress, it is time to use the vote to make the Congress respond to the people. While revolution and civil war are options, the vote is still the best course of action for citizens. Think voting for Representatives and Senators who think National Interests first, and local interests second, and things ought to turn around by the elections of November, 2012. This will bring to an end the powerful effects of such minority groups as moveon.org. If national interest ideas trump money and professional organization, then our nation has a good future that depends on ideas of a majority of the citizens.

Our future is determined by our votes for our political leaders. Let’s be tough on demanding savvy experienced leaders. Given this context, the 2008 election for the President and the Congressional positions is still wide open. This could be a vote “against”, but our Country deserves a vote “for”. And we do have real savvy experienced leaders who have not stepped up the plate, yet. Some may be military, many more will be from business and the rest of the real world. None appear to be professional politicians.

Homeland defense is eternal vigilance

I remember my first sight of homeland defense in action. I was on a Navy ship pulling into Kao-hsiung, Taiwan and gunners were on anti-aircraft mounts at the harbor entrance defending against a possible air attack from mainland China. My second occasion was similar, except it was at one end of the main runway at Balikesir, Turkey and they were waiting for a Greek air attack. Lest we think we Americans are different, I also remember being a tourist on a guided tour of a Nike anti-aircraft site near Woodbridge, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. It turns out there were well over 100 Nike sites, to include St. Louis and Kansas City.

To go back, I have visited 20th century coastal artillery defense sites on the hills over Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as one in Hong Kong, China, and one in Alexandria, Virginia.

Having lived in Oahu, Hawaii when it was a Territory, monthly air raid drills were part of my life. Getting under school tables, or hearing all the dogs howl was normal at the time.

To come to the present, find in Google Earth the Iranian nuclear facility vicinity Esfahan, Iran and then go find the anti-aircraft sites around the area. They are there on today’s Google overheads.

Throughout the world, people have worried about their defense. Some have used appeasement, most have used defense, and some have used deterrence.

We Americans have organized our home defenses around a Department of Homeland Security and elements of the Department of Defense. Probably many of the efforts of the Americans who man these organizations will end up as seemingly wasted efforts like coastal artillery sites. But that is hindsight, not fair, and disingenuous for some. Whether they work or not will never be known, nor can it be. That’s one of the costs of eternal vigilance.

One perspective - The Islamic fascists have more problems than you can shake a stick at

Make no bones about it, they are a real threat and cannot be ignored. But they are not ten feet tall everywhere at the same time. Here’s some reminders.

Iranian and Arab oil money powers it all, and the Iranians are running out of money. Eventually, the Arabs will, too. The Hamas types in Gaza know all about this as they have just conquered this pitiful piece of turf called Gaza, and the Iranian promise of $250 million has problems.

Iranian mullah dictators and their slightly mad puppet president have many domestic problems that both distract them, and may get them replaced, permanently perhaps.

Al-Qaeda types, and other missionary people are just as much outsiders to many of the Moslem countries they attempt to subvert as we may seem. Al-Qaeda gets its money ripped off by the Islamic rebel warlords in the southern Philippines just as badly as we might. Most locals don’t like outsiders coming in and interfering. And most Moslems are not Arab.

There are many Moslem areas that are more secular than the newly arrived Arab conservative sharia law types. Most of these people will fight or if possible, ignore the imposition of the Taliban type rules we have all read about in Afghanistan. Kosovo and Gaza are good examples we read about. Not all locals are as pious as the new conquerors in Gaza, and the conquerors will have many problems just in this area.

If Hamas is dumb enough to attack Israel out of Gaza, they will have also concentrated many targets (like 12,000 zealots) in a small area. The Israelis should say thank you if they actually go in to win, vice what they did in Lebanon.

There has been a decades long and quietly pursued Arab oil financed building of hundreds of mosques and schools which are then manned by those from the Wahabbist sect (really Salafist and Qutbist Moslem Brotherhood types). Like all campaigns, some things stick and some things don’t. The sponsors have wasted a lot of money and energy in this whole campaign which is extended over the entire Moslem world. In western terms, this effort has bled a lot of blood that is not devoted to bleeding the west.

The Arab civilization is a failing civilization.

The Arabs are not a united group. Syria is actively trying to eradicate the Moslem Brotherhood, and vice versa, for example. Don’t forget the Persian-Arab historical frictions.

The almost hopeless bureaucracies and governments of the west seem to be slowly responding to the threats to the native peoples in the Americas and Europe, to include Russia. It is getting tougher to be an Islamic suicide bomber anywhere in the world. Western spies are doing better. And local spies for hire and tribal leaders show that not all agree with these most terrible Islamic terrorists who kill wantonly for their foreign political objectives.

Here we go again … the old world cauldron

We voters have choices as an American nation. We can lead the new world, or be drawn back into the old world conflicts, some of which go back thousands of years.

It is tempting to be the do-gooder super power nation with the best of intentions to fix all the old world problems. And maybe we can do it without military impositions, and more sarcastically using peace and love and example to erase millenniums of racial, religious, and cultural discriminations and atrocities and egotistical expansions. Maybe billions of taxpayer dollars expended by politicians will do the trick. To say this old world brew is a cauldron is being kind. And is much of trying to solve it even in our National Interest? The correct answer is only when it threatens our National Interest, which may include being dragged in to some latest version of the “cauldron”. When our kid’s blood gets involved, then the National Interests go up.

Being a new world nation provides many advantages to the future. This includes ignoring much of the old world cauldrons. The new world future is some combination of “don’t tread on me”, benign neglect, and “lady liberty” being a bright shining light to those seeking the same with a fresh start. This is a choice that politicians and those that vote for them can make.

Americans are inherently isolationists and somewhat anti-war. But the preceding is not this, or even a head-in-the-sand policy. It is a new world realistic policy that transitions all the old world problems. And the new world is bigger than the USA, counting North, Central, and South America. It is the combination that can make us collectively strong, if uncoordinated, in being the beacon for the whole world.

Some ruthlessness in is order to be the beacon. This is not a love-in. In the USA, control of the borders is the best and most current example for the new world asserting itself. We are in charge, not any of the old world or other do-gooder ideas that will drag us down. So as always, balance is required in being a new world leader.

The best example of this today is the Arab-Israeli conflict (recent in historical terms), which is clearly part of the old world cauldron. To try fix it gets us back thousands of years and even brings in the Gypsies. Do we want to go there? Or should we more carefully and conservatively promote our new world values, and defend against any old world types who come after us. Iran is a good example of coming after us, today.

Being in the new world, and promoting this throw-off of the old world, puts us on the winning side of history. Many think we can talk-the-talk. Now can we walk-the-walk? And to give credit to fellow Americans who have done their best on dealing with “bad people from the old world”, thank you. Now will USA politicians and bureaucrats consider a “new world” policy? Again the idea of a new world future is some combination of “don’t tread on me”, benign neglect, and “lady liberty” being a bright shining light to those seeking the same with a fresh new world start.

Have apologies and rehab had their day?

Making mistakes is human.

Being sorry for mistakes and taking corrective action is human.

Formula apologies and rehab check in’s is not human.

Responsibility for deliberative actions designed to make money or be selfish is separately accountable. This especially applies to cultural affronts. The stretching of the rules has finally gone too far. This idea is not political correctness. It is common sense and family sense.

Normal is a relative term

What is normal in the USA is not always normal in some parts of the world. Most Americans expect the lights to come on when they turn the switch, or the toilet to flush when using the handle, or the heat or A/C to work when they set the thermostat, 24/7. But all this is uniquely American, and it is not normal. It is special. And we should thank our ancestors who made it all happen.

Most stories about where Osama Bin Laden and other bad guys are hiding usually mention the area between Pakistan and Afghanistan called by various names, depending on the time period primarily. Today if you are Paki, it is the North West Frontier Province, but it has many other names more recently going back to the Brits when this area was part of India. The present local boundary between the two States has one local name “Durand Line” for the Brit diplomat who used geography to try divide the Pashtun tribes in the area. Unfortunately then, they did not listen or care, and they still don’t. There simply is no Afghan or Paki federal authority in the area. This is not so amazing if one only goes back just over 100 years ago to the American frontier areas. Even going to old Oklahoma cemeteries one will find many tombstones with the “address” as I.T., or Indian Territories.

Those who, with the best intentions, say something must be done about this need only volunteer to go into the area. Just like where we all live in our local communities, outsiders and new arrivals stick out to those most suspicious. Murder of interlopers can be considered a local form of democracy. And if the area was rich enough in natural resources or some other reason to conquer it, it would have already been done so. Just do a Google Earth visit and see how “uninviting” this land is.

Let ‘em have it seems to be the consensus, unless you are an outsider telling the President of Pakistan how to do his business. Nobody is volunteering for his job. And all outsiders suffer from being outsiders. Another alternative is to give the local person credit for knowing his scene and turf better than anyone else, and back him up. Expect him to sort it out from his point of view. And work like the devil to make sure his point of view coincides with the USA point of view, local compromises accepted. While this course of action may fail, what other courses of action do we have as outsiders? Certainly the turf is not worth an American occupation. And the cultural customs work against us. While any of us Americans might give up Osama Bin Laden for $25 million, the prospects that all my Pashtun family and their families will be later killed is a show stopper. This is locally normal.

The human need to dominate

More specifically, why do tribes seek to dominate other tribes? What is it that drives the Persians, or northern Chinese, or selective Arab tribes these days. Is it the same as what drove the colonialists, or the Ottomans and others earlier. Tribes equate to kingdoms, and world history is constant in the ebb and flow of expanding and retracting kingdoms and tribes. The Arab-Israeli conflict seems constant to many young people because that is all they have known, but the present conflict is no older than around 1900. Go back much earlier in the same area, and the conflict might involve the Romans, or Ottomans, or a myriad of other ancient kingdoms covered by National Geographic.

Presently the northern Chinese seem on an historical bent to dominate the area we call China, and for the most basic economic and chauvinistic reasons. Some Arab tribes seem willing to support the most fervent religious zealots, while others defensively preserve the status quo of the last 100 years (as Egypt or Jordan, but it is more complicated). Religion and security seem to be common threads. And the Persian dictators seem bent on restoring a regional hegemony they learned in religious schools. Here fanaticism and oil money to finance the egos seem to be the big influencers. The astute reader will probably not see a common thread across all these examples, other than the human need to dominate. And it seems those dominators go after perceived weaknesses first because it is expeditious. They are astute enough to fill perceived vacuums first. But in the end, the need to dominate is constant. And they will fight in the end. Key thinking is how they fight. Like a boxer, they will weave and jab and use all tools available to a tribe. These tools are politics, deviousness, financial, security, propaganda, and at last resort, military action of various kinds. Against a classical western military, they will always lose. Hence much of the tactics and methods we read about today.

One more common thread for dominators is the time factor. In the end, locals win. It is not that they can outlast the dominator, but more simply out breed the dominator in numbers and culture. Many missionaries know this. Both Moslem and Christian missionaries can “convert”, but come back in 100 years and the local animist or pagan religions are intertwined with the new faith. Another example is a hero of WWI, General John J. Pershing. Earlier around 1900 he fought the Moro Islamic rebels in the southern Philippines, declared victory and left. And we still are fighting them today.

This academic type article has practical applications. America is not the dominator. Others are trying to dominate us for all the historical reasons mentioned. Do many of these people perceive weaknesses they can exploit as expeditious? Most of us think they are using gross misjudgments, but even if we are right, it is what they think that matters. In this there is great cause for worry. Worry for ourselves, and our children, and our grandchildren. They look up to adults to do the right thing.

Honesty was the old way we handled homosexuality

Why not now?

In the last few decades the out of the closet ideas have been elevated to political stupidity. Trying to alarm has been equaled to being politically equal. Fine and dandy about homosexuality, except the DC drill is thousands of years too late. Society, and homosexuals, have been existing politically and other wise for thousands of years. So what is really new, other than the media alarmism.

The answer is common sense. We all know homosexuality is a small percentage of our population, and all the parents of homosexuals have accepted this. God made some us of different. Why take it further. In the old way, we did not.

English as a first language

I always knew I had a deficit in my English language rules from middle school. While I did get A’s and B’s, I was lacking, in my mind. Nobody kissed my tail. Then I went to Georgia Tech, and while I was drilled there, I knew adding and subtracting was more important. Then I joined the Marines. That changed a lot of my thoughts.

At Command and Staff College, which is like getting a Masters in War, all of us took an English language screening test. Well 95% of us failed, or were assigned to “stupid English” as we said. My sponsored student from Kenya, black as the ace of spades, knew the Queen’s English and tested out. He was one of the smart guys who did something else, whatever they did.

Being assigned to stupid English reminded me of the 8th grade. I had to read, memorize, and understand the various rules. I think I was really good as a Marine and also an 8th grader. And this went on for months.

Being an aggressive Marine (ditto for normal) my graduation article was submitted for an award. Ego was the big deal, though some money was involved, also. All the results were to be announced at the graduation, and I had backhandedly planned what I might say if I won.

Bottom line, I got a flush letter vice an award. But my English was much better.

East meets West and Sharia law meets Gaza?

This question should be “interesting” to sort out. Mostly it is interesting as a western outsider. While it could be an Afghanistan type military takeover such as the Taliban did, it could sort out quite differently. Every situation is unique. Gaza is Arab in character.

Both the Hamas types and the Gaza types are different from those in Afghanistan. Let’s start with the Gaza types. They generally may be more like cowboys at a bar on Saturday night than the pious Sunday types. And Hamas may not be the religious zealots the Taliban dictators turned out to be. In other words, the military winners may have a political tiger by the tale. Hopefully, for them, they can learn the Hezbollah schemes of ruling by balancing public service, military dictatorship, and avoidance of religious impositions. Oh yes, money from Iran helps. But in the end, don’t mess with the Palestinians in Gaza if you are an outsider, which most of the present combatants are.

In the money from Iran scheme, there is hope for both sides. All nations can be bled financially, and this is happening to Iran as we speak. Timing is everything, and it is on the western side of bleed ‘em dry. From the Iranian side, which is reckless in its consequences, maybe the US and west will give up, quit, or otherwise leave before they (the Iranians) run out of money. If it (Iran) doesn’t, and somehow perseveres, then political shock will still set in for the dictators. The west has always responded in the normal way, why should it change after decades of the other way. In this misjudgment is why local wars begin. And if I were a mullah dictator in Iran, decades of political experience suggests why I believe what I believe. To the western mind, one just has to change the assumptions, and the house of cards will fall. Maybe we will make an earthquate of politcial impacts. Most of these mullah dictators have cowardly instincts, as well as a long term approach. This is often called the mind battle part of war. Bottom line, they are losers, and the west and local Arab allies are winners, if we will persist.

Hamas and Gaza may sort out about the same. Iranian money will run out. And people have lives to live. And Sharia law is not for all Arabs. The consequences for Jordan and Egypt may be just the opposite of the pundit’s guesses. Most political movements, including Hamas, are a small cabal of people. They may just expend themselves in Gaza.

The Middle East version of left holding the baby

The time seems to have come, more suddenly than we thought, where we now have to deal with a difficult problem or responsibility, because someone else had decided they did not want to deal with it. We now have overt, and continuing covert, acts of war being done against us. Americans are dying, and our Country is being drawn down mentally, militarily, and financially. The Executive is debating what to do, but the Congress has not even scheduled a hearing on any of this! Many Americans can’t recognize we’re being attacked to our detriment, many Americans don’t care, and many Americans want some future group of Americans to be left holding the baby. Some Americans judge that postponing, pretending, delaying, and hoping are better policies than a defensive type of war. They either don’t believe delay will make the blood payoff worse in the future, or that there will not be any consequences at all. Many see the case and reason for a defensive war in the Middle East, but worry we don’t have a competent enough group to wage such a war. To them I say, while the fear is always there, there have never been schools for Presidents and Secretaries and senior Congressman on how to wage war. So, it is a gamble in the end. The real question should be the case for war vice some lesser course of action. To this author it is whether or not we will deal with it, or leave some future group holding the baby.

Most disconcerting is the inaction in our Congress. Wars must be declared by Congress. The effect of a Congressional Declaration is awesome. And who else but Congress can sort out the media reports and public intelligence leaks as to accuracy and reliability. If we go to war, it should not be based on media reports. Cold hard facts will do, and they seem bleak right now. By bleak I mean consequences for inaction, as our descendents will bleed in barrels when we could fight a war and bleed in buckets in the near future. But thanks to those who have postponed things to where we today are left holding the baby, blood must now be shed in our National Defense if we are to survive as a Nation. And it is being shed today.

Inaction by Congress as a political scheme is possible. In this case, the effect of the voters on Congressional elections is also awesome.

And never forget we do have allies who also have nations to defend. If we postpone, again, they may not. This case alone may get us dragged in. In the late 1930’s the Congress and President passed three Neutrality Acts, and yet we ended up at war. Sometimes we can’t legislate our way out of foreign threats.

Bottom line, the Iranian dictators are now emboldened enough to overtly attack us. And the Chinese are doing direct military arms flights into Afghanistan. Lesser enemies are picking up the signals. And Americans and its allies are dying. And we did not start this. It began decades ago, and our political forbearers have left us holding the baby. Will our Executive and Congress even consider acting? What will our generation do?

Mothers and fathers are different, too

You can tell kids till you are blue in the face, but sometimes they just have to learn. How moms and dads do this is often different.

We all know boys and girls are different. Getting ready for summer camp is a good example. The 12 year old girl was totally organized, used the camp checklist, and was packed and ready to go days early. The 15 year old boy was a little slower (I’m being kind), and a 14 hour final process came to his announcing he was packed and ready. Both camps are boys and girls only, but also start at the same time. There are good reasons for this.

Now it comes to pass both girl and boy don’t have rain coats and extra laundry bags, and I am supposed to carry it all out to camps, according to the mother, now on vacation in Germany. Well, I am a proud dad, and like I said early on, you can tell ‘em till you are blue in the face, but sometimes they just have to learn. So screw ‘em. If they forgot their raincoats, then they can get wet, or beg, or more likely make a field expedient rain coat from a plastic trash bag or sheet.

That’ll teach ‘em. Thank goodness mother is in Germany.

Political correctness impositions hurt a lot of people

When leaders of all persuasions can’t say what they think because of political correctness, because it may offend someone or group, then many people have a great disservice done to them (I would have said been screwed, but that is politically incorrect or at least politically insensitive). Since there is no “code” or “law” about what is and is not politically correct, what has come about is a form of censorship in this land of the free. Unbelievable. And since there are no “codes”, anyone can appoint themselves the arbiter or judge of these unwritten “codes”. In this age of good mass communications, it could be Al Sharpton, the president and chief executive of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, or you and me. That the media seems to have appointed them selves the jury or part of the court of public opinion led by the media, then the whole thing is too often a kangaroo court conducted through the media.

That all this exists is part of our American culture, but it is also part of do gooder efforts led by proponents of multiculturalism. Political correctness did not grow up naturally, otherwise we Americans would have already invented it. It is a new form of censorship sold as sensitivity, and so far bought hook, line, and sinker, mostly. And like the sinker, it will sink because it is un-American. What we have to do is get through it, and sink it.

Yesterday, the “Governator” of California was called on political incorrectness when he gave his opinion on learning English, the language of America. That he had to learn English as an immigrant gives him certain experience credibility, and he voiced his opinion. And then the political correctness criticisms came on. Basically he said all immigrants must learn English, and turning off Spanish language TV makes one speak and practice and learn English faster. That’s it. And most agree, and he did all immigrants, and more importantly, the Spanish-speaking immigrants in his State, a favor as an earlier immigrant’s lesson learned.

No one has to follow his advice, and most have their own common sense on how to proceed as an immigrant in the newly adopted country. But for outsiders to attempt to censor such discussion does a terrible disservice to the intended audience. Are they supposed to gain their wisdom from the self-appointed arbiters of what they can and cannot hear. Now that is a terrible state of affairs that is totally un-American. Amplify this across society, and we American citizens have much work to do to eradicate this so un-American cancer.

Are the Democrats another Whig Party?

A national party no more? Zell Miller wrote a book with this title in 2003. And it appears many of their actions and political positions are driving the party down. Sometimes people leave the party, sometimes the party leaves them. Many people feel like they are being forced from the party they grew up in.

The Democratic Party has adopted the visceral pacifist and anti-war types. It has also adopted the trial lawyers, and the eco-extremists. It appears to be moving from aggressive promotion of its policies to a leftist censorship founded in dogmatic thought control. The Democratic Party also seems to be the catalyst for the politics of personal destruction and other such means to run over its opponents. All this is very un-American to the point where the Country will have to change to accommodate it; or the Country will vote with its feet and go to other Parties much as happened to the Whigs. Parties are supposed to be about the Nation first, and not themselves.

Trying to analyze the Democrats is pseudo psycho babble at best. But seeing what they are doing is a look and see method. Many follow the money. Just where the eco-extremists raised $3 million for elections in 2006 is still amazing to me if done legally. But if true, this money seems to allow the tail to wag the dog of the Democratic Party today. If in doubt, just read the draft of Mr. Rahill’s (D) eco bill written this week. Just where does the National interest come in to this equation? Why is the Democratic leadership allowing this to happen?

The problem also seems based in the weak leadership as displayed by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid. Pelosi seems more interested in her local San Francisco 129,000 voter base than she is in her Party and her Nation. Reid seems to have abandoned his own beliefs in favor of the minor elements that seem to be driving the party today. And most pitifully, both have had to resort to getting too many votes by using our public monies for congressional pork barrel priorities.

The other leading indicator of how far the Party has fallen is its failure to lead and legislate after taking over the Congress in January 2007. Voters may have been disgusted and frustrated with the Republicans, but the strategy and tactics for the Democrats to get elected are simply not those required to lead and legislate. This inability to shift from an election strategy to a national legislative strategy is profound for a Party claiming to be national in character. Obstruction and hate are not a plan for a national party. Already the Democrats should be holding committee meetings on the Iranian threat, and the existing overt actions of the Iranian dictators. This is most basic to national defense, yet nothing is happening.

That the largest group of voters call themselves “independents” should be a wake up call to the Democrats, as well as the Republicans. Unless the Democrats can “take care of their problems”, they are leading themselves down the path of the Whig Party, which came to a national end in the 1850’s.

Forward thinking applied to Syria

Now that the Secretary of Defense has stated General Pace was not nominated for a second term as Chairman, JCS, because the hearing would drag us backward in history when we only need to go “forward”, many will take him at his word. Most also think DC Senate politics had much to do with it.

Let us go to “forward” to Syria, as it has been at minimum a thorn in our Iraq war, and more realistically, a major combatant as a staging base, sanctuary, and complicit ally of Iran. It also accepted Iraqi WMD’s in 2003 if you believe the stories and the maps. As it appears Iran is becoming more overt in the regional war it has been waging for decades, any overt US response will have to include Syria because of its Iraq involvement, hence we plan ahead as “forward” thinking voters using only open sources.

As Nation-states go in this Arab part of the world, Syria has less going for it than most other regional nations. It’s natural resources are more limited, and its business and financial power is more limited than most of its neighbors. Its political power is enhanced by its strategic location, both in ancient and modern history. This same location has made it a refugee location for Iraqis that exceeds the immigration problems we know about in the US. Last, while Syria is a thorn in the US side, it appears its strategic interest is still in dominating Lebanon, its historic focus area. Recently, Syria has been killing anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians with car bombs, it seems. Even the UN is investigating with good cause.

“Forward” thinking requires knowing who runs Syria today. Things are not always as they appear or seem, especially applied to the present leader who assumed the Presidential job in 2000 from his father, who died in office. Many think there is an “old guard” left over from the former President who maintain their privileged positions within the 1963 Bathist base. Remember that Saddam Hussein was from the same Bathist Party. Some even think the country is still run by a coterie of old loyalists, with the present President acting as a figurehead. Also thought is that the present President has slowly been doing a slow dance to assert himself and take control using time and caution so as not to provoke many of the old elites sponsored by his father. This also makes some sense given the problems of transferring power between father and son in dictatorships. Add in that the present President is a medical doctor by training with a good British background and wife, who though Syrian by culture, was born and raised in Britain, and the opportunity for change is different from when his father ran Syria.

In all cases of who runs Syria, all “forward” thinking suggests Iran today has much to say about Syria’s involvement in Iraq. Mostly it is a case of money talks with the slow dance dragged in. But with Iran overextended financially, and Syria does have its own national interests, the regional war started by Iran and coming into an overt phase will provide an opportunity for the present President of Syria to realign his nation and his political control. This realignment will be different from the status quo. “Forward” thinking suggests Arab Sunni, vice Persian Shiite, monies will come into play, under the table. And in this is one possible regional solution, with Syria moving away from Iranian support of all its Iranian objectives. The US is not the only player in this region, so full of oil money as a political and diplomatic tool. The other players, like the Saudi’s will have much to say and do.

Well, if Secretary Gates and the implied Senate politically considers “forward” thinking as important, then he and the Senate can live with it, too. And we voters can use the same “forward” logic, and come up with our own conclusions. After all, the voters are in charge, not the Executive appointees or the elected Senators.

Last is the idea of trust. Most voters are too busy too keep up with all this. We have to trust those we elect, or change those we elect. Keep this is mind, even when “forward” thinking about Syria.

Tips of the icebergs

Things and changes are not always what they seem. Here are some reported "tips of the icebergs" that suggests there is also much below the water line.


Antioch College closing after 155 years

Colorado professor to be fired

The collapse of Arab civilization

Second thoughts on funding wahabbism

Mainstream churches split

Rise of standalone Christian churches

Elections in France and Germany

Decline of mainstream media

Historically low approval ratings of Executive and Congress

Reversals of historical environmental leaders

Rise of the independents as a major voting group

Failures of the U.N.

DDT coming back

Individual vs. Group rights balancing

Final spasms of N. Korea and Cuba

The demise of China as it exists today

Consequences of too many people and rising standards of living

Globalization effects declining to regionalism

Continued rise of women’s suffrage

Good intentions vice accountability balancing out

Revolutions and civil wars still have a place

Nation states as a western historical idea is changing

Civility rising as an expectation and requirement

Demographic trends as good as the status quo

Enhanced communications available to more of the world at home and abroad

Pursuit of children’s educations has never waned

The world is evolving western vice eastern

Talking about political freedom too often means talking past each other

One usually learns the hard way when military communications is “down” between two points; half the time the problem is on my end. So be careful when asserting it is always the other end that is screwed up. Sometimes it is on my end.

The lesson in life from this story seems an appropriate reminder when one reads things like “worst in history”, “shut down GITMO his afternoon”, or so and so “has made everyone in Britain a prisoner”. Having lived in the third world, my definition of political freedoms is pretty basic. So I am astonished at the naivety and intemperance of those who make these seemingly absurd claims. Let them move overseas and experience some of what they claim goes on here at home I say. That’ll show ‘em.

And then I remind myself of the communications story preceding, and check to make sure the problem is not on my end. This is a stretch for going the extra mile, or even turning the other cheek, but problem solving is part of how I am made. That is just how my stick floats. And yes I know there is a certain percentage of the population that just is set in their spoiled ways. I also know there are a larger number of American citizens who will listen and debate if I can set up the communications. This approach, of course, assumes this large group can’t recognize the communication problem might be on their end. I will have to live with this.

Just going to Wikipedia on the subject of “political freedom” will bring up a nice academic discussion of the subject. Reading this says a lot, that is, there are many ways to talk past each other on this subject. There are freedoms of assembly, association, bearing arms, education, movement, press, religion, speech, thought, intellectual, and sex. The entire article can be found through this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)

Thinking this way has a purpose. In the upcoming 2008 elections, the great middle of the voting population is also the largest group of voters, the “independents”. Now this is a group who will listen to ideas, especially those in the National interests. And there is a technique in presentations that will help many in the discussion of American political freedoms, or any discussion for that matter. It is called “repeating the question or statement” to the person who made it, and then “asking them if I understood correctly?” This technique will do wonders in closing the communications gap on both ends. And hopefully, it will return voted political power to those better suited to wield it in the National interests.

Be really really scared

It’s times like this that are genesis for the most terrible manmade events, usually wars. It could be something else as bad, as a weapon of mass destruction terrorist attack within the USA. With the Executive seeming beaten down politically by the Iraq War mismanagement and the domestic enemies piling on, perhaps that perception is correct. One can take this idea a step further, with the Executive being paralyzed from taking most future actions in our Nation’s defense, and the Congress being intimidated by the coming summer Iranian military offensive in the region. The aforementioned is not the scary stuff; the scary stuff is our Nation’s foreign enemies (many are not in the Persian Gulf region) believing all this and acting on their confidence and beliefs. Our Nation is not all powerful, though some may think so. Hurricane Katrina, for example, has take up vast amounts of National wealth, as did the 9/11 attacks. Any future attack that hurts us significantly both economically and politically would be such a scary attack. We can be “drawn down”. And then our allies have their own interests to act on.

For the relatively small percentage of our voting electorate who are also sincerely and vehemently anti-war, this is going to be a tough period, much like happened to their peers who faded away after the final Nazi aggressions in Europe and the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. That it all may take place in this impossibly extended and too long presidential campaign will be a boon to the voters still shopping around, which is most. And of course the voters will also vote in Senate and House elections.

So what do you think? Can the Executive and Congress still act in the Nation’s defense during the period leading up to the Presidential election in 2008, and the swearing in during January 2009? Most certainly our foreign enemies are going to use misjudgment during the intervening period in their decisions to bring ruin on the USA. Some may even be emboldened, one may say.

Give populism a chance

The image is broad. Even Teddy Roosevelt (early 1900’s) advanced the idea. His political sales pitch idea then was called the “square deal”. The principles still apply today. And the term populism and all its variants are all over the American political landscape. This author chooses to present it as a we vs. them. Is America about its citizens, or the businesses that drive the economy? The question is debatable. The future course of our Country is less debatable. We citizens can either kill the goose that lays the golden egg, or nourish the American way. And amazingly in this display of world coverage, we can be populists, as in do a “square deal”. Talk about having our cake and eating it to, we may be there. And being there means being unique in world history. At the same time, we can be Americans defending our home communities that are so sacred to family life and respect. In this is a great political change going on, not recognized just yet in D.C. but so profound the less astute politically will suffer. So what.

All the soothsayers and political (paid) operatives will intervene as normal. They are out of touch, though trying to catch up. Defending local communities is a sad state of consequence to come to. Most American workers just want “free” trade as advertised, with all the normal “American” rules to make it even. Then, and only then, will America’s voters begin to respect the politicians advancing the academic theories, with a little respect.

Give populism a chance. This idea is both the American way, and the way to many other futures. There is much for the voters to sort out.

The health of our Nation’s future calls for congressional term limits

The term limiting of Presidents by the congressionally passed 22d amendment in 1951 is a good example of why, and how. Now we citizens need to go one step farther. Here’s why. The whole D.C. atmosphere has become a career pattern, old world aloof-like, and income producing patterns of successful election, service, followed by vast income producing lobbyist payrolls. That might even be fine if most citizens thought what was going on was in the nation's interests, vice citizens milking the nation's vast public monies. Even a few rich families like the Kennedy’s, or Bush’s, or Clinton’s get in through the haze. The simple question is still: how about our national interests? One can extrapolate this to such things as: there is not a cent in the public treasury for social security or medicare and medicade. And our elected servants have done this to us!

There was a fad about term limits about a decade or so ago. And it was admirable, to include the elected politicians who actually did it, as in lead by example. That has not worked for the benefit of the nation, as a whole. The status quo still seems well ensconced. Since we citizens who vote are still in charge, it is time to take charge and lead term limits for our voted representatives.

Here’s a quick primer. The Constitution can be amended either by a Congressional process, or a State process. This author will defer to the politicians and wonderful leader citizens who agree with this idea of congressional term limits. And whether it is Senators, or Representative, or both, and how much, is up to the process. But along the way of our Nation’s history, the idea of congressional term limits and an amendment to enforce it seems to be in our National Interests, and probably the World’s interests.

We are not too shabby. In fact America and its constitution are the light of the world.

Leading a country as big as the USA means bipartisanship which is a win win if it happens

For the first time in a half century there are signs that all the liberal do gooder best intentioned ideas are finally reaching the most harsh court of public opinion. And the court is tactfully avoiding judgments as it moves to more results-oriented solutions. Most Americans seem to agree on many of the many foreign and domestic problems we face for us and our children and grandchildren, as the solutions are evolving towards results and accountability. This is a major shift in politics, of course, but also a major shift in opportunities. The traditional and old time way of pounding the enemy when they are down is not politically appropriate in the path to our Nation’s future.

The best way to lead is to run for office. In lieu of that, the next best way to lead is to vote. And then there is the way of writing. And one should consider National Interests, and local interests, in forming one’s opinions. Vindictive payback to those on the losing side of history is a waste of time, intellectually, and politically. The best course of action is to lead, which brings a heavy responsibility. Advancing the power of ideas is key, but along the way some forcefulness and confidence is not too shabby.

Key is the opportunity that seems to be coming. It is one thing to complain, often bitterly, and be frustrated beyond belief. It is another to lead a country. In this is the “opportunity” for the future of our Country. And the opportunity is not republican or democratic, though it is uniquely American. And it is bipartisan. Bipartisanship is not the same as the lowest common denominator. Leaders recognize this. This post suggests we readers and writers also do so.

The times they are changing … and faster than the old time politicians know or think they know. The change can be revolutionary for those that can exploit it for the good, or it can devolve into some kind of mess. My vote is for the good, but in the end, only we American voters will decide, with a little bit of leadership added in.

The military and the politicians use divide and conquer, and so can the citizen political movements

The principle is as old as history. Hillary Health Care is a good example from the early 1990’s application of the principle. After failing abysmally, the fall back strategy was to do it in small pieces, i.e., divide and conquer. Much of that went on after and for a short time, though the “campaign” was so poorly run it is obvious the Clinton leaders just backed off during their remaining term. And of course, the Bush leaders have other goals. With Hillary Clinton now running for President, the Hillary Health Care ideas are rising again like the proverbial phoenix rising from the ashes of the past. Only time will tell how all this sorts out.

The point of this post is parallel to the divide and conquer story preceding. The recent failing of the bipartisan effort in the Senate to come up with an improved immigration law, in many minds, is both a failure, and an opportunity. Many of us think the wonderful work of hundreds of thousands of citizens telling their senators by phone, fax, and email not to do it seems to have won out. This seems to be a case of the elected people and their hired minions listening to the people instead of doing some inside the beltway deal. And as the sermon often ends, “this is good”.

But the story and campaign is not over. We citizens in the USA do have an immigration problem thanks to all the past laws and apparently lax enforcement and funding of border control. Having 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants is bad enough, but the trend without action may be towards 50 million illegal immigrants in the not too far future. So why not use the divide and conquer principle to make things happen in the citizens interests, which also seems like bipartisan interests. In this is the opportunity to demonstrate bipartisanship for the benefit of our Country. In the divide and conquer principle, divide it up into do-able chunks that will gain Senate and House and Presidential cohesion that will become the law of the land.

The basic scheme is to do immigration reform in two “chunks”.

First, and foremost, is control of the borders, and as many hear it, control of the businesses that deliberately hire illegal immigrants. In this first chunk, I will defer to the politicians and citizens as to whether it is just enforcing present laws, or writing news laws that amplify the idea of controlling our borders. What ever gets sorted out, the massive mistrust of most citizens (5 out of 6, 3 out of 4, or take your own poll) in the willingness of the federal government to control the border has to be satisfied with, well, border control. The stories of only 2 miles or so of the 700 miles authorized last year say legions as to the distrust so prevalent today. Add to this discussion another story from the American Thinker:
Vasko Kohlmayer demonstrated two days ago that even the most absurdly inflated estimates for the cost of building a border fence are well within our means, in this American Thinker article. Loyal reader Tom Caneris suggested that an intriguing comparison can be made with the scale of the federal project to construct tall noise barrier walls along our freeways.

Take a look at these freeway noise barriers and see that there is more than a passing resemblance to various wall designs for the border barrier. Of course a border fence would have to be more robust, and it would not have the advantage of a nice highway to bring workers and material to the worksite. But it is not be that many orders of magnitude bigger a project than the highway noise barrier system.

Has the building of freeway noise barriers involved any national sacrifice? Have you ever fretted about how much money it has cost? Through the end of 2004, forty-five State DOTs and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have constructed over 2,205 linear miles of barriers at a cost of over $2.7 billion ($3.4 billion in 2004 dollars), more than the length of the US-Mexico Border (1,951 miles).

Second, and in the divide and conquer principle, then the other serious problems of illegal immigration can be addressed, as in what to do and how to treat the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already here today. That is a big deal to so many American citizens.

Of course the application of the divide and conquer scheme requires “trust”. That the present comprehensive bipartisan proposal has failed in the Senate, at least for now, is a reflection of this lack of trust, deservedly so. As we go forward, can the other side of this bipartisan issue show “trust” in those who just want to have border control, and then expect these same people to go forward together in the near future? Most think so. In other words, the second “chunk” will fall into place if the first “chunk” begins to happen, finally. And all the second “chunk” issues can be debated fairly as in the first “chunk”. One suspects in this second discussion and debate that disingenuous party types trying to gain voting block advantages in voting will fall to those advancing the National Interests. Bipartisan types will squash them in the “trust” idea. But also allow for well intentioned do gooders who give equal priority to illegal immigrants and their children to our own children. This is also a good debate, and only citizens can vote.

In this is the great national debate about immigration. And maybe even it is the example of how we Americans can go forward to rule ourselves differently from the last few decades examples. Bipartisanship is not the same as the lowest common denominator, and here is an opportunity for citizens and politicians to show the American way. As always, use your vote and voice (voice mail, fax, or email) to make this happen, if you buy all this.

Common sense and civility trumps emotionalism and poor behavior every time

In a Nation as evenly divided politically as many think it is, the power of ideas seems like it should always guide our public policies. And it usually does … most of the time. But like a marketing person or even a salesman justifies their job, how ideas are presented often has a lot to do with acceptance and implementation. Applied to politics, how else would America often suffer through the tyranny of the minority? In the ebb and flow of politics, sometimes it’s the idea that trumps, and sometimes it’s the presentation and force of delivery that trumps. This academic discussion has merit in its practical applications today. This seems especially appropriate in a Nation so evenly divided in so many ways. America’s position in the world, worrying about what people in the world think about us and our government, immigration policies, social security solvency, Iraq and getting out all the while maintaining our foreign policy goals, and homeland security are just a few.

It seems like emotionalism, poor behavior, selfishness, bullying, and promoting personal agendas has been trumping common sense and civility since the 2006 elections, though it probably started long before then. It almost seems like there has been an recent explosion of ideas like thought control, criminalizing opposing opinions, and just plain wacko ideas that about anybody can say, and if outrageous enough, get reported for their 15 minutes of fame. In all this there have even been more ominous schemes that have come to light, such as the return of the SW USA to Mexico, or the defeat of the USA anywhere in the world, or the environmentalist self appointed leaders telling us what we will do. Not that there are better alternatives, but the ideas are more anarchist these days. Tearing down without planning for the consequences and future are what anarchists do. And just who does pick the agenda of what is important to we citizens?

This is what people with common sense and civility do. In old fashioned terms, it is called leadership. Change is constant, and political leaders worth their salt offer agenda ideas, common sense plans that work, and let them get voted on. And the whole process must be civil, otherwise intimidation and bribes and other third world types of things skew the process that is so uniquely American these days. Lest this discussion also get too academic, the recent very tough debates and discussion about immigration provide a wonderful example of common sense and civility trumping. It is ideal if what is being reported today is close to the mark, that is, the debate and final resolution is not over. Those who fought so hard to tell the Senators (after all this was just the Senate vote) to listen to them and not just tell the citizens how it was going to be, now have to provide a better alternative, and in a civil tone. One does not tear down without providing the stones for a new and better building.

If one can accomplish all this, that is, both tear down and build, and do it in a common sense and civil manner, then the emotionalism and poor behavior of the recent past will have been trumped. This is the bipartisan way, the American way. And in a time with the Country almost evenly divided, it is the best way for we citizens. Voting for citizen politicians who represent common sense and civility is a practical way to make this happen! One does not have to agree with them all the time, nor even apply litmus tests. One does have to trust their understanding of American national interests and civility trumping all other considerations.

The coming Iranian War is getting closer

The weeks-old reports about the Iranians planning a military campaign to influence the USA Congress this summer are starting to show some legs. Not only should the USA be worried, but also Iran’s regional enemies. Their enemies are mostly Arabs, mostly Sunni, or even some are from internal Iranian unfriendly tribes. And this military campaign by the Iranians is a step up from the past, and much more overt with easily detected trails than in the past. That the media is a factor in war is also astounding if one buys the premise for an Iranian campaign.

With these possible enemies, why would Iran’s leaders act in such a way. After all they are small fish in a big sea, even if they are regionally big fish in a small sea. The answer is classically historical. It is misjudgment fed by decades of successes as they have been allowed to get away with murder and ransom, literally. What has worked in the past should work in the future, based on their vast political experience with the west, and the west’s diplomatic support of nation-states. And since we don’t know what two top house democrats where saying in Syria and Egypt recently in private meetings at the same time, the politics may even be more confusing as to what the USA says and thinks. (The Egyptian visit and meetings by House Majority Leader Hoyer was kept quiet by most while Speaker Pelosi was in Damascus.)

Complicating things for them and us is the question of just who is in charge there. Is it the theocratic mullahs, their puppet president, or the private Army of God. The answer to that question is known to none, to include themselves. In any given short time period, the answer is probably all of them. The decision for a summer campaign was probably initiated by the theocratic rulers and being implemented by their private Army of God. And a last complicating problem for them is economic, both internal and external. That they are still $21 million behind on payments to the Russians for the work at the nuclear Bushehr Plants is a good clue. The budget is around $1 billion.

Complicating things for us is the question of Arab Persian Gulf States’ authorizations to use our air bases in the region. Most have already said “no”. The use of the “stan” states is not known. This is also a classical problem using land basing. So our complicated answer for air power employment in such a coming war is the US Navy carriers, Diego Garcia, and mainland USA basing with aerial refueling prompted by great distances and over flight accommodations. Turkey will be a big political player in all this, probably.

Trying to avoid such a war has two obvious courses of action which are hopefully being used both by the USA, and the regional Persian Gulf States. One is diplomatic, and the other is military. First the military. The USA is using covert and overt military actions to both interrupt the summer military campaign by the Iranians and to intimidate the theocratic mullahs. Independently, regional Arab states are doing what they do best, working with Iranian opposition internal tribes to distract and disrupt the Iranian government. The Iranians cannot afford to ignore internal opposition, either organized by outsiders, or just as likely, naturally risen from all the failed economic policies that promotes the present leaders foreign policies. The second effort is the diplomatic. This is mostly overt financial efforts to decapitate the regime’s funding combined with the almost worthless efforts at imposing sanctions by the UN and the main customers. Like all campaigns, some things stick and some don’t, so only time will tell what works best in tamping down the Iranians.

Most arm-chair generals typical and most naïve comments have to do with “invading” Iran, as in occupy it with troops we do not have. Nothing could be dumber, mostly because we don’t have the troops. But even more importantly is recognizing the Iranian people are natural allies, and will self organize to run and administer their country if the yoke of dictatorship is thrown off earlier through actions by either USA, Persian Gulf States, or both. The resulting Iranian State will be unique to their tribes, and may not even be to our liking, but it will be much more democratic that the dictatorship that plans the summer offensive today. Along the way somebody will bomb and set back the Iranian nuclear program, unless all the covert things work. Either way, the decision on future nuclear actions will be put off until the present government of Iran is superceded.

There are wild cards. Perhaps the Iranians will succeed? Perhaps the Congress will cave anyway, and the President will go along? Perhaps the Russians and/or Chinese will assert their own national interests and skew the whole process as if the Iranians are influencing their foreign policies? These are scary times.

Whiles all times can be called scary, the classical situation of the theocratic mullahs using huge misjudgments to unleash this coming war are the scariest. One expects our national leaders at the executive and congressional levels to never let this happen. No small group of foreign, egomaniacal brigands should ever get their way in our Country.

A watershed time in our Nation’s history

In the future historians will write about this time as one of great change. The time is not a specific date, or even a year. It is not even a Civil War period. The time is one where Americans took back their leadership from the status quo that has risen since the end of World War II.

The signs of this change are everywhere, yet the status quo politicians and their hired minions go on as in the past. Fine. Let them be surprised. Those that read the pundits, who are mostly just as in the dark, focus on who won what debate as if that really mattered, or was an indicator of future voter actions, or was an ESPN blood sport commentary. The bottom line seems to be all about the republicans and the democrats, and ignores the largest group of all, the “independents”. The general line of reasoning seems to be two fold. First the republicans and democrats have to come up with a nominee from their own base, all the while ignoring the “independents”. Second the nominees then “move towards the middle” which usually means switching positions just for gaining votes, mostly of “independents”. In the old days, it was called lying, or to be kinder, just being a politician. All this assumes the “independent” vote is ignoring all that is going on today, and the established strategies will continue to work in the future.

Yet too many American voters throughout the land are perceiving the republicans and democrats as being two flavors of the same thing. Yes, the ideologies may vary, but the other things so important to Americans has not changed. The 2006 congressional election results expressed frustration with the attitude of politicians in D.C., the influence of money and the lobbyists that seem to buy too many of their votes, and the icing on the cake, the democrats are just as bad having been given an opportunity to do what they said about changing things. Further action is called for by the voters. One example is term limits. We already have a Constitutional Amendment for Presidential Term Limits. Now is the time for Senators and Representatives to also be limited in their terms. Until then, regular elections will work just fine, though not as assuredly as an Amendment would do.

Just who is looking out for our National Interests? The answer to this question suggests the watershed time in our Nation’s history is coming shortly. And it will be through elections of citizen politicians throughout the land who are Americans first. Most will probably not be “official” republicans or democrats. These parties have had their chance, have their performance records, and their status quo beliefs. Now it is time for the voters to change things, since the politicians can’t. And the demographics already suggest all this. Most of the voters are “independents”.

Does being for border control mean I am a rascist?

Of course there are two principles at play here. One is the stigma of being called a racist. The other is the association with border control.

Most Americans identify with all that is naturally occurring across our borders as millions of illegal immigrants come to our land to work. Most also are very concerned that the US culture and legal system will change as numbers assert themselves. After all, numbers count in all ways. The debate about assimilation compared to reconsquest of unassimilated lands is a minority argument that skews the debate. The big discussion is numbers! What is now 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants will probably grow to 50 million or so in the 50 year future, and this is a big number that will count. Is this what we want as a nation? And especially if these illegal immigrants both do not want to assimilate, and take over these SW USA lands as there own, the answer is obvious. We go back to war and kill people. This crude answer reflects what is happening now, and will continue to happen if the do gooders get their way. And most importantly, how about we present citizens and our kids and grandkids. This most important principle seems to be getting ignored as politicians business as normal continues even as we citizens change our votes.

The effort in Congress, mostly the Senate, to come up with a bipartisanship bill in admirable is that is it is so unique these days. A key point to keep in mind is that the idea of bipartisanship is different from the lowest common denominator. And most think the effort is in the best sort of American way. What most don’t hear is the resounding demand for southern border control. Without border control, all will fail. This is so obvious, then why don’t all the pollsters and polling groups reflect this? I’ll be nice, they are not perfect. I’ll be real, they do a poor job of reporting what many of us think. And even when they fail, our combined kids have their way, at least in my community. Boys and girls do get together against their parents advice, and whatever we end up with will be forever new.

If and when the federal government demonstrates real border control, then bipartisanship should kick in. And our Nation will proceed.

The threat of riots is appalling for America

The title is prompted by Mr. Oboma’s comments about Katrina and his judgment about the situation. Other judgments include Louisiana politics where the Negroes get ripped off so bad, but at least it is the local people doing it, that is ripping off federal monies. This is a traditional way of life, and is integrated racially in the worst sort of way. And Mr. Obama is an interloper being from the city of Chicago. The only thing that appears new is Mr. Obama’s color, being half Kenyan and half Kansas. During this visit about Katrina, he apparently is coming across as African-American. Let’s see, how do you fake sneeze like BS.

And how do you propose to be a leader, vice a Senator intimated by the threat of riots. Of course, you are not a national leader, just a local politician with a wonderfully good speech writer at the 2004 convention, and since promoted by the mainstream media. But can’t you sense, that since they got you into the race, they are now turning on you. You either pack the weight, or you don’t. And you look like a lightweight.

The riot idea sounds like talk about the Arab street erupting if such and such is not done in such and such a place. Is this your way of governance? Is it such a simple crude way of doing the American way of governance by polls and interest groups vice your core beliefs about our National interests.

Particularly frustrating is all that our Nation has done, and many of us in particular, have done in the name of racially equality. And vast, that is very vast, amounts of monies have been expended in this effort. Even double standards have been tolerated, for a while. I personally have help terminate many careers of racists, mostly white, but some black. And to hear some young interloper from Chicago step up to the plate these days pontificating about riots is just appalling. This is most opportunistic political pandering so far in what will be a typical presidential race.

Solutions will prompt another article. What candidates running to be the President must demonstrate is competence, leadership, and management skills. Mr. Oboma , and his speeches, lack this quality. He’s a loser with a good speech writer in 2004, who hopefully Illinois will replace sooner rather than later.

The political case for pardoning Libby

The political case for pardoning Libby

Mr. Libby has been prosecuted and found guilty by a jury of crimes for which a judge has sentenced him to 30 months in prison and a hefty $250,000 fine. Depending on one’s expertise and political persuasion, the system either works, or has been abused in the worst sort of way in criminalizing politics. This author has followed mostly pundits thoughts on the merits of the case, but this same author also has strong feelings about why Libby should be offered a Presidential pardon based on the politics of the case. And Mr. Libby may not accept a pardon since it means he accepts the conviction and the facts around it. And he may be guilty, certainly a jury thinks so. Maybe some peers think so? And as sharp as he is, he will probably rebound from all this, though few would ever volunteer to go through what he has been through, and faces in the future.

Besides pardons, there are other quasi-legal types of adjudications. There are clemencies, and impeachments, and reprieves. Most of America got a good civics lesson during the Senate impeachment trial of Clinton, when over and over we heard about the unique ability of the Senate to balance politics with legal violations, and make the best decision for the Country.

The political case for pardoning Libby is this. The political atmosphere within the D.C. beltway since the 1990’s has become poisoned in ways most American’s recognize as against our National Interests. The trend against bipartisanship, the trend towards the politics of personal destruction, and the trend towards criminalizing politics is driving away citizen politicians that we need to both administer our government with its vast bureaucracies , and periodically reinvigorate the health of our federal government. Any pond will stagnate if fresh water doesn’t circulate through it. So it seems like the successful political ways to attack one’s political enemies, just for the sake of doing so, has downsides that many think are beginning to manifest themselves these days. Mostly the pool of citizen politicians volunteering to take time and income out of their busy and successful lives appears to be shrinking. One can suggest, I dare not argue, that the poor management of the war in Iraq over the last four years is just such an example. Lest this be a condemnation of President Bush, it is. But it also reflects the quality of the Congressional staffs. They are not immune to all this. And the Country suffers as a result. Our Nation can do better.

Mr. Libby appears to be a loyal and dedicated public servant, certainly with a big ego, and periodically sponsored by many mentors, to include Paul Wolfowitz. And again, he may even be guilty of what the jury convicted him of. But the Nation I think has an interest in reversing the politics of personal destruction, and the criminalizing of politics, as a means to reverse an apparent trend and keep the available pool of aspiring citizen politicians coming to run our Country. In this is the political case for pardoning Libby, hopefully sooner rather than later.


A good primer on pardons can be found at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

An American example of a leader leading a group.

Way back in the mid-1970’s a fellow American made a courageous decision. The Commandant of the Marine Corps decided to impose quality standards, and let the chips fall where they may. The probable impact was a loss of about 20,000 Marines out of something around 200,000 Marines. The decision was pretty simple. You either packed the weight or you didn’t. Until then the Marine Corps believed it could take any American and turn him into a Marine. Well the idea failed, and the Corps spent an inordinate amount of time on the low life problems. The Commandant then, Louis Wilson, did two things. He announced standards, and he announced an expeditious discharge program to make it easier to evict these low life problem Marines.

Well, the results took time, but the effects where almost instantaneous. The remaining good Marines, all 180,000, saw what was happening to the bad Marines, 20,000. And the good Marines liked what the saw and observed, went home and told their family and friends, and recruiting numbers went up. Things have been better since then.

The point of the story is based in fact. How an organization takes care of its good people tells more than how it wastes time on its bad people. And the good people are always watching and evaluating. And a later Commandant, Al Grey, focused on the professional military education of these same good people. Now most American militaries have emulated all this since it is a no-brainer to many.

Americans are smart as exhibited by these stories based in fact. Sometimes it just takes leadership and force to make it happen.

Watersheds

If one buys the argument that history is like a pendulum swinging, then university political correctness and mind control intimidation is swinging the other way. This is an uncontrollable process. Gravity pulls things despite what university types will try do. The inevitable weight of history will drag us all down to a basic level of respect for facts, and the scientific process. If the whole denigration process took 40 years to get where we are today, it will probably take another 40 years to get back to basic university education.

Other factors are at work, also. Today’s fascination with Harvard education is balanced by times past when Notre Dame was the preferred education university for young men. And too many public universities, especially in the engineer and business areas, are succeeding quite well. Our future leaders may come from American “public” universities.

In the interim, these most terribly “educated” young people will have to be themselves, and sort out how they have been disadvantaged. The balance between the liberal arts and the engineering disciplines should be interesting to sort out. At least the professional engineers have their own professional engineering tests and certifications. I look forward to something similar for the softer liberal arts so we can better trust something as basic as a media “report”.

One of the main differences between the east and the west is our information and media, and our trust in the same. Assuming we in the west still believe in our way of life for our families and grandchildren, then many old timers will have to be rolled back into the idea that there are things worth defending, as in fighting for. This may be difficult for them since a way of life was pretty much handed to them on a plate. But now the barbarians are at the gates in the old time talk, and the discussion of just what is important comes up again. None of this is taught much in the universities I think. We just have to figure it out.

Why do the democrats let the tail wag the dog?

It is, of course, the pursuit of political power.

The pollsters and professional tea leaf readers counsel and get paid, and the democratic politicians get played up to. Yet the tail of the dog is at best some combination of 70 pacifists, anti-war (all wars), and Iraq anti-war types out of 435 total House Representatives. Most add in the power of finances from organization, and the real fervor of these 70 types and all their influencing staffs, and there we have it. Their effort to take over and run the Congress and the country is failing mostly due to numbers … they can’t win any substantial vote because of the rest of us who elected the other 365 members of the House. And this discussion leaves out the Senate and the Presidential veto.

The exceedingly poor performance in prosecuting the war in Iraq by the President and his hired minions has created a frustration bordering on thinking we citizens are not respected enough. No one wants to lose a war, and more importantly, most citizens still believe we are under attack, and have to fight back somehow. If not now, later, and most likely at much greater cost to our Country. And most citizens now accept the regional concept of our frictions with Iran and Syria, and expect our government be doing subterfuge types of things. All this mixing of Iraq and a war on terror and executive poor performance in the last four years has opened a highway any competent enemy, foreign or domestic, has driven through.

That the democrats have chosen this highway is a serious mistake on their part. Our Nation is much more important than their political control of the federal government, and the vast national monies. We have many other serious problems that the old time democrats historically seemed suited to solve. Obvious examples today are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In the absence of initiatives in these areas, some smart Americans will take the initiative. Today, it doesn’t look like democrats are up to it; and the tail should never wag the dog.

Having that discussion about sex

Of course it is all time and situation dependent, usually based on the kid’s age and exposure in school. School usually means misinformation since kids do talk to each other at school.

I’ve chickened out, but then tried to weasel my way back in to something as important as a discussion about sex. I have not done much better than my father when he gave me, a male, a book about sex in the 6th grade. That was it for his part until he was driving me to start at GaTech when he told me that if I got a girl pregnant, that was an adult decision that would prompt him to cut me off financially. Since the Navy ROTC scholarship also forbid marriage, my attention was gained. And besides, I was lucky just to make out for a while with some girl who wanted to do the same.

Now my kids (age 15 for boy and 12 for girl) ignore me about sex, or more reasonably, just don’t bring it up with me. The old days about younger kids asking about where do babies come from just don’t come up these days, though it did in the past. And I punted back then. But they do avoid, as I do, seeing each other naked these days. In my case, it is mostly defensive.

There is one bit of good news on the horizon. My fear of kids getting sexually transmitted diseases that will kill them later has been superceded by their repulsion of the bad behavior, mostly embarrassing behavior, of many of the young Hollywood types promoted in the media. Lindsay Lohan is a loser who is not a role model of desired behavior. The girl on Little House on the Prairie is such a watched model these days, if I believe my 12 year old daughter, which I do. And since she still talks about getting married and then having kids, maybe there is hope for my old time way of life.

And then there are the third world types who promote such ideas as “it takes a village”. Having lived there, do these western do gooders really know what they are promoting? Mostly it means sex with girls as young as 10 or so, no male responsibility, rapid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases across regions and a world, and even female sexual organ mutilations. Is this a western goal, or even a family goal for sex education in the west?

There is a Plan B for the whole world. It is promoting and restoring as necessary the matriarchal way of life. Get the politicians out the way, and let the females sort out how to both preserve humanity, and even advance it.

In my little sex education world with my kids, this seems a reasonable way to proceed. Sex is, of course, an act. But it is also a way of life. As they get older, perhaps I can provide more influence along the lines mentioned earlier. They may not agree, but then it is their life. And then the matriarchs come in.

Having that discussion about sex

Of course it is all time and situation dependent, usually based on the kid’s age and exposure in school. School usually means misinformation since kids do talk to each other at school.

I’ve chickened out, but then tried to weasel my way back in to something as important as a discussion about sex. I have not done much better than my father when he gave me, a male, a book about sex in the 6th grade. That was it for his part until he was driving me to start at GaTech when he told me that if I got a girl pregnant, that was an adult decision that would prompt him to cut me off financially. Since the Navy ROTC scholarship also forbid marriage, my attention was gained. And besides, I was lucky just to make out for a while with some girl who wanted to do the same.

Now my kids (age 15 for boy and 12 for girl) ignore me about sex, or more reasonably, just don’t bring it up with me. The old days about younger kids asking about where do babies come from just don’t come up these days, though it did in the past. And I punted back then. But they do avoid, as I do, seeing each other naked these days. In my case, it is mostly defensive.

There is one bit of good news on the horizon. My fear of kids getting sexually transmitted diseases that will kill them later has been superceded by their repulsion of the bad behavior, mostly embarrassing behavior, of many of the young Hollywood types promoted in the media. Lindsay Lohan is a loser who is not a role model of desired behavior. The girl on Little House on the Prairie is such a watched model these days, if I believe my 12 year old daughter, which I do. And since she still talks about getting married and then having kids, maybe there is hope for my old time way of life.

And then there are the third world types who promote such ideas as “it takes a village”. Having lived there, do these western do gooders really know what they are promoting? Mostly it means sex with girls as young as 10 or so, no male responsibility, rapid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases across regions and a world, and even female sexual organ mutilations. Is this a western goal, or even a family goal for sex education in the west?

There is a Plan B for the whole world. It is promoting and restoring as necessary the matriarchal way of life. Get the politicians out the way, and let the females sort out how to both preserve humanity, and even advance it.

In my little sex education world with my kids, this seems a reasonable way to proceed. Sex is, of course, an act. But it is also a way of life. As they get older, perhaps I can provide more influence along the lines mentioned earlier. They may not agree, but then it is their life. And then the matriarchs come in.

Galileo’s persecution … round two early in the 21st century

Our human values have changed much less than historians expected over time. Certainly the times have changed, but we humans still are stuck in persecuting today's people like Galileo, who lived hundreds of years ago. How we persecute has changed but we still persecute. Burning at the stake has been dropped, thank goodness.

Galileo is often referred to as the "father of modern astronomy," as the "father of modern physics", and as the "father of science". Yet in 1633, he was convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic Church, and ordered imprisoned, later commuted to house arrest. His “crime” was suggesting the earth rotates around the sun, which was expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures at the time.

Fast forward to today’s times. President Eisenhower is famous for many things, one of which is his military industrial complex letter to the nation written just days before he left the Presidency in 1961. The letter also warned of a second concern of his, becoming the captive of a scientific technological elite coming from the concentration of federal funds in research. Here is the part of his letter on this subject:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
· and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

We seem to be persecuting today’s Galileo’s for global warming discussions. And now, more than ever, Eisenhower’s warnings seem most appropriate. And his letter was not about global warming, it was about the power of federal funding becoming a substitute for intellectual curiosity and the rise of a scientific technological elite.

To Galileo in the 17th century it was about whether or not the earth rotated around the sun. To today’s Galileo’s in the 21st century, it is about global warming. Who knows what it may be in the 25th century? Maybe human values will have evolved by then, but then maybe not.

Eisenhower’s entire letter is a quick read, and inspirational. Here is one link to it from Michigan State University:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

"never assume ill-will, until you've ruled out sheer incompetence."

No matter how good anyone or group is, none are ten feet tall, to include Americans. Sometimes it seems as though some of our foreign enemies are taller than us, though. The thought of being beat out by our enemies, foreign and domestic, is both disdainful and embarrassing, if correct or even partially correct. Facing these types of questions takes one back a level of thought. Just who are these people discussing the subject and what are their qualifications to better inform we citizens? And one other level of thought leads to just who are these leaders and executives being discussed and reported on?

Just who are these people discussing the subject and what are their qualifications to better inform we citizens? Are these people just in a business with the goal of making money, in which case informing citizenry is of secondary importance, at best. Recently it even seems suicidal, that is much of the media types are publishing agendas that are slowly putting them out of business, usually at the young people’s jobs first. In all cases preceding, there is very little reporting and very little published that has subject matter expertise. The obvious example is the “reporter” who should know something about which they write on. If the reporter has not been in the military, the health care industry, or the border control business, just how can they write responsibly or not have the wool pulled over their eyes? It is especially galling to read articles about MRAP’s (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles or those that reengage the periodical debates about the best small arms weapons. Anyone with subject matter expertise can read between the lines that the naïve reporter has been sold a bill a goods by a member of the military industrial complex, and then dutifully published same.

This principle applies to what I call the health industrial complex, and the emerging border control complex. And one can extrapolate this principle to the entire federal bureaucracy. A year ago a member of the health industrial complex was lamenting to me that the cost cutting and cost controls were threatening his way of life, and his families’ well being. This year he is driving a Lexus as a family car, so I guess things worked out OK. Since his car is nicer than mine, I took all this as a symptom of something wrong in our Country that can be improved.

Just who are these leaders and executives being discussed and reported on? In general, they are us, we Americans. None of us wake up in the morning wanting to do a bad job. The obvious questions are one of the size of federal bureaucracy, and the ability of the federal government to recruit sharp people to lead and manage us. In the latter, there are many warning signs that the pool of sharp citizen politicians is shrinking mostly due to the politics of personal destruction practiced in D.C. In the former, the Iraq war conduct is a story in inter-agency lack of cooperation between bureaucratic D.C. agencies who apparently consider their agency and agenda more important than doing what the executive has directed. No amount of educated “with lack of adult experience” generation Y types can make this whole mess better. And still after 4 years of war in Iraq, there is still no one person in charge, though an active duty general following orders has been appointed in this name. In the old days, the President was this person.

Add in another chance to reform Congress to better serve our collective will by the 2006 elections, later amplified by the Democrats’ exploitation as exhibited by Speaker Pelosi, and it seems as American business as usual … just a new charlatan and liar. What a wasted opportunity.

Assuming any President, including our present President, can’t be an expert in every area, one expects him to appoint one person in charge in major areas such as Defense, Health, and Homeland Defense. In the old days, they were Secretaries. Maybe even make Iraq a separate category since each President has his own methods. But one also expects him to “knock heads” if what ever he decides doesn’t work together to accomplish the mission.

This is making federal bureaucracy work better than it seems to be doing today. Secretaries can be selected that naturally work together, and knock heads in their own turfs. In absence of this old style method, the Country needs a President who can “knocks heads” when need be. This type of person is not from any particular political party, or even an independent. This person is a National Interest driven patriot with competence.

We’ve got enough Americans who have failed us doing their bit. Nothing personal. But our Country’s future is at stake.