Unnamed Sources

When reading the news, one will invariably encounter 'anonymous sources' which are anonymous because of the sensitivity of the subject or because they are disclosing classified information. In either case, the 'government official' (or senior official) is not supposed to disclose the information to the media. Yet it occurs nearly every day. Why does it matter? It matters because the disclosure of some things are handled differently than the disclosure of others. The issue of 'domestic spying' (it's really international communications) brings criticism on the government while Valerie Plame's outing (a CIA agent) brings criticism on the 'anonymous source'. Both were illegal disclosures, but the minority party does not call for probes into both; the one's that hurt Bush take precedent. The media portrays the incidents in wholly different lights despite the facts. They are leaks. They should be handled in the same manner as other leaks. Modern acts of leaking are the politics of personal greed. This isn't Woodward and Bernstein reporting the revelations of Deep Throat (Mark Felt). It's malevolent partisanship.

Canadian Drugs

Prescription drugs are cheaper if we buy them from Canada, so said John Kerry in the 2004 campaign. Indeed, if an individual were to buy their drugs from Canada, that individual would pay less than if they bought the same drugs in the United States (without a comprehensive coverage plan). But John Kerry wasn't talking about one person buying drugs from Canada, he was talking about implementing a system for all Americans. So lets think this through:

'Canadian drugs' (which are actually American drugs sold to Canada) cost less because the government's healthcare program spends a great deal of money subsidizing the cost for its citizens. The citizens pay more in taxes (naturally) for this discount, because it is citizens who fill governmental coffers. So Canadians are paying less when initially receiving the drugs and so Americans believe them to be lower cost (and for individuals, they are).

But think individuals versus systems. The following figures are courtesy of the CIA World Fact Book and are based on estimates from July 2005. Canada has a population of roughly 33 million. Of those 33 million, 10 million are below the age of fifteen or above sixty-four, leaving about 23 million of working age. The labor force is smaller still, at 17.37 million. Those 17.37 million people compose the bulk of economic activity in Canada and hence provide the bulk of the taxes to the government (Canada's GDP in 2004 was $1.023 trillion). Those taxes are used to support programs like... Prescription Drugs!

The United States has an estimated population of 296 million. 60.7 million citizens are under fifteen, 36.7 million over sixty-four, leaving 198.6 million within the working age. The labor force is 147.4 million. The United States had a 2004 GDP of $11.75 trillion.

Those espousing importation of 'Canadian Drugs' are proposing 17.37 million working Canadians support 36.7 million older Americans. Moreover, this presumes Americans under sixty-five will not need a single drug. Further, this proposition assumes Canada can afford to pay for Americans, despite acknowledging the drugs are too expensive for Americans to pay themselves (even with a GDP 11&1/2 times greater than Canada's).

Canada is not the answer for prescription drugs. The numbers don't lie. Individuals may be able to benefit, but it's systematically impossible. Think a little harder next time, Mr. Kerry. You're using fuzzy math.

West Virginia Miner Alive

After being trapped for nearly two days, one miner was found alive and twelve were found dead. Our deepest condolences to the families of the miners who will not be returning home. After forty plus hours of uncertainty, the worrying can stop and hopefully a community will rally around those impacted by this tragedy.

Last night, the major news outlets reported 12 of 13 were alive and this publication reported the same. I was watching the wife of the lone 'unconfirmed' deceased and her strength was an example for all. She was glad for other families because they still had hope.
Altruism in action.

Note: this post has changed for accuracy. Original post - 1/4/2006, 12:10 am

3 Fundamental Functions of Government

This publication has stated previously there is a fundamental limitation to government and what it can accomplish. As an American, it can be easy to forget the hardship endured by the less fortunate. There are three elements in the life of citizenry which governments are expected to underpin: food, shelter, and security (not necessarily in that order). All of these things are not expected to be provided to all people (i.e. homelessness is a constant), but the bulk of individuals must perceive reception of the governmental triumvirate.

To illustrate my point, I will point to Russia. An intriguing article, "Failing the Stalin Test," from the January/February 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs talks of ambivalence or ambiguous emotions toward Stalin in a majority of modern Russians. How can the murderer of MILLIONS be seen positively (estimates vary from 20 to 50 million slain)? As a Russian friend of mine eloquently stated, "The people ATE." In a nation where food is in short supply, a leader providing foodstuffs will be glorified. Understand food as an oversimplification of the economy. If the economy is good, then people are eating. If it is poor, there is no work and no money to buy food. So primal is this need that governments (and citizens) will endure the suffering of others if it means a full belly for themselves. Understanding this, I present Stalin and Hitler as two positive economic forces in their respective countries (at least initially). Germans gave Hitler power because he gave them food. There is no need to repeat their atrocities ad nauseam, my point is simply this: food is fundamental. Without food, other government activities are meaningless because their people will be dead or dying.

Shelter is less urgent a need than food, but modern governments are expected to provide protection from nature to their citizens. One needs only to remember the anarchy unfolding on the Gulf Coast last year to understand the ramifications of shelter shortages. I would also point to refugee camps around the world (especially Darfur, see #4) to demonstrate the need for housing.

Which leads me to my final pillar of modern governance; security. As prefaced, even this element does not (indeed, can not) reach every citizen. In certain nations, the fact security is elusive allows the government to maintain order (take our previous tyrants, Hitler & Stalin, for example). The ability of a government to provide security to its citizens exhibits the influence of that government. A government can not provide absolute security to its citizens, but it must maintain a perception of order and the ability to punish those guilty of disrupting that established order. Nations where governmental control does not reach every corner (like Afghanistan or Pakistan) nicely demonstrate the limitation of a national government. Pakistan could be considered a powerful nation; it's a member of the 'nuclear club,' has fought three stalemate wars with India, and yet there are tribal regions which have never experienced the tactile sensation of a national government (at least until recently, with some support).

This all relates back to my initial concept; the fundamental limitations of government. Government is not an all powerful entity. It is composed of men and women; human beings with the same qualities (and shortcomings) as everyone else. Keep that in the forefront of your mind when considering the ability of government in accomplishing anything. As I've pointed out, governments have trouble just sticking to the fundamentals.

13 Lives

This publication would like to send its prayers to the trapped West Virginia miners and their families.

It's Snowing in Kashmir

Pakistani Kashmir has been hit with 10 inches of snow and people are still living in non-winterized tents, metal shacks, or nothing at all... Americans were outraged by the lack of federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Imagine the disposition of those without adequate shelter 12 weeks after the earthquake.
For background information, click here.

Litmus, Part III

For background information, see Part I & Part II.

An international agreement concerning the elimination of farm export subsidies occurred about two weeks ago. The subsidies will be phased out by 2013. As reported in Part II, cotton will be the test case. Subsidies are especially relevant to American cotton farmers and could become a difficult issue for the ruling government. Could the reduction of subsidies revert the southern GOP bastion into an anti-free trade, Democrat haven? If economic hardship results, it is possible. This is a seminal moment for free trade and its supporters...

Steroid Scorn

In January 2004, the President mentioned steroid abuse in professional sports during the State of the Union. Many pundits and talking heads ridiculed the President for it. They said he was distracting the public's attention from larger issues. They said mentioning steroids and baseball in the State of the Union was un-presidential. They were wrong.

The President has made steroid abuse the biggest issue in sports (off the field). The attention forced professional sports to address the issue. Aside from localized harm to specific individuals, the risks of steroid abuse are not confined to professional athletes. The danger is the model set forth for younger generations, for millions of youth who dream of pro-sports as a career. The perils of drug use must be clearly delineated by the government. Athletes must be held accountable for their actions (as must any other citizen). Their prosperity is derived from the public. Baseball is given special tax-exemption because it is recognized as essentially a public good, as culturally significant. By presenting clear opposition to drug abuse in an arena of entrenched apathy, the President has started a progression which will benefit sports and our entire culture.

Postscript: Happy New Year to All!

Alito Part IV: All The Way!

Documents from Judge Alito's work for the Reagan administration have not painted him as a radical, despite the efforts of the left. His arguments as a lawyer can not be construed as his personal beliefs. And his colleagues, students, associates, contemporaries, and ration observers describe him as judicious, evenhanded, open-minded, and downright decent.

Posits on Poland

It is remarkable; the Polish comprehend the magnitude of the Iraq War better than many Americans. This despite our substantially more extensive involvement in the situation. The Poles have agreed to maintain their troop deployment for another yet despite intense domestic opposition. Cynics say they are positioning themselves geopolitically, with international prestige as their reward for commanding the Multinational Divison in Center-South Iraq.
I disagree.

Let's remember our history. The Poles have endured foreign domination throughout their history.
For any national profile, visit the Federal Research Division and click Country Studies. Here is Poland's profile.

Let's limit our framework to the last 67 years. It contains the invasion (and occupation) by Nazi Germany and Soviet supremacy with the erection of the Iron Curtain. From 1939-1989 (or slightly thereafter) the Poles suffered unspeakable oppression. Oppression must be defined in order to convey the reality it represents.

Oppression (Noun)
1. The act of subjugating by cruelty
2. Kept down by unjust use of force or authority
3. A feeling of being oppressed

It is through this window which I watch the Polish political establishment display their comprehension of freedom, independence, & liberty. They understand the importance of securing a democratic government and providing it with stabilizing resources. They have lived through variations of those seemingly abstract concepts and remain committed to freedom of man over power of state.

If only the Democrats were as steadfast as the Poles...

Electoral Fraud?

Despite some media outlets portraying recent Iraq events negatively (CNN's segment headline while discussing our topic - 'Civil War in Iraq?'), I see the public political expressions as a positive. Street protests are good, shooting opposition is bad. Claims of fraud are just claims. A United Nations official expressed the agency's view; there is no reason for another vote, the last one was fair. I will refer readers to the 10/18/2005 post, Claims, Claims, Claims; it is as pertinent concerning this election. Remember, democracy is a fluid process and observers must recognize the symbols of progress. I think Daniel Webster best explained the passion displayed during difficult political circumstances like those in Iraq.

"In a highly excited time it is far easier to fan and feed the flames of discord, than to subdue them; and he who counsels moderation is in danger of being regarded as failing in his duty to his party."

Oil Options

There are three scenarios for oil & the United States:

A. Import it.
B. Dig for it domestically.
C. Use something else.

Until C starts to gain traction, I say it's better to dig for it ourselves. I doubt we're going to stop using it entirely. Timber seems to be holding on as a utilitarian resource despite the advance of metals.

Follow Up: ASU45, RU 40
It was closer than the experts predicted in a game with 1206 yards of offense by the two team. Good show Knights!

GO RUTGERS!

Our first bowl appearance in 27 years and we play Arizona State in Tempe.

PROTEST!

The following is dissent against the President's 'domestic spy program' (a partial misnomer - it relates to international communications). At any rate, the thought of 'Big Brother' watching a (supposedly) free citizen is chilling and so I will do my part to promote free speech.

The following is courtesy of The FishWagon.
Editor's Note: 'Al Qaida' is used instead of 'Al Qaeda'

I am an American citizen. I am not an advocate for terrorism. If called upon by my country, I would gladly defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Inclusion of the following list of terms in this personal web log represents my opposition to the President's domestic spy program as well as my belief in the Bill of Rights and my 1st Amendment right of free speech.

Al Qaida, Taliban, Iraq, assassinate, 9/11, bomb, plutonium, George W. Bush, POTUS, uranium, target, airplane, train, bridge, tunnel, ship, building, kidnap, Afghanistan, explosives, C4, nuclear, infidel, Allah, Satan, suicide bomber, echelon, New York, Washington DC, White House, Congress, Senate, satellite, Army, Navy, soldier, insurgent, Osama bin Laden, jihad, police, Secret Service, FBI, National Security Agency, wiretap, surveillance, and Carnivore

Count Your Blessings

It's the time of year for merriment and good cheer. Before celebrating the new year, I would like to call attention to four specific instances which should remind each of us of our good fortune.

1. The tsunami region - one year ago, people's entire existence was washed away. The scale of destruction was unparalleled. While many have since forgotten about this region, the work to rebuild is far from complete.

2. Pakistan - the earthquake in northern Pakistan killed thousands and the winter will likely kill thousands more. The international response to this tragedy was shameful.

3. Iraq - Think about this: in America, would you worry about your safety if a police officer stopped you? Would you fear for your life because you were unsure as to the intentions of the officer? Living without the rule of law eventually devolves a society into anarchy because the foremost matter is survival.

4. Darfur - I have followed events surrounding Darfur for almost two years now. Without going into to much detail (it is indeed a long story), just realize this: The United States Congress UNANIMOUSLY defined the violence in Darfur as GENOCIDE. That occurred on July 23, 2004. The African Union has led efforts to control the situation and has been almost entirely ineffective.

Be sure to contact your congressman on these (and any other) important issues. The number below is the congressional switchboard. They can connect callers by zip code for their representative and by state for senators.

Congress - 202-225-3121

War W/O Citizen Sacrifice

I was perusing the Witnesses to War: Voices from the Rutgers Oral History Archives exhibit at Alexander Library and I couldn't help but notice a glaring omission from the current war effort. The government has not asked anything of the common citizen. Some would characterize this as Bush's "We're at war, but pretend like we're not"strategy for minimizing long-term disillusionment, but I believe it is a misunderstanding of the American public. Even simple steps, like selling war bonds (a common practice in WWII), have been ignored. Perhaps selling bonds would remind the public of the monetary costs (just shy of $230 Billion so far), but at least it would provide a sense of involvement. Shame on the President for not once asking for public assistance prior to his Oval Office address last Sunday (12/18/05).

For more on the Rutgers Oral History Archive, please visit their website.
Rutgers Oral History Archive

Full Disclosure

I realized yesterday I may have some affiliations which should be disclosed. I am a member of a secretive organization (not skulls), with members who include the current President, his father, and many other powerful individuals. Some conspiracy-theorists claim we are trying to run the nation on the Q.T. I can not comment on behalf of others, but no one has contacted me about world domination (or that 'vast right-wing conspiracy') so I'll assume I'm out of that loop.

I am a register Republican (since November 2005 when I voted in a gubernatorial primary). I have twice voted for President Bush, the first being the first vote I ever cast; I was in high school at the time. My latter decision to join the aforementioned organization was not determined by the President's membership. It was based on criteria relating to my interests. The post below will clarify my needless concealment of the interrelating organization.

Mount “DekeMore”

Delta Kappa Epsilon's Presidents - Rutherford B. Hayes, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Theodore Roosevelt and Gerald R. Ford

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Deke at Harvard and was thrown out for dual membership with Alpha Delta Phi in the 1890s. To see more prominent Dekes, click here. For information on Delta Kappa Epsilon, go to DKE.org.

ANWR Bugaboo

This whole issue should be resolved by the fact that Ted Stevens continues to be elected by the people of Alaska and he has been championing ANWR drilling since 1980. The electorate knows where he stands and they continue to elect him. The people of Alaska see the long-term gain from increased economic activity (a local benefit) and know the United States will produce more oil domestically (a national benefit). Pipes on the tundra is better than platforms offshore (less damage from, and possibly to, nature). The trappings of offshore drilling were on full display in the gulf coast during this past hurricane season. The positives outweigh the negatives here.

The Democrats' Answer

I have the answer for Democrats (and anyone else) when asking how they can win the presidency. Are you ready, because this is a clincher, no doubt about it, ballgame over, send the children off to bed and turn off the lights kind of idea. Also, the President will benefit by potentially reclaiming his 'uniter not a divider' mantra. It may involve the 'Gang of 14' and a compromise within a sect of that group or a handshake with a maverick. Enough teasing. Ready?

Mr. Secretary.
No doubt about it.

The 'Gang of 14' is composed of seven Democrat senators and seven Republicans. They would all be considered moderates, institutional-ists, senior politicos, and some fine patriotic Americans. This group exerts an enormous amount of senate influence, maybe as much as party leadership. But senators don't win presidential elections, right? Right.

So here's the game plan:
The seven Democrats previously mentioned can decide among themselves (in any fashion) who will win in 08' if they concede the legislative agenda to the President for the next three years. Only by supporting the President's major objectives will he agree to make a Democrat the new Secretary of Defense. Consider this: while campaigning, every introduction either in person or print will begin
"The Democratic nominee, former Secretary of Defense ..........."

Sound unreasonable? Depends on your intentions. For the President, if he appointed Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) he would virtually assure the successful conclusion of the Iraq war, a major part of his legacy. Further, by removing Sec. Rumsfeld the President is not only sacking a controversial figure, he is encouraging responsibility to country over party regarding the war. If the Democrats were to cut such a deal, they would have two major advantages in 08'; first, they would have the best possible display of bipartisanship. Second, they have the GOP's best issue in their hip pocket. There would not be a national security debate. The Secretary of Defense has an inherent advantage and would be the perceived authority concerning defense. This is basically the same strategy Sen. Frist (R-TN) is employing, but without compromising with Democrats. If he wins the GOP nomination, healthcare will be a Republican issue because every time Sen. Frist speaks on it, he will remind us all he is a doctor. It's stealing your opponents' bread and butter issue and making it work to your advantage.

A Democrat with serious national security credentials, now that's a GOP nightmare.

Katrina's Misconceptions

The LA Times has reported the following figures: of 528 identified bodies, 230 (or 43.56%) came from areas with household incomes above the city median. Joachim Singelmann, director of the Louisiana Population Data Center at Louisiana State University, said "It's not just the Lower 9th Ward or New Orleans East, which everybody has heard about. It's across the board, including some well-to-do neighborhoods." President Bush and Mike Brown were blamed for the destruction of Katrina and the slow response (at all levels, even those outside their jurisdiction). We need to properly understand the magnitude of the event. Reasonable, rational interpretations will concede the power of nature over man. Government, even that of the United States, can not stop the destruction of naturally occurring phenomenon. Louisiana had no roads leading into New Orleans after the storm; they washed away. This all points to the fundamental limitation of government. It's an easy scapegoat when trouble occurs, but government can not do everything. Let's place Katrina in its proper context; it was a horrific natural disaster and devastated areas that will require sustained recovery assisstance for years.
Please donate to the Bush Clinton Katrina Fund.

To those at Communist Radio (Air America): Every person who implied, insinuated, stated, or screamed that President Bush (and Republicans more generally) is racist who hates the poor and allowed black Americans to die in the storm must now apologize. The President mentioned the absurdity of this notion the other day and now facts show the insidious nature of those original claims.

A Word on Domestic '007'

The recent domestic spying brouhaha basically boils down to this question: Does the President have the authority to permit the interception of international communications during war? Almost certainly, yes.

I would be shocked if any court would say he doesn't have such authority. The fog arises when defining our 'state of war,' though it has clearly been declared by the executive. It just seems, whether it's this type of modern communications issue or an issue involving the treatment of non-state combatants, our government is abiding by rule-sets created generations ago. Take 'enemy combatants' for an example; many talk of the Geneva Conventions when describing a standard treatment procedure. The reality is this: that accord was written 50 years ago to accommodate mechanized warfare between state actors. The participants abided by certain rules (wearing a uniform) and were thus afforded certain benefits (POW protections). The nature of warfare has changed and it's time to update the rules. Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has credibility on the issue of prisoner treatment and so I cede to his judgment, but not allowing "degrading" treatment rankles me a bit. Are prisoners now immune from guards hurling insults at them? Are we working on their self-esteem or our national security?

It's About To Go Down

In the Middle East, that is. Iran is making overt threats against Israel, Syria has been fingered by the UN for Hariri's (a former Lebanese Prime Minister and outspokenly anti-Syrian) assassination, and the Palestinian problem remains (namely their lack of a state or its institutions). I will comment at length on Iran once I finish finals but for now let me state this: Iran has a finite amount of time to come clean via nuclear weapons. Israel will not allow a nuclear Iran. Iran needs nukes or its 26 year old government may crumble. Nukes are a source of national pride because they will force Iran onto the world stage, 'the nuclear club,' while providing the ruling dictators with a fierce deterrent (insurance policy if you will).

Imagine Germany said Belgium should be wiped off the map. Would the world tolerate that, especially if the Germans were concealing a nuclear weapons program during the previous twenty years? What if a nation was threatening the United States in such a manner? If Israel attacks, it will be with our full support and that may make for a stickier situation in Iraq (politically).

Jersey Gets Exactly What It Asked For

Sen. Jon Corzine, now governor-elect, has already fulfilled a campaign promise and reneged on another:

1. The women's college at Rutgers (Douglas) is without support after the board of trustees voted to eliminate it. Sen. Corzine stated very clearly that he would not interfere with the board's decision during the campaign despite support for the school from his opposition. So long Douglas, New Jersey has voted you out...
2. He said he would only raise taxes if necessary. Before even being sworn in, he's already talking about raising the gas tax. During the campaign he was championing middle class tax cuts, but gas taxes hit everybody (whether in their own car, bus or cab fare, shipping or delivery fees, etc.). It would appear that when it comes to taxes, Mr. Corzine has lived up to his record, not his rhetoric. New Jersey has given itself "Florio 2."

Despite confidence in his ability from his party, I thought Mr. Corzine displayed his "Jr. Sen." status during his second state-wide campaign. The governorship is supposed to be a stepping stone to bigger and better things for Mr. Corzine, but I believe it will unveil his political inexperience. Sorry Jon, no presidency for you.

Project: Educate Ethiopia

I began throwing this idea around during the summer: 25 million Americans donate $20 each. That would be enough to pay for a year's worth of books and uniforms for EVERY child in Ethiopia. $20: the price of a compact disc, a DVD, less than a tank of gas. I think this type of targeted solicitation would have greater appeal than simply increasing federal international aid. Americans need to feel like they are contributing toward a specific, achievable goal.

Normally, I would fervently protect my ideas but if a philanthropist takes the initiative to create this project, Godspeed and good luck.

Iraq Vote

Initial reports estimated 11 million Iraqis voted yesterday for their new parliament. Now the media's reporting 70% which is 10.5 million. Either way, participation increased from under 60% last January. Is that progress, Chairman Dean?

Democrats are going to morph their dove-ish message into withdrawal at any pace which inconveniences President Bush. They'll continue to say there is no strategy except their own. I doubt the public will regard withdrawal as a political win for the Democrats. This was a win for America and Iraq; hopefully other regional reformers too.

Eyes That Defy

Iraqi Turning Point?

While the above title is a stab at the popular misconception of a defining moment regarding a fluid process, I do think tomorrow's Iraqi election is important. During the last election, there were brief claims of fraud and they promptly dissipated (See here for more). About 9 million voters participated last time and anything over 10 million tomorrow would be dandy. The President has prepared the American public for a big vote and he needs the press to cover (and convey) success. A million person addition to the political process in two months is tangible success.

Here Comes Alito, Part III

As mentioned previously by this publication, Sam Alito is going to receive a confirmation vote (most likely in January). Majority leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said "The answer is yes," when asked if he would act to change Senate rules to avoid a Democratic filibuster (read: nuclear option). Frist is staking his presidential aspirations on the court, fighting for a candidate who excites the GOP base. It's a good strategy for a moderate in need of conservative credentials, unless he has to follow through. In that case, he may sacrifice an institution for personal ambition and may create a Beltway backlash. Either way, Sam Alito is sitting pretty.

By hook or by crook...

Pamphlet for Study

(Part I of this series: Letter for Study)

A pamphlet distributed by insurgents in Iraq has once again shown the true nature of those opposing the United States. The opening line refers to the recently approved constitution, claiming it was prepared by Jews and Shi'a (both are described as 'infidels and apostates'). The pamphlet states "Participation in the elections means you have been tricked by the Americans and the Jews."

My point, as it was with Zawahiri's letter, is to convey the goals of those opposing the United States in Iraq. The obsession with Jewish involvement is key; it fuels frustration while maintaining and perpetuating the historical scapegoat. The tactics are baseless and archaic, but have been used effectively throughout Mid-East history.

The pamphlet is on GlobalTerrorAlert.com. A link is provided below.
Anti-Election Pamphlet

Relevance Part II

This blog has paid attention to several important issues, but three specifically prove the precocious nature of this publication: Howard Dean's lunacy (beginning 11/13), Joe Lieberman's Op/Ed piece in TWSJ (11/29), and the Letter for Study from Zawahiri (10/12). Howard's attics led most newscasts tonight, with leading Democrats distancing themselves (including that California nut Nancy Pelosi). The second two were mentioned in President Bush's speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations (12/7).

Cutting edge stuff, as always.

Dean Screams Absurdity

"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there. The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong." - Howard Dean

This statement was made a mere ten days before the election of a representative, constitutional government. This is the third vote for Iraqis in this process. When Iraqis choose a government, will that be considered a failure by Howard Dean?
Answer: Yes, but only because they will have succeeded again while Dean is claiming the opposite. Every political goal has thus far been met, including the creation of a constitution in a measly six months. Apparently Mr. Dean has become a world historian since 2004 when he was referring to Russia as the Soviet Union.

The drive for political advantage displayed by Dean is deplorable and I'd direct Democrats to distance themselves from his comments.

Update: Even California Democrats distanced themselves from Mr. Dean's comments.

Litmus, Part II

President Chirac of France made his stand on international farm subsidies amid rising domestic pressure against reductions. He is trying to corner the Americans on cotton. Will a Republican government reduce subsidies to its Southern heartland? This is a critical moment for the GOP's free trade plank.

Dean Does It Again

"Our party is the party that believes we're all in this together. Their party is the party of self-absorption and selfishness." - H. Dean

How about...

"(They) rely on their passion for their strength. They think inwards, only about themselves." - A. Skywalker

I'm waiting to see Darth Vader portraying the President in a Democrat ad, but the rhetoric is already spot on. With the President's approval numbers under 40%, I suppose the Democrats are finally mounting their insurrection.

P.S. Personally, I think young Skywalker is more eloquent.

Impressive... most impressive...

Alito Update! Part II

He's going to get in, by hook or by crook (think nuclear option; basically changing the rules of procedure).

Racism vs. Jerkism

There is concept which has floated in my mind for some time now. Imagine the following: a person's action leads to your irritation. For me this occurs mostly while driving, but the example is universally applicable. Many resort to expletives toward, or degradation of, the offender. The insult hurled occasionally correlates with the physical appearance of said offender. This is precisely where ignorance takes hold.

If the offender appearance is like our own, epithets are relegated to stupidity, silliness, or not paying attention. If the offender's appearance differs from our own, racial slurs tend to occur during heated exchanges. This is racism as opposed to the previously mentioned example of jerkism. The cause of this is, of course, ignorance and perhaps lack of exposure, which relates back to ignorance. It is appalling that so many individuals have failed to learn the lessons of World War II, despite the prominence of the events occurring therein. The abbreviated message was best articulated in 1963 by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

(Individuals) will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I guess I'm just too young because I can not conceive of a world where certain peoples are marginalized because of color or creed. It's all about character. Haven't we learned anything?

Sage Advice

The White Stripes is a band comprised of a brother/sister combination and last summer they released what I deemed to be the best record of the season. The album, Get Behind Me Satan, entertained me and elicited thoughtful reflection. I found the ninth track to be particularly practical.

Women, listen to your mothers
Don't just succumb to the wishes of your brothers
Take a step back, take a look at one another
You need to know the difference...
Between a father and a lover (repeat x 4)

Sound counsel for girls becoming women. I'd add they demand to be treated with respect.

Coincidence?

Now a second consecutive day with Azerbaijan garnering popular attention. The headline story of today's Wall Street Journal International section was about... you guessed it. The story eventually (15 paragraphs deep) mentioned the political corruption and the opposition movement.

In a more serious note, Joe Lieberman had a wonderful Op/Ed piece entitled Our Troops Must Stay. Finally an honest assessment by a Democrat. I'll take a McCain & Lieberman ticket in 2008, but I doubt pigs will be flying by then.

Our Troops Must Stay
By Joe Lieberman

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the last 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

The progress in Iraq is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite south remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad on the East, Tikrit to the North, and Ramadi to the West, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way to a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam “revengists,” Iraqi Islamic extremists, or al-Qaeda foreign fighters, and know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. They are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war that will produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making in the Islamic world. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud, self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians, and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that Iraq now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new Constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they vote for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community which, when disappointed by the proposed Constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign going on in Iraq and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes in Iraq would have happened if Coalition Forces, lead by the U.S., had not overthrown Saddam Hussein. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this, and asked me for reassurance about America’s commitment to Iraq. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While public opinion polls in the U.S. show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will, and in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America’s military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security, and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those ten thousand terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground in Iraq. The administration’s recent use of the banner “clear, hold, and build” accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of Coalition Forces in every Iraqi fighting unit which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in “clearing” and “holding” is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul, and Talafar and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being “held” secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and Coalition Forces are now jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to “lead the fight” themselves with logistical support from the U.S. and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could be able to begin to drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Amb. Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan—Provincial Reconstruction Teams composed of American economic and political experts working in partnership in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service, and the private sector. That is the “build” part of the “clear, hold, and build” strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future and why the American people should be too.

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive, and inspirational: “I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates.”

Thank you, General. That is powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation’s history. Semper Fi.

Relevance?

The New York Times had a front page article today concerning Azerbaijan. On November 3, this blog had an article concerning that nation, available HERE. While the latter was focused on political freedom, the Times article (Corruption Endangers a Treasure of the Caspian) was about caviar. Which composition is more pertinent?

The day has finally come; this blog is more relevant than the New York Times.

Litmus Test for 08'

There is a global movement underway. The expansion of free trade has led to an improved quality of life for millions around the world. Now, the "developing world" is requesting the elimination of export farm subsidies from developed economies, specifically Europe and the United States, and the West is poised to comply. The United States has offered drastic cuts in such subsidies, provided the Europeans do the same. There is extensive opposition, especially in France, but otherwise, this issue has garnered fairly minor attention.

That is, until the American primary season roles in for the 2008 presidential campaign. I am eager to see the rhetorical shift when candidates begin prowling the cornfields of Iowa. To believe American farmers will not be influential in shaping the policy of potential presidents is foolhardy. Despite the technological lifestyle of America, farming still comprises a major portion of American production. I'd assume those advocating free trade regarding farming will face an uphill battle for their party's nomination, no matter what their ideology.

54k Dead, No Help Yet

I made that post heading on October 27 because I was surprised how little attention the earthquake in Pakistan had garnered. An estimate from November 3 puts the number at 73,000 and three million homeless. This is occurring at the beginning of one of the world's greatest mountain ranges, the Himalayas. Needless to say, the area has an intense winter. The United States government has responded with helicopters and personnel (while admitting the strategic benefit of helping a Muslim nation), but will the American people respond? Do we allow 3 million to suffer through winter without so much as a tent? The tsunami occurred at Christmas and Americans gave generously. Those who benefited from our generosity will remember it for a lifetime. Their is incessant criticism about the deplorable conditions endured by some in New Orleans for three days. The earthquake in Pakistan happened five weeks ago and many still need assistance.

GOP Savior

And it is: Howard Dean, DNC Chairman. The more he talks, the more he embarrasses Democrats. He dropped like a stone out of the presidential race (04' after Iowa, think Dean-Scream) because of a lack of political savvy and his rancorous acerbity; now he's the Democrats' main spokesmen. Pretty silly.

Chinese Soviets?

China has taken the place of the Soviet Union in the minds of the American defense establishment, emerging as thee long-term focus of the United States government. China is seen as an "emerging threat" because of its potential ability to wage war. China reportedly increased its defense budget to $30 billion this year, though the Pentagon believes it actually spent closer to $90 billion. This type of suspicion permeates as the Pentagon looks for a clear enemy on which to focus. With a massive population, an industrializing economy and a secretive Communist government, the Pentagon has not only found their future enemy, they found one similar to their previous nemesis.

There are a few problems and flaws in the expectation of China's emergence as the next great threat. The first, and this is typically American, is the penchant to oversimplify global defense considerations and mold them into a single, overarching threat. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in American culture.

In economics, CNN airs stories about China's rise and how the Chinese are stealing American job. I disagree with the premise of the presentation. India takes "American jobs" in tech, but they aren't demonized like China.

My concern with China is fairly simple. I do not anticipate a military confrontation with China because I do not believe one will occur. The Chinese economy would collapse without exports to the US and we still owe them quite a bit of money, so I doubt they'll start a war. And the US has no desire to engage China in anything but international cooperation (North Korea, Iran just to start).

Here is the problem with China. If there is a popular demonstration in China and it resembles Tiananmen Square (when the cameras were turned off), what is the next image to be aired? Uneasily calm streets, maybe some spots of blood here and there? How would the government respond? I believe violently. At what point does that become unacceptable to the world? If some video leaks out from a mobile phone or whatever, China would be seriously damaged. I imagine there would be careful preparations to ensure closing off the area, but would the world accept a violent crackdown? Serious considerations, which loom essentially because China is a communist nation controlled by unelected party elites. They've opened markets but what about political freedom?

Azerbaijan, You Dig?

There is an emerging opposition movement in the Balkans, aka Eastern Europe, and its southern end. The rose revolution in Georgia, the orange revolution in Ukraine, and now a little from column A and some from column B. Azerbaijan is a small nation located northwest of Iraq, on the Caspian Sea. It shares a border with Georgia, Russia, Armenia, Iran and Turkey. The border is confusing because Azerbaijan is two pieces, so check out the map. This one is courtesy of the University of Texas:

Opposition to electoral fraud has crystallized in a number of states and democracies around the world have taken steps to support these movements (as mentioned, Georgia and more so in the Ukraine where Washington and Moscow briefly clashed). Movement is slow in some entrenched dictatorships like Mubarak (Egypt) and the house of Saud, but there is movement. Others have moved with more speed.

Azerbaijan has a united opposition, the "Freedom" coalition, and they are wearing carnations and orange neck-ties in hopes of establishing the world's support for a free election. No multiple votes, no box stuffing, no intimidation, no voter suppression. The US and two other nations will be funding exit polling to watch for irregularities.

In Egypt, their President showed the effectiveness of not allowing the opposition fair access to campaign, and the opposition couldn't really run an effective campaign against him.

Azerbaijan has a chance for democracy and the US should be pushing for it with considerable pressure. It is a nation situated on Iran's northern border, in the oil rich Caspian Sea region. Iran is a nervous state. The enemy since the government's founding, "the great Satan," has taken control of states to the east and west. They are trying to put democracy in each state. This is a dictator's worst fear being realized.

There is one developed democracy in the Middle East region and it is Israel. Their economy is far bigger and more advanced than other nations in the region, yet they have no oil. None.

Now democracy (liberal capitalism) is spreading through a region with entrenched leaderships fighting tooth and nail against it. Anyone thinking Iran or Syria isn’t complicit in helping the Iraq insurgency is incredibly naive.

The chance to develop this region into a democracy rich area is a good long term investment. Having governments dedicated to developing markets and improving quality of life for it's citizens is preferable to dictators maintaining their distinction.

So watch to see what happens with Azerbaijan; it is a nation that matters.

It's Alito!

Not only will Sam Alito be confirmed, he will be the beginning of a GOP turnaround which will carry through November 06' (assuming the indictments are over). Plus, he's from NJ. Score one for the Garden State! He has been on the 3rd Circuit for fifteen years and will plenty capable of handling senate Democrats, including that blithering idiot Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

The Dogs Have Eaten

I wrote "Dog’s Breakfast for GOP" on 10/11/2005. Today, breakfast was served. Harriet Miers reportedly asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination and he obliged. The base had not shown support and stories of internal rifts between conservatives were fueling one of many drags on Mr. Bush’s polling numbers. I assume Harriet Miers did actually request the withdrawal because the political situation wouldn’t allow her to be confirmed. Despite limited public comments (I believe I only heard her speak upon accepting the nod), Miers was perceived as “un-confirmable.” Republican senators did not report sparkling results from private meetings and the potential disengagement of “the base” in the mid-term elections was enough to spook the leadership. While I doubt Democrats could have done much, I believe they should have defended Miers more thoroughly. She was suggested by Minority Leader Harry Reid before she was nominated, yet Democrats were conspicuously silent when she was attacked from the right. They asked for bi-partisanship, received it, and then revealed in the trouble it caused for their opposition.

Now the President will be forced to throw his base some red meat. Do not expect the next nominee to be one the Democrats requested previously. Instead of bi-partisanship, the Democrats have now invited a political fight. This is exactly the WRONG move by Democrats. If they had simply provided enough support for Miers until the senate hearings, they could have kept the news cycle full of Mr. Bush’s problems. Without support from either side, it was easier for Mr. Bush to withdraw her and wait until everything comes to a head. Don’t be surprised when a stalwart conservative is nominated. It should happen soon after the CIA leak story is dealt with. This axe won’t hang too much longer and if it falls, heads will roll. After that, it will be a full-scale political battle-royal. The Republicans need to pick a fight and it’s going to be about the court. The base was angered because they expected some red meat and got vegetables. Democrats really missed the boat; they could have prolonged GOP infighting. They will enjoy the news cycle for now, but now isn’t as important as one year from now. Head’s up Republican voters, the meat is on its way.

A Quick Note:

Roughly 2,000 companies and individuals from 66 countries participated in the corruption of the UN Oil-for-Food program. So it wasn't just the French, but I remain bitter towards them anyway.

US Sanctions: Did They Kill Iraqi Children?

I have heard constantly from media sources (and honestly, from most on the left), inferring or outright declaring US imposed sanctions following the 1991 Iraq War caused the deaths of thousands of children in Iraq.

Here are the problems with the above statement. Firstly, a United Nations coalition liberated Kuwait and in 1991 the Security Council adopted Resolution 687, authorizing sanctions. Now, I realize the UN is a US created organization and the US holds enormous influence, but there are four other permanent members who could have vetoed. So they weren't US sanctions, they were UN sanctions and there is a profound difference.

Secondly, there have been very clear visual demonstrations of the opulence afforded to Iraq's former "president" (aka The Butcher of Baghdad). Palace after palace constructed, large jails and torture rooms. Saddam lived like the Babylonian king he believed himself to be, controlling his state with an iron fist while his people starved. So Iraq could have bought food, but the "president" built palaces. Oh, and he had to pay the guards, of course.

Thirdly, the complete misunderstanding of what was salient regarding the sanctions...

'Culture of inaction' at UN on Iraq sanctions: Volcker - AFP 10/18/2005

This is a mere 338-word article about Paul Volcker's probe into the "UN Oil-for-Food" program. In it Volcker states Saddam was able to accumulate roughly 12.8 BILLION dollars in kickbacks and illicit payments from illegal smuggling.

This program ran from 1996 to 2003. In 1991, two "high-ranking" French diplomats were representatives to the UN and remained until 1995. These two officials have now been arrested and accused of "influence-peddling" and "active corruption of foreign officials."

An ally corrupted the program intended to feed Iraq, allegedly. The same ally who led the charge against the 2003 invasion was involved in a UN scandle? I'm not saying the enitre French government was involved, but I find the connection curious. So a few French diplomats where becoming rich, the "president" was building palaces, and the children... well...

It astonishes me when the very people denouncing the opportunity provided by the fall of the "president" are blaming the suffering caused by the "president" and that most hallowed of institutions, the UN (the left's measuring stick for war), on the United States. I doubt Saddam was using his 12.8 billion on rice and wheat. I doubt the French were buying smuggled oil and putting bags of grain in with their payments. I doubt no one noticed all that oil moving...

All this corruption in the UN and the US is the reason sanctions starved Iraq's children? Hardly. Apparently some Americans have got all the news, but none of the facts.

Anything But War

There is a habit among Americans which has rankled me over the past few months. A while ago, I saw an Andy Rooney piece where he criticized the media's usage of the word "troops." He correctly pointed out that a "troop" is a group of individuals, not a single soldier. This is just one illustration of an American proclivity to use military terminology, often incorrectly. The words are used so commonly, embledded into our lexicon, that they essentially lose their meaning.

While Kellen Winslow was playing for the U (Miami FL), he created a public outcry during a post-game interview after a loss in 2003.

"It's war," Winslow said Saturday, his voice raised in the locker room. "They're out there to kill you, so I'm out there to kill them. We don't care about anybody but this U. They're going after my legs. I'm going to come right back at them. I'm a ... soldier."

This was a single event which created a backlash but it strikes me when Sunday after Sunday I hear announcers and commentary personnel use adjectives describing the game as “a war out there” or a tough player as “a warrior.” Coaches describe playing the game as “going to war” and the clash of offensive and defensive lines is regarded as “the trenches.”

It occurs to me that maybe Americans expect war to resemble a football game. It is dangerous but everyone is expected to come home. It may be violent, but they have protection and are professionals, the best in the world. There are moments when it overwhelms viewers, but as long as we know the score, we can tell who is winning. We expect it to be tough, but we expect it to end in 60 minutes.

Maybe it is the increased usage of war-terms on things which have nothing to do with war. The war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on ignorance. Maybe all this war-talk has made Americans weary of seemingly endless conflict. Maybe the need to see a definitive end point reflects the rise of football and the decline of baseball, a game without a time restraint. Maybe a Sunday football game is the closest thing to war comprehensible to most Americans.

I’ll close with part of Winslow’s apology: “I cannot begin to imagine the magnitude of war or its consequences." Sounds like most Americans to me.

Words Of Wisdom

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

U.S. Killed Civilians in Airstrike, Iraqis say

(U.S. Killed Civilians in Airstrike, Iraqis say - LA Times 10/18/2005)

The above is a story that ran in the Los Angeles Times yesterday. Like most Americans, my heart sinks when there are reports of civilian casualties in ANY conflict. I think we can all agree that civilians are not legitimate targets for military operations. The United States government has been responsible for the deaths of foreign civilians in the past and will be in the future. It is a reality of war, especially during protracted urban conflict. The age of massive mechanized armies is nearly (if not already) over. The US has spent millions, if not billions, of dollars to increase the accuracy of its weapons used in combat. No army has ever put forth the same level of effort to avoid civilian casualties. American citizens have demanded it.

This is in stark contrast to those opposing the US in Iraq. When a suicide bomber kills 50 or 100 Iraqis, the media doesn't say "Terrorist kill 50 Civilians." That type of headline does not garner the same reaction as "US kills Civilians." The basis of this reality brings me back to my previous declaration; civilians are not legitimate targets for military operations. While the US does much to avoid striking civilians, terrorism does everything it can to kill the highest number of civilians. The opposition in Iraq uses "civilian cover" to maximize their survivability, knowing Americans will hesitate when civilians are endangered.

Terrorists in Iraq have DELIBERATELY killed many more Iraqis than those ACCIDENTILY killed by Americans. This is the key distinction. The US tries to avoid civilians while terrorist target them.

Claims, Claims, Claims

There is a caldron of suspicion circulating about Iraq. Without the benefit of having counted the ballots, some have perpetuated the notion of fraud. Normally I would become alarmed by claims of electoral fraud, but there are some things to consider first. Who is making the claim? Answer: political parties. It's the political parties who actively campaigned against passage who are making the claims.

With passage appearing likely (again, the count isn't finished yet), could it be that political figures would stir their support base by claiming their votes were ignored? Almost sounds like Florida in 2000. Second, if there was fraud, why didn't the international monitors make any mention of such activity? It must be another "vast conspiracy" perpetrated by those evil Americans (read: Republicans).

Finally, I wonder where the expectation of failure stems from and it is clearly the media. For weeks I have read about how Sunnis were opposed to the constitution while Kurds and Shi'a were in favor. My only question is this: where does this opinion originate? Surely the Sunni political figures are not entirely representative of the entire population of Sunnis and I'd assume the same to be true regarding the Kurds and Shi'a. So for weeks and months the media has oversimplified the situation in Iraq in order to explain the goings on without using more than a paragraph. This standard background information is in every article, yet who has verified the accuracy of the information provided? After the votes are counted, we will be given the clearest picture of Iraq's public opinion.

With passage appearing likely, even in predominantly Sunnis areas, it appears that SOME Sunnis were opposed but others were not. But the media can't admit being wrong or being overly simplistic. So here come the stories about fraud because the media would never run a story which actually explained something thoroughly. They are looking for good copy and fraud makes good copy.

One is Good, Two is Better

For all those individuals who find politics insufferable, I offer this bit of advice. Be sure to have a well versed acquaintance who will offer honest interpretations. If you can find two people, one from each side, then all the better.

Iraq: Coming to Play

Today, Iraqis had an opportunity to vote a new constitution up or down. Voting may seem like a trivial event in modern America, but just imagine this: You go to vote and there is only one name with a box for a checkmark (ballots left without a checkmark are not considered in tallies). That describes the voting process Iraqis have used for the last twenty years, never mind the fear associated with either not voting or not checking the box (remember, secret police). Now, not only is there choice but also a reasonable expectation the selections will be respected. But let me get to my principle observation about this vote.

In January and now October, insurgents (or more properly, foreign radicals and internal rebels) have tried to disrupt voting, dissuade participation, and promote societal fear. Twice Iraqis have proven these insurgents are the vast minority. Twice insurgents have tried to punish the United States during votes and twice the United States has put Iraq on lockdown. So why is it that the United States has been so successful in these two instances? Because the US came to play and the insurgents aren't in the same league. When there are fixed targets, when there are not innumerable soft opportunities, and when the US draws a line and says "Come get us," the insurgents show their true strength. Aside from placing hidden bombs by the side of roads, the insurgents have proven again and again that they are ineffective against the United States military. Many months ago, attacks began to be focused on Iraqi civilians. They are easier targets. This alone proves the insurgents are not interested in liberating Iraq from occupation. They are interested in taking power, even if it means killing other Muslims. In the last six month over 3,000 Iraqi men, women, and children have been killed. The US has been in Iraq for over two and a half years and our military has had lass than 2,000 casualties. Every life matters on a multitude of levels; on a strategic military level, 2,000 casualties are inconsequential. The US will only lose the war in Iraq if the people of the US lose their will. An early withdraw is not necessary, it is insane.

The bottom line is this: when the US has come to play, it isn't close. It's a rout. And by the way, most Iraqis seem to be following the path the US is clearing.

"Thank You to Our Troops, God Bless America."

This appears on a banner outside a town hall in Lindenhurst NY. It's causing a stir. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken issue with banner, claiming it violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. They consider the banner to be a prayer and the FFRF will tell you that the establishment clause guarantees a "separation between church and state."

The problem as I see it is as follows: "separation of church and state" is a misnomer, a rewording of the First Amendment. Allow me to clarify. First, calling religion "church" is inherently discriminatory. It is an attempt to simplify the situation and make it palpable to the general public. No where in the Constitution does the word "church" appear. This is not right-wing Christians versus secularists; it is a secularist rewording of the Constitution and that should not be overlooked. Second, the First Amendment does not mention a separation between religion and government. It restricts congress from laws establishing (hence establishment clause) religion.

Here it is verbatim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (now here's the part that is conveniently omitted by secularists) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In Lindenhurst, congress is not making a law, not establishing or making compulsory anything. The banner is allowing the free exercise of thanking our soldiers while asking for blessings upon our nation. The FFRF claims that 14% of Americans do not believe in a deity and thus, they are free to dictate that an acknowledgement of such is establishing religion. First, I sincerely doubt that 14% of Lindenhurst residents do not recognize a deity. Secondly, even if they did, they are not being coerced, rebuked, or forced to acknowledge ANYTHING. I can not see how the posting of speech establishes anything, let alone religion. There is no law being written and nothing infringing on anyone’s rights. I become irritated by things I see written everyday. I do not distort the Constitution in order to eliminate them.

There is a concerted effort to eliminate religion and religious influences from government. This is Neo-Marxism. By eliminating God, man is only accountable to man. There is nothing greater than man and so he will be free to create laws and morals which are arbitrary. No right will be inalienable because it is given by man and thus can be taken by man. The day we allow secularists (Neo-Marxists) to eliminate God from the public forum is the same day that we will lose our freedom.

So the next time you hear someone oversimplify and say "church and state" maybe you can ask them to point to where the Constitution mentions it, because I haven't found it.

A heart-felt thank you to every American soldier. God bless America!

Letter for Study

Over the next few days, I suspect a number of people will comment on the letter reportedly written by Zawahiri (Bin Ladin's #2). My only request it that you actually read it. It describes the intention and conflict perception of the modern Islami-fascist movement (Salafism, Wahhabism).

Islam, by the way, is just the vehicle for a political goal. Guess what, religion and politics are not the same thing. They may influence each other, but neither can dominate or dictate to the other. I strongly urge everyone to actually read all thirteen pages in order to better understand the forces opposing us. Understand their goals and the world they hope to create.

The letter is available HERE.

Dog's Breakfast for GOP

There has been quite a bit of talk this week among conservatives concerning President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers. A number of "leading figures" have condemned the choice, others called for her to withdraw for the good of her president. The former is reactionary, the latter absurd.

These talking heads have created a tizzy while admitting they have no basis for their condemnation. Listen to a conservative talk radio show and you will hear half the callers crying foul and half calling for patience. The problem, as stated by many, is the lack of a paper trail. Conservatives fear getting an unknown who will shift left after conformation. Welcome to the craps shoot that is lifetime appointment (personally, I'd say a thirty-year term is more than sufficient).

My assessment is fairly simple. To expect a person to remain static over the course of their life is unreasonable. Those fearing another Souter have forgotten their history (mainly that Bush 41 did not know him personally). Miers and Bush 43 have been well acquainted for over twenty years. While I do not expect him to know every infinitesimal detail concerning Miers, Bush 43 does have a firm understanding regarding her character and devotion to the law. Isn't that the most you should/could expect when picking a judge?

The Power of the Press?

Hello, I'm a news hound. During my second year of college, I realized something almost any college student (or retiree) can attest to: there is very little on television during the daytime. Instead of watching old sitcom re-runs, I became enthralled with cable news. I am familiar with almost all of the "talking heads" seen on cable and can spot network reporters as well.

Free newspapers the year before, combined with no television in my dormitory, helped me follow currect events and geopolitics. My consumption has spread over time. My most visited sites (aside from fantasy football) are BBC, NPR, CSPAN, PBS, Drudge, and Yahoo News which includes AP, Reuters, AFP, USA Today, CS Monitor, with stories from NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun... you get the point. While absorbing information provided by these outlets, I supplement my addiction with books discussing current affairs. Yes, I'm a barrel full of fun.

24-hour cable news has increased market-share recently and I am fairly certain of the reason. Today, most outlets require less than incisive reasoning to discern their bias. It is precisely this lack of objectivity which draws "the base," those who agree with each outlet's editorial preference. Digesting news today requires rifling through mis-statements, misrepresentations, and misleading quotations. There is exaggeration, selective use of information, and quotation without context. Welcome to today's news media.

I will just use one example to illustrate my point: read a story about Iraq.

The description of the election for the interim government is my concern. Since the election occurred, a myth has been perpetuated about Sunni participation. Before the election, the news media discussed and opined about the dangers of the election. If you'll recall, many editorialized that the election should be postponed citing a lack of security. "Postpone the election until it is 'safe enough' to be held, that was the argument. They foretold intimidation and wide-spread violence. Now fast-forward to basically anytime after that vote. After the initial enthusiasm (remember the blue fingers from the indelible ink?), the media began using a tactic that has been embraced by most Democrats; repeating it enough will make it so (think: perception vs. reality).

The Democrats entire argument for Iraq has been "it's a mess and it's Bush's fault" but that did not stick in the 2004 election (I guess they didn't have enough time to repeat it). The Iraq interim election is now described as a "Sunni boycott" which is implicit evidence of Sunni support for the insurgency. The problem with saying that the Sunnis boycotted is that there is no evidence for such statements. A proper description would say the Sunnis had a low voter turnout. Calling it a boycott implies an organized opposition to policies (in this case, an election). Sunnis did not vote because:

1. Their lives (and their families) were threatened with a leaflet campaign.
2. The Baathists could still return to power, thus returning Sunni political clout.
3. Participating in the vote implied support for the "occupying foreigners" in their local community.
4. Participating and losing was worse than not voting. Wouldn't the victors expect spoils (meaning seek revenge), and the losers would have undermined their only support structures.

So, when you read about the Sunni "boycott," realize there was no such thing.

Repeating something does not make it so, but it can change perception. This is happening in Iraq. The thing is, if security improves and there is a 'boycott' in the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, wouldn't that imply progress? An organized political event? Doesn't it bring more Iraqis into the political fold? The success of this vote will be turnout, anything else (including passage) is secondary.

Revisionist interpretations are pervasive. Know enough to spot them and you may be able to process something useful from the news by piecing together various accounts. Remember, don't believe everything you read (or hear) and reading (or hearing) something over and over doesn't make it true either. Media bias? Let's just recognize their first interest is getting a story and bad news sells better than good news.

The Beginning...

This is my first blog so allow me to disclose some influences which will reveal themselves in my writings. First, I am currently finishing my undergraduate education. I go to school in New Jersey, the state I have lived in my entire life. I am from the suburbs and have frequently described my home town as follows: it is a V, a valley. The hills are for the affluent, with big, old houses from long ago. My house is at the bottom of the valley and was built after World War II. It is an excellent little North Jersey town with good schools and low crime. Anyway, I was raised in a union family (Local 472) with a Catholic upbringing. I have four brothers and sisters, two of each, and they are all older than me, including my twin sister by all of three minutes. All five of us have been to college with only me remaining to graduate. Clearly, my parents were more than adequate in their duty (they are, in fact, my heroes).

Under this backdrop, I will comment on, critique, disagree, and berate the political process of the United States. I hope my observations will spur any readers to THINK, anything else is secondary.

Update: I finished my undergraduate education in 2006 with a History major and Political Science minor from Rutgers University in New Brunswick.

Me

Speech! Speech! Speech!

Posted 1/15/2006, written 6/4/2005.
The following was written for Doug Forrester during the GOP primary in the 2005 New Jersey gubernatorial race. I wrote this in my spare time and offered random thoughts to a campaign devoid of ideas. I was ignored on all fronts.

Forrester: Before I begin today, I’d like to take a moment to say “Thank you.” Thank you to all the brave young men and women who are risking their lives at this very moment to ensure the survival and success of liberty. It is often easy to get lost in our own lives, forgetting about others, but it is essential that we pay homage to the courageous souls who fight for our freedom. Thank you to all those who have served or are serving, and those getting ready to deploy. It is through their heroism that this nation remains the greatest on earth.

When I arrived in New Jersey thirty years ago, I had ambitious passions and vigor which were fostered by this great state, and it allowed me to achieve personal success beyond all expectations. The appeal of New Jersey is clear to all who enjoy the wonders of this state; the natural beauty, the history, the culture, and its gracious citizens. Over the last thirty years, I have raised a family with a loving wife while learning the ways of New Jersey. A state that was once so full of pride has fallen into an abyss of corruption, greed, and cronyism. Relentlessly, morally bankrupt politicians have lined their own pockets while selling out their fellow citizens and their state. Trenton has transformed, from the proud site liberty’s rescue during our Revolution, to the center of self-indulgence and hubris as scores of fat cats enrich themselves while forsaking their citizens. Our cities have been permitted to crumble, turning once great metropolises into centers of poverty, crime, and drugs. New Jersey is currently home to the most dangerous city in America. The citizens of that fair city are not to blame for this disgrace! It is government that has failed and only by correcting the systemic problems within our government can we bring a new hope to our ailing urban centers. It is those under the most difficult circumstances that suffer most from our politicians’ depravity and self-indulgence. As John F. Kennedy stated so eloquently, “If a society can not help the many who are poor, than it can not hope to save the few who are rich.” Our society and our state must do more to revitalize our aging cities and return them to their former glory. The mere association of the word ‘city’ must not mean danger. There is a task for which government is highly qualified: providing security. We must take back the streets of our communities. We must stop organized violence, from gangsters and mobsters, who plague our streets with easy ways to horrible futures. We must provide safety and opportunity, and to that end I will make this pledge: my administration will only grow our government by adding policemen to our streets, teachers to our classrooms, and emergency first responders to ensure public safety in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack.

Our problems our numerous, but clear to even the simplest man: a government with services which provide no real service, bloated bureaucracies containing the patrons and contributors of the political bosses. Pay-to-play has put government jobs up for sale to the highest bidders. We have endured an entrenched culture of political corruption while swallowing promise after promise from the professional politicos. But the reason the people of New Jersey have believed the promises of future greatness is because we so firmly believe in the greatness of our state. The problems of this state were created by government run amuck. While many may enjoy the program, a state run by the Sopranos is not a state run for its people. Everyday, real crime syndicates are filling our streets with drugs and guns, extorting our local businesses, and intimidating our population with threats and coercion. Some do fall victim to the lure of fast and easy money, but that money has been robbed and strong-armed from the innocent and it stained with the blood of the just and the righteous. This state’s government will not be transformed in my first 100 days as governor, but we will begin. My FIRST priority as governor will be to eliminate “pay-to-play” and the abuses inherent in such a system. As a businessman, I have passed through the trials of proving effective leadership. My administration will seek only the most qualified, most effective, most efficient, and most energetic individuals to serve the state and its people. Those serving the state of New Jersey will do so because of their sense of civic duty, not because of opportunities of personal enrichment through corruption.

In the last three years, this state has expanded its government by some 8,000 individuals. My lone question is simply this: How much has this increase improved the service of government for its people? Put another way, is government any better? The answer I have heard throughout the state is an overwhelming and emphatic “NO.” It seems to me that some have forgotten the wisdom of Ronald Reagan who said “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” My administration will cut redundant or unnecessary government wherever it may reside. These savings will be transferred directly taxpayers as part of my 30%-in-3 years plan, which I will describe in greater detail shortly.

Despite the best intentions of any government program, it is always susceptible to ambitions of bureaucrats who fight for influence and, in non-political speak, that means tax dollars. The measure of a program’s success by its bureaucrats is never the completion of that program’s objectives, because would mean the program is no longer necessary. The only way a bureaucrat judges his success is by how much their budget is expanded each year. This phenomenon has engrained itself in New Jersey. When the opposition sees a problem, they throw your tax dollars at it and say “We spent this much money because that is how much we care. Now reelect us so we can spend more, showing you that we care about it even more than last time.” This attitude has pervaded and permeated throughout this state for long enough. Dollars do not solve problems; good people do. Our liberal friends lash out against religious organizations, but it is those serving a purpose higher than themselves, with no financial motivations, who truly serve their fellow man best. Religious and community based organizations assist the less fortunate and are intrinsically more altruistic than a governmental bureaucracy. The wisdom of Thomas Paine tells us that government is at best a necessary evil, but still there are some who would have you believe “if there’s a social problem, let the government handle it.” The logic is misstated and incorrect. Government is composed of men and man is not all knowing. It is only through the good works of individuals that we achieve the blessings of our liberty.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society, yet in New Jersey, our property taxes have become an exorbitant penalty inflicted on our residents. Our families are forced to leave their communities, moving their children to different towns and environments for one reason and one reason alone. Property taxes are too high. Our young people are forced to start life elsewhere because our property taxes are too high. Skilled and educated workers are dissuaded from moving into New Jersey because our property taxes are too high. Our seniors our forced to move further and further away from their families because our property taxes are too high. The politicians have made a mess of property taxes, confiscating the dollars of hard working people to finance their own priorities and projects. When in office, I will institute a 30% reduction, over 3 years, in the property taxes for ALL of New Jersey’s taxpayers. The state constitution entitles our citizens to these tax cuts and I will ensure they receive them. Some have questioned how I will implement such a plan. They say “Doug, there is no way to pay for such a tax cut without eliminating essential services.” Well, I have already stated my case about many service-less services provided by the state, but allow me to elaborate on a few cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing ideas.

First, the implementation of an elected Auditor General will begin a new era of accountable government. The ability to eliminate fraud and waste can only be achieved with the help of an independently elected official who reports directly to the people. This will be a post of integrity, honesty, and incorruptibility. The abuses once commonly seen as “the cost of doing business” will no longer be tolerated. Any infractions reported by the Auditor General will be dealt with immediately by the authorities, the executive office, and the legislature. By placing transparent responsibility in the Auditor General’s hands, the people of New Jersey will be able to hold their elected officials responsible.

Secondly, by reducing the tax burden on our citizens, we will stop the flight caused by excessive taxation. By encouraging families to stay in New Jersey instead of fleeing for a tax-sanctuary, we will grow our tax base and increase received revenue. By allowing young educated people the opportunity to continue their residence in New Jersey we will entice businesses by maintaining a pool of the best and the brightest, many of whom are educated in our own state-schools. We can not have outrageous taxes and expect to keep outstanding young people who have not yet made their way in the world.

Third, we will encourage the best and brightest to reside in New Jersey by promoting cutting edge science and technology. In addition to state bonds to fund stem-cell research, my administration will sponsor a state-wide effort to modernize the way our communities and homes consume power. I am calling on universities and corporations to develop efficient production methods for the wide dissemination of solar paneled roofs. By expanding the use of solar panels in each individual home, we will begin an era of lower extraneous energy consumption which will be a model for the nation. It is critical these panels be durable and cost friendly. The ultimate goal of our state will be to reduce the consumption of outside energy consumed by home 50% in 10 years. These residential solar-systems may one day turn individual residences into "Zero-Energy" consuming homes, allowing our technological advantages to turn into profits for every home which produces more energy than it consumes. It is through the individual efforts of each family and household that we can begin to lead the country in an “energy independence” policy. My administration will offer tax credits and incentives for those leading the charge to help clean our environment and our state.

My administration also intends to begin a targeted effort in establishing hydrogen fuel-celled cars. While not viable in all townships, such cutting edge technology, it is my belief, will convey multiple benefits beginning in specific localities. I will promote the use of these cars among our newest drivers because of the initial limitations of infrastructure. With range depending on proximity to a refueling station, parents will be able to ensure their children are not journeying further than their parents would allow. Many of our suburbs contain little commercial activities for young people and they spend much of their time driving around with friends, wasting gasoline and polluting the air. The beginnings of hydrogen-powered cars can start here in New Jersey and bring with it the industry to support it. Tax incentives for the purchase of such vehicles, as well as enticements for corporations to produce these goods here in New Jersey, will spur growth in new sectors of our economy while helping save our precious environment.

Fourth, the strict enforcement of our laws on state roads will greatly increase our revenue and not only through the tickets issued. By enforcing common sense driving laws, many already on the books, we can greatly reduce traffic caused by miserable driving. The losses in productivity, commercial activity, valuable time, and general wellness because of congestion on our roads can and must be reduced. Every person who has driven on the Parkway notices that upon entering the road via on-ramps, most drivers immediately move into lanes to the left. Even before drivers gain the proper speed, they move left out of some self-centered desire to not be in the “slow lane.” Stretches of the Parkway are five lanes wide, yet the right side of the road is nearly deserted. We have signs “Keep Left except to Pass” but our roads are packed with “Left-Lane Tom, Dick, and Harry’s.” These drivers exacerbate road congestion by blocking faster moving traffic, causing accidents by impelling others to pass illegally on the right side, creating added frustration for citizens already stretched by the grind of modern life. I propose the establishment of two new laws as well as the strict enforce and the raising of fines for two of our current laws.

First, I recommend the implementation of mandatory written testing every seven years for every driver to ensure that every person driving a vehicle knows the rules of the road and knows them well. Our roads are far to crowded to be crippled by those who are not knowledgeable in proper vehicle operation. Furthermore, far too many young drivers fail their written tests in High School Driver’s Ed, only to repeat it over and over until a teacher has mercy on a disappointed student and hands them an over-simplified test. Driving is not a right, it is a responsibility and we deserve the expectation that those who drive on our roads will be qualified for such activities.

My second proposal is similar to a law used in a state where the drivers are considered the safest in America. On any road with two or more lanes traveling in a single direction, a car with three or more cars following closely behind it must doing everything in their power to move to the right and allow those behind it to pass. Those who fail to stay to the right, who cruise in the left lane while traffic builds behind them, will be fined and fined severely. With these new laws we can ensure that all drivers are qualified motorists and the common causes of danger and frustration are eliminated from our roadways.

The two statutes I referred to previously: the ban on hand-held cellular devices and, probably our most effortless requirement, “Wipers On, Lights On.” Allow me to start with the later. Driving in rainy wet conditions is of course more dangerous and difficult than driving under dry conditions. Visability is poorer, stopping more difficult, and the risk of losing control greater. How difficult is it to turn on headlights when engaging wipers? It is not. Yet many cars on our roads fail to do so, endangering every other car on the road. I will call for the strict enforcement of this law because it will save lives. In regard to cellular devices, our state ban on hand-held devices is the ultimate political deception. Studies show no difference when operating a vehicle using either a hand-held device or an ear-piece. But our legislature has enacted this law to prove it is doing something. Sometimes nothing is better than something. I propose a useful change which will actually prevent drivers from becoming distracted. Cellular phones may only be used if they are entirely voice operated, meaning drivers will never avert their eyes looking for a phone number or checking their caller ID or their text messages or whatever other distraction arise from these devices. Our roads are far too crowded to be further choked-up by drivers paying more attention to their phones than the road.

The enforcement of these roadway reforms will have multiple positive affects. By ensuring that our road laws are respected, we will reduce traffic congestion and accidents while decreasing productivity lost to traffic. The leisure time we treasure with our families will be increased as trips to the shore become shorter because responsible driving will make our roads safer and less congested. Those who disregard our laws will be fined severely. We recognize the importance of keeping our roads and its drivers protected and moving freely. I have no doubt that initially there will be an increased number of fines issued as we change the culture of how we drive in New Jersey, but the lives saved will be well worth the frustration of a few who refuse to share the road amiably with others.

Many may question my ideas and I welcome the debate and discussion. I am eager to work with every area of this state government to reform and improve its function. Some rigid ideologues may cast me as “a democrat in a republican’s clothing” but I assure every citizen of this state, I am a pragmatist interested in serving this state to the best of my ability, so help me God.