Reditio Soteri -6-

Bruce woke up early Sunday morning. Then again, he always woke up early on Sunday, because his mom and Stevie would never let him miss church.

Church for Bruce was an all-day affair at the Reformed Baptist Church of the Redeemed, which was a long way of saying the ministers were a bit different from anything you normally connected with a church. Well, they dressed the part, with fine suits and styled hair, and they talked the talk, with lots of emphasis whenever Jesus was mentioned, as if they went into mild delirium every time the Savior was mentioned – and they mentioned Him a lot. Jesus was summoned to pass blessing on pronouncements of every conceivable sort, from baptisms and confessions, to upcoming elections (which it seemed was the Devil trying to destroy the world by getting his minions elected, usually characters whose style of dress and speech was suspiciously similar to the good reverends), to corporations and evil forces luring around every corner. Bruce sometimes wondered if the church should stick the word ‘paranoid’ in its name somewhere.

He didn’t do well in the sword drills. Despite his mom’s confidence that it would be Deuteronomy this week, the class worked on 2nd Timothy. Stevie teased Bruce about it all day afterwards.

Lunch was chicken and salad. It was always chicken and salad et the Reformed Baptist Church of the Redeemed; maybe that thing Jesus did with the loaves and fishes in Israel, this church had worked out with old chicken and limp salad.

Bruce didn’t see much purpose in going to church all day on Sunday, but Stevie loved it, and it seemed to be the one thing his mom could depend on, so he toughed it out, even the mix of church ladies who either considered him an angel if he would just not talk so much, or a future hoodlum who needed a beating to get him set straight. That second group always included several of Bruce’s teachers.

Across the street from the church, the watcher peered intently at the congregation, as he nibbled on the body of a stray cat, taking care that the remains would look like the work of a dog.

Reditio Soteri –5-

Bruce woke up with a strange buzzing sound in his ears, and a feeling of unexplained guilt. Over by the window, he saw Stevie drawing.

“Sup, little man?” he asked.

“K”, answered Stevie, his attention focused on the strange dog he was drawing. Well, a dog or a pig or a well-fed ferret, Bruce couldn’t tell, but Stevie was working hard at it. Seemed like it was laughing at something. Maybe that meant Stevie was happy.

Bruce went to the kitchen, where his mom had left a note. She’d gone off to work, but left breakfast in the oven for Bruce and Stevie, along with a list of chores for Bruce to do. Bruce sighed, and started on the laundry.

As the laundry was going in the washer, Bruce scrubbed at the kitchen floor, wondering – again – how the floor got scuffed and dirty when neither he nor Stevie did anything to mess it up. Strangely, Bruce hardly hurt from yesterday’s beatings; maybe that meant he was getting tougher. And if he got tougher, maybe those jerks would start to leave him alone. Yeah right, and the laundry would start doing itself …

That evening, after his mom got back from work, she set Bruce and Stevie to Bible Study. Tomorrow was Church, and that meant Sword Drills in Sunday School. More Deuteronomy, but after he got his passages memorized, Bruce was allowed to read another part on his own. For some reason, Bruce found himself in the book of Job, and his eyes fell on Chapter 2:1 -

On another day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him.

Something about that passage bothered Bruce, and he quickly closed the Bible, almost slamming it shut.

Bruce felt silly about that, and opened up the Bible again. This time it fell open to Numbers 22:26 –

Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left.

Again, Bruce felt a strange forboding and this time he did slam the Bible shut, earning a sharp look from his mother. Embarrassed, he opened the Bible yet again, and – as if someone else was turning the pages, it fell open to Exodus 23:20 –

See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared

This time, Bruce was strangely reassured, and he closed the Bible one last time for the evening, this time quietly and calmly.

Across the street, the watcher was annoyed. He felt prickly and itchy, as if he had touched something to which he was allergic.

Reditio Soteri -4-

The watcher sat unmoving across the street from Bruce’s apartment, oblivious to anything else until he sensed that Bruce had gone to sleep. A few moments sufficed to assure the watcher that the immediate area was secure, and the watcher loped off to satisfy a deep need.

The neighborhood was a bad one, so it was only after a few blocks that the watcher found what he wanted. A young man sat at a red light in his car, with the window down. Worse, the man was talking to someone on the phone, and so was paying no attention to his surroundings. But it was not that man who the watcher found interesting. The watcher peered intently at the other young man coming round the car from behind and the side, who raised his pistol and put a shot into the shoulder of the driver, before opening the car door and throwing him to the ground.

Stunned by the surprise and the hot pain in his shoulder and chest, the driver paled in fear as he saw the carjacker aim the pistol in his face to finish the job.

Then the driver saw the gunman stop, stand bolt upright with a look of terror at some unseen monster, then raise the gun to his own head.

Three quick shots, and the gunmen fell to the ground, dead by his own hand. Writhing in his own pain, the driver did not stop to consider how strange it was that the gunman could shoot himself three times in the head.

The watcher smiled grimly at his game, and moved on to find more amusement. Before the sun came up, a would-be rapist would cut off his own genitals before a terrified young woman, a burglar would use the acetelyne torch he carried for breaking into a store on his own face, and an executive who had meant to carry out a perfect embezzlement of his company would wake to suddenly realize that he had instead e-mailed evidence of his plan to the CEO, the local newspaper, and the district attorney.

The watcher settled back to watching Bruce’s apartment with some satisfaction.

Reditio Soteri -3-

Bruce reached the door to the apartment as his lungs screamed at him to stop. Besides catching his breath, however, Bruce felt he had to stop and think. His mom was going to be furious with him for being so late, and he needed to come up with an excuse, but his mind was blank. Trying to get a sense of the mood, Bruce listened at the door, but all he heard were pots being moved in the kitchen. Suddenly, Bruce steeled his nerve and plunged in, deciding to brave whatever he had to face in the apartment.

But his mom was not home. Instead, Stevie was standing on a stool by the stove, and by the look of things he planned to cook his own dinner, with water heating in two pots and a box of Mac-n-Cheese nearby. Bruce smiled in spite of himself. For a seven-year-old, Stevie had a lot of confidence in his ability.

“Momma’s gonna tan you for turning on the stove, Stevie” said Bruce.

“Nuh uh” retorted Stevie. “Cuz if you tell her I turned on the stove, then I’ll tell her how late you are. Wazzup, anyway?”

“Same o” answered Bruce. “Ight, let’s make a deal. I’ll make you something to eat if you stay away from things that will get us both in trouble. Deal?”

“Deal” smiled Stevie, and he turned on the TV and sat down in front of it.

An hour later, Stevie was fed and washed, and Bruce had cleaned up the table and kitchen. But his mom was still not home, and that was bad. Bruce began to worry.

A while later, Bruce heard a commotion in the hall. It was his mom and someone else, a man, and drunk by the sound of him. His mom was saying something quietly, but with a sense of urgency. Bruce knew from experience not to stick his head out and see what was happening, because this often meant embarrassing his mom, and that always led to whippings for Bruce. A few minutes later, his mother entered, alone.

“Hey, babe” she said to Bruce. “Stevie asleep?”

“Yeah” answered Bruce. “You’re late.”

“I know, sorry” answered his mom. “I got a chance at some overtime, and God knows we need it.”

For some reason, Bruce didn’t want to talk about what had happened at school. Well, it never did any good to complain, and he’d seem like a total wuss if he admit he was freaked out by some strange sounds and a bad smell. So he let his mom take his mind off that by doing a half-hour of Bible Study, which was boring enough to make him sleepy. Bruce suspected his mom used Bible Study to get him to go straight to sleep, which seemed to be what the book of Deuteronomy was made to do.

Bruce fell asleep and dreamed of a cockroach uprising.

Reditio Soteri -2-

Then there was silence, long enough that Bruce started to think he had imagined the sounds.

Then that skittering came again, approaching the locker like an overgrown cockroach. Bruce heard something sniffing just outside the locker door, and a strong unwashed body odor, but with a sense of rot about it, and Bruce found himself trying hard not to vomit on himself.

Them with a loud clunk, the lock broke, almost as if someone had cut the lock with a bolt cutter. Bruce waited for the door to open, but there was nothing. No sound, no sense of presence, even the bad smell was fading away, like a fart passing through the ventilation system. Bruce pushed gently against the locker door, and it swung open.

Bruce crawled out and peered down the hall in both directions. There was no one there, though where the bullies had run there was a puddle of something on the ground, as if one of them had spilled a thick drink. Bruce stepped that way, careful not to step in the liquid, and he realized that it was blood. Not a huge amount, but more than you’d lose in a nosebleed, or come to that more than Bruce had lost in any of his beatings. Had the bullies turned on each other with something like a knife fight? Or whatever that bad-smelling animal had been, could it have been responsible? Bruce was almost immediately sure that wasn’t it. Whatever that thing was, it seemed small for taking on three apelike brutes. Then again, Bruce wasn’t sure what it was, and the combination of its smell, sounds, and strange behavior creeped him out a lot. The best idea seemed to be to just get out and get home. The halls were dark, dark enough that Bruce realized, with a groan, that he’d be in trouble when he got home. Again. No one ever believed him when he tried to explain what happened, so he’d given up trying to explain. Hanging his head in dismay, Bruce walked to the end of the hall towards the exit. He stopped when he realized that the janitor had already bolted and chained the exit door – Bruce wasn’t getting out this way. And that meant all the other doors were barred, as well. There was bound to be some way out, but Bruce was sure they would involve setting off an alarm or talking to an adult, which meant getting trouble with his mom. Bruce loved his mom, and he knew she worked hard to take care of him and Stevie, but she always got angry when Bruce got in trouble, and like everyone else she never understood it wasn’t his fault. He’d be yelled at and get punished for it, and it was just so wrong.

Bruce didn’t care who saw him now; he fell to the ground and cried.

Time passed, Bruce neither knew nor cared how long, but he started when he smelled it again. That same unwashed-and-rotting smell, and he heard that same skittering sound, coming towards him. Bruce was mildly curious, but at the same time he felt a strong impulse to not be there when whatever it was arrived. Bruce ran for the nearest classroom and threw himself under the teacher’s desk.

Once again, the sound and smell suddenly vanished, and again Bruce began to wonder if he had imagined it. Bruce began to worry that the bad smell was his own body; had he smelled his panic and fear? Bruce resolved to take a shower when he got home.

Then a heavy sound fell in the hallway, something metal. Bruce waited a few minutes, but heard nothing more, and curiosity moved him to see what had happened.

Not only had the chains holding the door shut been chewed into pieces, the push-bar itself lay on the floor, the door slightly open, the night breeze blowing in. Feeling a surge of emotion, a mix of hope and fear, Bruce took his chance and plunged into the night, running the three miles home without once stopping, ignoring the stabbing pain in his side from the lack of oxygen as he ran pell-mell to the only place he considered safe.

Running headlong as he did, Bruce never saw the companion who followed him home, easily keeping pace while remaining just out of sight, setting up camp just across the street from the haggard building Bruce and his family called home.

Reditio Soteri - 1

Bruce sat quietly inside the locker, hoping his pursuers had lost his trail. As he sat, he reflected on an article he had read somewhere, which claimed that the body did not remember pain. Reflecting on past encounters with these boys who were looking for him, Bruce was pretty sure that the writer of that article did not know what he was talking about.

He had done nothing to get his tormentors angry at him, Bruce was sure. It just seemed that just being there was enough to make him a target – that and the fact that everyone knew Bruce was a perfect victim, he never fought back, not very well at least, and he never told on his attackers. In return, they only bruised him and left him a bit bloody; they had never broken a bone – yet. Musing to himself as he waited, Bruce wondered why they never seemed to change their routine. Surely they would get bored of this?

At that moment, the locker down flew open and Bruce started with the shock of once again being found. The same three brutes who always made sport of his pain leered down at him, and Bruce silently cursed himself for choosing such a vulnerable place to hide. Without a word, but smiling grimly to each other, they set to punching and kicking Bruce, but seemed to tire after only a couple minutes, and they laughed at each other as they slammed the door on Bruce. Bruce could hardly believe his luck. He was hurting, but already the pain was receding a bit, though his mouth was bleeding and his ears rang from blows. Then Bruce heard, with dismay, a padlock being placed on the locker, and the brutes walked away, laughing and clapping at each other, Bruce realized that as this was Friday, he’d likely be locked for days before anyone knew where to find him. Bruce groaned as his attackers walked away, delighted with their cleverness.

As he sat alone in the dark, Bruce felt like he needed to cry, but the tears wouldn’t come. He couldn’t decide if this was because he was afraid the bullies would hear him, or that he was just too used to this treatment for it to have the same pull on his emotions. He was tired, hungry, hurting in various places and furious at himself, yet again, for not doing something to have stopped what happened, not that there was ever much hope of escape, let alone victory.

Then a sound caught his ear.

Long practice at evading his enemies had trained Bruce to keenly sense any sound out of place, and he realized that the three boys who had locked him in the locker had indeed hung around to see how he would deal with the situation. But something has changed. Bruce heard gasps of surprise, yells and a curse, as if they had been attacked by someone or something. There was a yell as in pain, and another curse shouted, and then the unmistakable sound of flight – the brutes had come across something they couldn’t scare or defeat. Bruce was intensely curious to know who or what that was.

Or was he? It suddenly occurred to Bruce, that whatever had chased away the brutes might, in fact, be worse than they were, and in that case it was very bad for Bruce to be locked where he could not get away, as he began to sense might indeed be very necessary.

Whatever it was began to approach the locker. Bruce heard it approach, almost a skittering kind of step, though the steps seemed strangely to grow softer as they came closer.

Then, just outside the locker, something chuckled quietly, as if at some private joke.

A Bit of a Change

Hopefully, this won't turn off too many readers, not that I have all that many, but I am going to start writing some fiction here. It should be obvious which articles are the fiction, but in any case, just read what you like and ignore the rest.

Finals for Summer semester in 2 weeks, and then hopefully I will be back to a more normal schedule.

Iraq – An Examination

It is an axiom of mine, that anyone who goes around making noise about issues of note, should be willing to test and re-examine their own beliefs and assumptions every now and then. Therefore, I am taking another look at the war in Iraq, testing claims made by both ends of the spectrum. I would suggest as I begin, that in my experience few people on the Left are willing to test their own assumptions, so this is hardly an exercise in balance, but for all that it is worth the look.

The odd thing about all the debate surrounding Iraq, is that neither of the two major camps ever seems to pursue the most valid criticism of the other side, in my opinion because it would require granting a degree of validity to their complaint. It is reasonable, for example, for the Left to challenge comparisons between the War on Terror and our presence in Iraq, to the Allied effort in World War 2. Not that Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Assad do not show similarities in their goals and ideology to Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin, but the Middle East is not Europe, the forces of Iran and Syria are not at all comparable to the well-planned legions of the Reich and the USSR, and the United States faces a much different culture in the Middle East than in Europe. After all, in World War 2 the prevailing religion of the region in Europe was sympathetic to Americans, while the prevailing religion in the Middle East is by no means sympathetic, nor even neutral. The Pacific theater was much the same as Europe, in that the United States generally enjoyed a good reputation except for the Japanese troops. The Left could very reasonably point out these ways in which the War in Iraq is not like World War 2.

The Right, of course, can even more easily dispose of the myth that Iraq is like Vietnam. In Vietnam, the United States was not responding to any specific threat, and chose to support a corrupt regime simply because it was not Communist. The U.S. Congress and leadership ignored their field officers and failed to listen to the men in the battles. In Iraq, despite all the claims to the contrary, the United States has addressed a specific threat to U.S. interests, international terrorist groups who would overthrow nations friendly to the West and the United States. For the most part, the Iraqi people respect and trust the American troops; the “insurgency” is more and more proving to be a loose coalition of Baathists who have nothing to lose by fighting the Americans, radical Muslims who have bought into the lie that the United States wants a puppet state, and waves of foreign fighters recruited, trained, supplied and directed by Iran and Syria. There was never a ‘War for Oil’, excepting that the nations which tried to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein were profiting by their deals with him – honest deals would hurt their business, and yet the Left never pays attention to greed when it is born and raised in France or Germany. The war was legal in every substantive sense, from Saddam’s repeated violations of the cease-fire terms, to the attempted assassination of President G.H.W. Bush, the constant firing-on of Coalition aircraft by Iraqi ground fire, the fraud so commonly present in the U.N. Food-for-Oil program, and Saddam’s constant refusal to provide proof that he had properly disposed of the known WMD stockpiles, again as required by the cease-fire agreement. Iraq was necessary, right, and properly fought. In any historical sense, less than five thousand U.S. combat deaths in five years is a success story. Yet I am convinced that the Right will be much quicker to admit that Iraq is not D-Day, than the Left will be to admit that Iraq is not Vietnam, and never was.

So why the fervor on Iraq? Essentially, I think, it comes down to the fact that Americans usually prefer a war where things return to status quo ante. That condition is not possible here. Instead, we were left in 2003 with the choice between letting Saddam continue to do as he pleased, with unknown consequences, or going in and taking him out. Americans strongly disapproved of not invading Iraq in 1991, and that sentiment only gained strength through the years. And the 9/11 attacks, as much as the Left tries to deny it, radically changed the matrix. The connection between Saddam and 9/11 was not that Saddam had anything directly to do with 9/11, but that he stood alongside the monsters who did it, allied with them in mind and spirit. It’s easy now, with so much attention focused on U.S. casualties and the propaganda of people like Michael Moore, to forget that the reason the Congressional authorization for the war passed so easily was not some lie or trick by the Bush Administration, but the national mood which demanded action to set things right. Going in and taking out Saddam would mean rebuilding the country, to prevent a vacuum which would surely be filled by Syria and Iran, but it also meant a unique opportunity, to give Arabs a chance at running their own country. Kings and Mullahs and Dictators of many types have filled the region for countless years; what passed for elections in the Middle East would be laughed at in derision even by veterans of Chicago and New York politics. The tens of millions who defied death squads in Iraq to vote, proved that Arabs are every bit as thirsty for a Democratic Republic, as anyone in the United States. The Left never stops to ask itself why so many veterans of the Iraq War continue to re-enlist; in large part it’s because they believe in the mission, a fact which must not be glossed over or forgotten.

In the end, Iraq was a victory, but it remains to be seen to what degree. If we leave too soon, the Islamists could too easily gain control of Iraq and begin a bloodbath not seen since Pol Pot, another history the Left denies because they cannot accept their role in creating it. On the other hand, Republicans must understand that our commitment cannot be open-ended in Iraq; while we keep bases in perpetuity in Japan and Germany, this depends on the national will as much as the need for them. As desirable as it would be to have a quick-response force in Iraq to stabilize the Middle East from the next madman who thinks Allah wants him to invade a neighboring country, to pretend that we could maintain such a force at similar cost to our bases in Germany and Japan is naïve. The ideal resolution remains to be determined, but the best course for both Left and Right would be to work for a scale-down without a time table, but which makes clear the expectation of Iraq’s self-determination in arms. It would need to keep open the prospect of returning U.S. troops if and when the need arose, and indeed should include plans for future U.S. military exercises in the area to warn the neighbors that the United States would always be able to do whatever was necessary. But for here the need to define ‘victory’ and to stand together as a nation is the most important mission. The Left and Right would find it distasteful to stand alongside one another, I do not doubt, but the Right needs the Left to be part of the national message, and the Left needs the Right in order to hope that the war may hope for an end.

The Commission of Christ and the Man of Lint

I was at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center today, for another set of tests to find out whether the treatment has been working. Short answer, yes, nothing has grown since March, and the medicines are not screwing up my blood. So, if I seem to be unbalanced and weird, well, I have always been that way, it’s just me.

But every time I go to MDA, especially knowing that I’m in good shape these days, I can’t help but pay attention to the people who are less lucky. Sometimes the cancer is harder to find, much less fight, and sometimes the fight is not enough. I see combat veterans who should be enjoying summer vacations from school, warriors who should be enjoying the fruits of a lifetime of work, and countless innocent victims in-between, brave but undeserving of the pain and trouble they have to bear. I am constantly reminded that this world is neither just nor merciful in its nature, and the only way such ideals can be made real, is if humans choose to undertake them. MDA is full of such people, people of real integrity and ability, whose competence is equal to the mission, and I thank God for them.

And that brings me to today’s topic. I am not particularly impressed with people like Al Gore, and I don’t mean his politics. Gore is one of those image-first types who think that packaging is the be-all end-all of ideals, and what bothers me is that this conceit is very, very common, so much so that I am concerned that many of us buy into the notion to some degree, this notion that actually doing good is not so important if we just show that we mean well. It doesn’t do anything for the people who need it, but the trick to this stunt is that the posers play off any sense of guilt. They only want the best, you see, and so they cannot be held accountable for the problem.

One of the most damning charges which a non-Christian can level at a believer, is the way so many of us behave. Again, I am not getting into the politics of driving the “right” car or voting according to some special-interest group’s dictates, but the simple, horseshoe-to-the-head revelation that if we want to be Christ’s disciples, we must act as He did. Not the miracles, I mean, but the compassion. Healing, helping, and beginning every encounter with honesty and dealing with the need. The way we really act when faced with real problems, well, that depends on what we are made of, and some of us seem to be made of lint. Soft, harmless, flexible, probably mean well, but useless and in the end worthless. God save me from being only a man of Lint!

“He was already in flames. It was obvious he was the real psycho of the pair”

From Alex McIlveen, a taxi driver in Glasgow who took down one of the terrorists who tried to blow up an airline terminal. Betsy Newmark has the whole story and more you should read, but I do feel I must cite his effective style of citizen interdiction:

“I ran for the guy and punched him twice in the face with pretty good right hooks. Then I kicked him with full force right in the balls …”

Good on ya, mate.

A Simple Question

The Islamists continue to kill and terrorize Muslim countries. They have once again attempted to cow the British Lion. Yet they have not even tried half so much against America directly.

The question for discussion today, especially in light of known attacks planned to follow the 9/11 assaults, is why those attacks never came about.

What broke the nerve of those terrorists?

The Psychology of Popular Politics

My company had me in one of those seminars yesterday, the kind where you are expected to radically change your perspective of the world – again. This is not to say that the experience was not worthwhile, but I am one of those people who questions the claim that anything is “revolutionary” just because the guy selling it wants you to be impressed. The experience did get me to thinking, however, about how people in general think and act, and in this case I thought about the development of political opinion. I think it may be fairly said, that popular opinion of the major parties and candidates is seen in the context of their perceived focus and pace with relation to the dominant issues.

One exercise in the seminar discussed the “SAFE” analysis of personality. Without going into too much detail, this measurement considered two axes of time and focus. That is, while specific cases vary, a person will either tend to be people-focused or task-focused, and will either prefer a fast pace or a slower, deliberate pace. It should be understood that this consideration is separate from a “right” or “wrong” consideration, as each position holds both strengths and weaknesses, and the desirability of a certain characteristic depends on the specific need. For example, medical procedures should be prompt but deliberate, and accuracy is more important than speed. On the other hand, legal proceedings tend to be slow but also deliberate. Taking care of children requires strong interpersonal skills and is necessarily slow-paced, while a fighter pilot must make quick decisions with as little emotion as possible. In political decisions, we see the same disparate needs. One of the major reasons why the recent immigration reform bill failed, aside from specific qualities in it, was that it failed to attract the majority of any of the groups. One large group disliked the bill, because it appeared to be full of errors and ignored some important problems. One large group disliked the bill, because it appeared to be unfocused, trying to apply small solutions while ignoring the big picture. Many disliked the bill, because it appeared to be rushed, ignoring questions and shutting out debate and necessary improvements. All of this, beside the basic character of the bill itself.

I am not writing about the bill as the focus here, but about the effects of political attention. As an example, at one time President Bush enjoyed a Job Approval rating in the polls of over 90%, but now stands at about 32%, where he has been for more than a year. Obviously, there are things which have changed that opinion, but what? In some cases, a political position affects the opinion, but examined objectively, this does not explain long periods of high or low approval. The quick answer, of course, is that polls are notoriously subjective and not truly a good barometer for electoral viability (see the 2004, 2000, and 1996 elections for examples), but I think there is a character reflected which should be seen in the context of the time frame. A good example of this would be Franklin Roosevelt, who was largely isolationist before 1939, moderately interested in supporting the Allied effort from 1939 to December 1941, and strongly militant after December 7, 1941. The difference between the ’finger in the wind’ style of some modern politicians and the attention to context of FDR, shows up in understanding that a paradigm shift occurs, and the statements and decisions, even where they are the same as before, must be couched according to the new conditions, or else even sound decisions will be opposed because of the way in which they are presented. Accordingly, the ground conditions for the 2008 elections do not depend on the experience of a candidate or their portfolio, nearly so much as they depend on the ability to understand the priorities of the nation and communicate their intentions in terms which will be received. This would appear to work to the detriment of Clinton and McCain, but to the advantage of Obama, Romney, and Fred Thompson.

No Posting Friday - Saturday - Sunday

Midterms Saturday and Sunday, plus a case assignment and some work on a term paper.

Next week, more noise!

What Now On Immigration and the Border?

Once again, the Senate has killed the unpopular bill which would, judging from the vitriol hurled around in the past month, have surrendered the United States to a hated foreign power, replaced all happiness and joy with dismal angst, banished the sun and the laughter of children from our lives, and subjected the nation to the maniacal designs of the denizens of hell. Of course, the actual bill did none of those things, but the hatred against it took on a dark identity of its own, and rational debate was one of its first victims. There was a palpable rage in many circles, many of whom took it upon themselves to declare that they spoke for America. This basilisk of political correctness prowls the halls in both parties, always hungry, never forgiving. Consequently, I am not optimistic that we will now move forward towards a functional decision.


The problem here, is that while the bill is once again entombed in that most formidable of mausoleums, the United States Senate, whose Majority Leader so reminds one of funerals and loss, the issues which initially gave energy to the conception of that well-meaning but poorly-built legislative spawn are still corroding the security and commonwealth of the nation. People of goodwill are now morally compelled to consider the next step, which will be difficult regardless of its author. One unfortunate hallmark of this bill’s presence, was the common use of character assassination. Many unfortunate statements made no attempt at all to address the issue, but instead attacked proponents and opponents personally, and even many influential individuals who have profited from their association with certain leaders, did not hesitate to lie about their statements, the context, or their motives. The public now regards the entire federal government, across the board, as dishonest and of no integrity, as well as both major parties. The cost of this season of spite is high, indeed. The worst may yet be still to come, as well. The nation is not well-served by narcissism on such a scale, but we were not consulted, either by the legislators, nor by those famous mandarins in the old and new media, and so we must hang on as best we can, and hope that God brings a miracle. He’s done that before, but at other times He has delivered us the leaders we asked for, a torment devoutly to be feared.

But to the issues. The whole mess is not one issue, as I have said over and over again, but a set of issues, and part of the problem is that the people working on the Hill have bollixed up even explaining what they are trying to do. And that thought gave me the starting point for trying to unravel this mess. You see, Americans have some ideas about what they want, and the Congress, strange as they have been acting, may be said in general to want the right things. The problem is that the bills they have put up for consideration are just not dealing with things effectively. I have remarked, when someone says to just do “X”, that he is presenting a goal, rather than a plan to accomplish that goal. And it occurs to me, that they are right, in that Congress is not being clear about its goals, and until they do that much, they are bound to get the plans wrong for making those goals happen.

The goals Congress is pursuing are not clear. They say they don’t want “Amnesty”, but some opponents say that’s where the bill leads, while other opponents demand a clear vote for amnesty. Congress says they want to secure the border, but won’t state specifics on how they plan to make that happen. Congress says they will punish employers who hire illegals, but not how they will avoid hurting legitimate businesses with undue bureaucracy, or how they will make the charges stick. But worse than that, Congress did an amazingly-poor job of bringing supporters on board. They did not invite comments or suggestions, they did not have regular debates in public on key provisions, they did not pay attention to the flood of emails and letters from their constituents, and they failed to make sure they included professionals in their discussions, like INS and Border Patrol agents, people who actually worked the front lines and who could have supplied critical credibility for their decisions. Even those Americans who saw good things in the bill, found it uncomfortable that the bill seemed to be forced on America. Good managers should not rush decisions, especially when those decisions are controversial, and yet there is no evidence that even a single Senator warned off his colleagues from the way they approached this bill. I’m not saying the bill is good – early on, I said I did not like it because it no effective enforcement provisions, but if you’re going to reprise the delivery of the 10 Commandments, you’d better be able to sell yourself as Charlton Heston.

I have mid-terms coming up, so I don’t have the time to put together a decent argument for what I would like to see done, but for now, I would like to see us all try the following:

1. Let go of the insults and the anger of the last month – it will do no good to dwell on it, if you’re honest you will probably have to admit you said a few things you should not, and in any case old feuds is something for hillbillies and Sicilian crime families, not rational adults;
2. Chill for a few days, enjoy the coming holiday;
3. Remember that a politician is just a politician; and
4. Come back later with the attitude that something constructive can be built. If someone wants to act like a rabid dog, you don’t have to join him.

Just a thought …

A Gun In Your Face

Guns are nasty things, for a number of reasons. I’m a big believer in the 2nd Amendment, because while I like the Republicans and can cope with Democrats in charge, it’s important that our elected officials never completely forget that we the people put them in office, and they have no power or authority whatsoever beyond what is granted by the, as it is written in a certain document, ’consent of the governed’. America is neither Imperial Rome, nor the court of some arrogant King. And sometimes it’s absolutely vital for the government to be reminded that the people are armed.

That said, some truly terrible things are done with guns. Any thug so minded can use a gun to commit robbery, rape, or murder, with no special skill or craft. Not that the cutpurses and marauders of the old days were gentlemen, but the chief reason we have to worry about crime today, is that guns make it easy to commit violent crimes. Then there is the safety question. The nice thing about a halberd or a pike, is that the little tykes are going to have a hard time picking up the thing , let alone having it go off in their face. A pistol, on the other hand, is capable of killing anyone. It’s easy to use and looks cool. I’m not a proponent of gun control per se, but I agree that there should be criminal consequences for someone leaving their gun out where a child can gain easy access. Then there is the person who wants a gun for security, but doesn’t know what to do with it. In my life, I have encountered people who never cleaned their gun, people who did not know where they kept their gun, and in a couple cases, people who actually had a loaded gun with a cocked hammer in a bag, unaware that a sudden jolt could cause it to fire. Drop your purse and kill someone, now that’s an obscene possibility for someone to allow.

But even with the crooks and idiots, I still stand by the right of the citizen to be armed. Why? Well, let’s start with another fact of modern life. If someone kicks in the door to your house and you happen to immediately call 911, how long will it be before the police arrive? And what do you think the criminals will do while the police are on their way? This assumes, of course, that the 911 system is not down, as happens from time to time, or you are not placed on hold, which happens on weekends and peak criminal activity times – apparently the authorities do not staff their phone lines according to citizen need. So, if someone breaks into your house while your wife and children are home and therefore are in immediate danger, what exactly do you do? In my case, the decision is simple – be prepared to act, and if necessary, carry out the plan. That includes taking care to insure safety and avoid mistakes, but yes it includes having deadly force available if I need it.

I have not found a statistic out there for one important condition – how many of you have been in a situation where your life was in danger? I ask, because there really is no condition quite the same as being unarmed and at the mercy of someone who is pointing a gun at you. When I was younger and a bit more careless, there were several such instances. I recall one time when I was at a convenience store when it got robbed by a gang, and I was angry at myself because I could not describe any of the robbers in detail; all I could remember was the .45 pointed at my eyes while they took my watch and wallet. Another time I was actually shot at, but that was a bit different – somehow the threat is psychologically worse than someone trying to actually do the act, though there is a terrible moment when your brain concludes – hey, that was a gunshot – hey, someone’s shooting at me – oh crap, there’s nowhere to run. In that situation, the shooter had the bad luck (and I the good) to take his shot in the hearing of a county constable officer in his car, who hit the lights and pursued the guy. I could go on about the other occasions, but all I really need to say, I think, is that I was a bit careless and criminals are rather confident when they know they are armed and believe you are not armed. One time I was prepared and confronted a gunmen with my own pistol, and for some reason he immediately lost interest in the transaction. I have never yet had to shoot another human being, but the point is that having a weapon greatly reduces the possibility that someone will get shot, since the people most likely to shoot someone are cowards when confronted with force. It’s better to avoid the danger as much as possible, by watching out for situations where you could be in trouble, but that is not always possible.

I mentioned earlier, that the government should be very aware that the population is armed. That sounds laughable on its face, since the military has weapons far more terrible than anything the simple citizen has available to him. The answer, again, is psychological. After all, the U.S. military is a volunteer force, made up of ordinary people trained to some excellent methods and, as it happens, who are generally of the highest character and moral standards to be found in the world. The notion that the U.S. military would agree to oppress the American people is an absurd and baseless insult, largely limited to the craven minds of Hollywood and media types, who coincidentally tend to reflect the lowest character and moral standards to be found in any profession as a group. There is no real need, therefore, for the average American to feel the need to use force against his government. That said, the psychological impact of the right of citizens to bear arms (not felons or aliens, by the way) has the effect of reminding elected officials that they do not have absolute control, and must be answerable for their conduct. It may sound cynical to say so, but sometimes I believe that elected officials dislike the Bill of Rights, because each of those rights speaks of a specific group which limits government. Just as the first Amendment reminds government that people will say inconvenient things, and their dissent is protected, so the second Amendment reminds government that the people have the final right to force, more inviolate than anything the government may choose to do.

Another thing about guns, is that they are a sort of symbol of the modern age. We common folks have a lot more power in our hands than ever before. We can contact our elected officials in person, by phone, letter, telegram, email, and through proxy representatives like talk show hosts. We can kill a bill, or keep it alive. We can turn a nobody into a contender, or make the front-runner a has-been. But too often we are a bit careless about how we use our influence, sometimes allowing a demagogue to claim our support when he does not deserve it, and sometimes we react in anger without considering the effect of our rage. Just as I said a person who has a gun must be careful to keep it responsibly, so too a person must be careful to say things with the consequences in mind. But I would not draw the analogy too far.

There are people who are very afraid of guns, and they speak of “gun control” as though we need to train our guns not to be dangerous, or that absurd notion that banning law-abiding people from having guns will somehow convince criminals and the insane not to have guns. The Virginia Tech massacre rather grimly proves that notion horribly wrong. The flip side of that notion is not the belief that having a lot of guns will fool people into thinking they are safer, but rather that some people think having a gun will automatically make them safer. With all due respect, please do not get a gun, unless and until you are prepared to know how to store it, clean it, and use it safely and securely.

I Support President George W. Bush

It's not the fashion these days, to stand by someone who does the heavy lifting, nor to remember virtues rejected for not suiting the whim of a mob, yet I will continue to stand by the President. And I do not stand alone.

Fools believe polls sponsored by his enemies, which focus only on the attention span of a nation beset with ADD, which is further encouraged to blame President Bush for all sorts of things he never did or cannot control. And again I am reminded why some of the nation's best minds and spirits refuse to run for national office - it is a rare courage in those who knowingly enter that lions' den.

But to our community - it occurs to me worth considering the sort of people who have not turned their back on Dubya. And I am well pleased to count them as my allies:

Vice President Cheney has never been the target of conservatives, yet they never seem to consider that he stands with the President still, just as he always has. For some people there would be the consideration of a political future, but since Dick Cheney has made it abundantly clear that he will leave office when the President does the same, it should be obvious that Mr. Cheney is a man of integrity, resolve, and he is unwaveringly loyal to President Bush. Only a Liberal or some similar fool would pretend he is some kind of bootlick or lapdog.

Prime Minister Tony Blair took a lot of heat for supporting President Bush. What's interesting, is that while he and Dubya have different political views, Tony Blair has never made a stetament which disparaged or attacked President Bush. Again, Blair took a lot of abuse for his principled position, but in the end he never wavered. While Liberals called him names, his courage and loyalty are clear and reflect Blair's own strength of character.

Despite casualties and the long heavy weight of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops are still strong supporters of the President. The media and the Democrats, and sadly even some Republicans have tried to use the troops as pawns for their own gambits, but as a whole the military strongly supports and stands by the President. I am constantly amazed by the strength of their conviction that the war is a worthy cause, and that President Bush is doing the right and necesaary job.

Sure, you can find all kinds of big-ego people who don't like Bush. Some think Bush-hate is their ticket to higher office, some think that the President of the United States must cater to their personal opinion like some kind of butler, and some think that they should hold Bush to expectations of perfection - rejecting everything done right in the past if he ever puts a foot wrong in his job. Some cannot stand for the man to have his own mind and make the tough decisions, and are willing to tear down all the man stands for because they cannot agree to disagree on one or two issues. The Left and Right have extremists united in malice and hysteria, and they forget why America needs President Bush. Such cowardice and hate is sadly all too common these day, but I will not pretend it is something to overlook or excuse.

Liars claim Bush "betrayed" them. People who never once ran for office, and who would not support reform when the GOP held the majority in Congress, have no standing to play at God now.

I stand with the President, come what may. To my mind, his enemies stand in self-deceit and dishonor, and what comes of that must surely be ill tidings.

The Recency Effect, part 2

On to 1980, and the world changed. Ronald Reagan was why. But first he had to get to the White House. Jimmy Carter certainly did his part to help Reagan get elected, with double-digit inflation, high unemployment at the same time, and a foreign policy that amounted to ’whine and run away’. But even so, Reagan’s clear and idealistic vision which put America first, no excuses, found strong resonance with voters. The lesson is obvious; despair never matches up well against Confidence and a plan.

For 1984, the Democrats ran the most dismal and depressing candidate they could find for the nomination. The lesson was pretty much the same as in 1980, with the same results.

For 1988, the Democrats thought they had figured out the formula. Besides the GOP had never won more than two consecutive elections, or won two consecutive elections with different Presidential candidates, since before the Great Depression. So, the Democrats once again thought it was time to roll out the ’America wants more taxes’. Trying to make Mike Dukakis look human was more successful than with Mondale, but the effort to make him look like a military leader … remember that tank photo? Anyway, the lesson is play to your strengths, but don’t pretend strengths which are not there.

Next, 1992. What a mess. And yes, I’m repeating myself, because 1992 was a repeat of 1968 in some ways. Like the Democrats in 1968, the GOP in 1992 had become fractured, with purists and extremists and various other arrogant egotists trying to hijack the party. They didn’t like G.H.W. Bush, they didn’t like the choices available, so some Republicans stayed home, and some went off the reservation to support the magnificent idiot, Ross ’kinahfinish?’ Perot. The Democrats, as usual, presented a man without a plan to America, a gregarious southern governor who had no competencies to speak off, and little integrity to back up what ideas he did carry along the way. The Democrats rallied behind their man, such as he was, while the Republicans had a lively bickerfest that further soured America’s opinion of Conservatives in particular. Thus we got President Bubba. The lesson? Well it should be obvious.

In 1996, it sure looked like the Republicans were going to get the White House back. President Bubba had managed to alienate himself with just about everyone, but he rallied his troops and rebuilt his image, which was actually pretty easy for a man whose spine was made of jello. Meanwhile, the GOP had somehow gotten the idea that image did not matter, and as a result they nominated a man with an impeccable resume, but with no discernable charisma or specific plans which resonated with the voters. So, while Bubba couldn’t clear 50% on the popular vote, Dole lost to him anyway. The lesson, appearances do count, and it’s kind of important to make sure folks know why you’d be an improvement on the current President.

In 2000, the Democrats felt good. Clinton was high in the polls again, despite his impeachment and voluntary disbarment (not legally speaking, but if a judge asks for your license and you hand it over after pleading ‘no contest’, well …), the economy was good and everything seemed to be running well (the Clinton Administration, contrary to later claims, dealt with Al Qaeda by simply not mentioning it to the American public, nor it seems the next Administration). So Al Gore felt good about his prospects of being the first Democrat to succeed a Democrat in the White House since Lyndon Johnson. Events, however, proved otherwise, and the election, while controversial, proved that either Gore was not nearly as desired by the American public as he thought, or George W. Bush was far more impressive than the Democrats ever thought he could possibly accomplish. For neither the first nor last time, George W. Bush was underestimated, and while Dubya entered the White House, all Al Gore could to go on an eating binge and begin rehearsal of a series of odd and elitist theories. The lesson is, the only real self-fulfilling prophecies are the bad kind.

On to 2004, and the President Bush vs. Senator Kerry matchup. President Bush was already paying for sticking to his position, and his lack of eloquence and media skills cost him several opportunities to put away the election early on. But once again, the Democrats presented a candidate so obviously incapable of the post he sought, that 62 million Americans pulled the lever for Dubya, the most in any U.S. presidential election. The lessons are that a stumbling competency still reflects integrity, standing by the President bears dividends, and a party which thinks that a man who married into hundreds of millions of dollars somehow is best-equipped to speak for the common man, is hopelessly out of touch.

I leave you now to consider the lessons of the past 15 elections, and apply them if you will to our present field of contenders. If nothing else, the obvious misfits should be clear.

The Recency Effect and 2008

I was reading Jay Cost earlier this week, and he was of the opinion that, historically, the Republicans are in for a rough haul in 2008. Certainly he has reasons to think so, but I disagree a bit with him about the historical influences at stake. This is partly due to the Recency Effect, which may be phrased as ’Folks See Today and Yesterday, and Forget Everything Else”. A bit of an over-simplification, but to my mind true as Gospel when we’re talking about elections.

I don’t want to re-open the feud between various factions of Republicans about President Bush. The facts are plain enough for anyone who can stop shouting long enough to think the matter through, but that is turning out to be a problem for a lot of folks. Bad news for the Donkey Kongs, is that all this feuding does not mean that Conservatives will suddenly decide to vote Donkey out of spite, or that they will sit out the next election. Like it or not, people with strong opinions tend to vote by those opinions, and if Bush is not their cup of joe, well, he’s not running this time around, now is he? The Donks will run against Bush anyway, but then that’s another psychological issue I will let alone for here. So I want to examine, from a somewhat casual and personal point of view, the Presidential elections from 1948 to 2004, and why they went the way they did. I picked 1948 for my starting point because of the number of elections available to consider, and because it’s a good starting point for the modern political era. FDR was an anomaly, call him whatever else you will, and before him the media, methods of debate and public opinion consideration were so radically different that the elections hardly bear comparison. Mr. Cost thinks differently, and on some levels I agree with his argument, but for this consideration the closer term is the only relevant one. I doubt, for example, that most folks could name the losing candidate from the major parties from any election prior to their birth.

I begin then, with 1948. President at that time was Harry Truman, not very popular with Democrats and certainly not with Republicans, whom he regularly treated like trash. That’s one reason why Democrats won’t mention him these days – they don’t want comparisons between a Democrat and a Republican who put doing the right thing ahead of being popular. Anyway, Truman was far behind in the polls to a fellow named Dewey, a prominent New Yorker with a reputation for integrity and straight-speaking – sound like anyone running for President these days? It was supposed to be a done deal, no chance for Truman, but the history books show that Truman pulled out that election. The lesson, largely ignored today, was that you can never count out a man of conviction, especially when he’s already the President.

Move on to 1952. Democrats by then were really angry with Harry Truman. Mad enough to let him know that he couldn’t get the nod for another term. Well, near as I can see that was an extremely stupid thing for the Democrats to do, seeing as how there were still millions of American Democrats who thought of Harry as Mr. President, and with a measure of respect, as well. So playing ’We’re Not Harry’ cost the Democrats some support, and when the GOP was smart enough to get General Ike to run on their ticket, that was it. Maybe Eisenhower would have won anyway against Truman, but there’s no question the Democrats made their hand weaker by whacking their own guy.

That brings us to 1956. Eisenhower versus Stevenson again, with pretty much the same results. When you consider that this time Ike was the sitting President and not the challenger, this tells you that he should have had a harder time in 1952, if he’d run against Truman. Not trying to pick on President Eisenhower, but his 1956 election was pretty vanilla fare, with no major bad news balanced against a lot of general good feeling. A don’t-rock-the-boat kind of thing, which must have annoyed Stevenson immensely. The lesson there, I hate to say, is that a President who chooses not to stand up in the hard fights can look real good in the short run.

Next, 1960. Nixon losing to Kennedy was a stunner at the time for the politicos, but it shouldn’t have been. Kennedy ran as the effective challenger, since Nixon was the Vice-President under Eisenhower. But in actual fact, there was not much of an impressive executive resume for Nixon. Yes, he’d been a member of Congress, but that has limits to its value. So in actual fact it was a race between a guy with name recognition because he was connected to the President, and a guy with name recognition because he was articulate, handsome, and rich. The lesson, is that such contests are usually close.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson smashed Barry Goldwater. Some of that was residual from Kennedy’s assassination; in 1964 not so many people knew JFK hated LBJ. A bit of that was old-fashioned dirty tricks, frankly much nastier than the stuff we see today. And some of that was that folks wanted to see Johnson given a chance to have his own term. It’s worth noting that 1964 was the last time a Democrat won the White House in a landslide.

On to 1968. What a mess. The Democrats were in a sorry state, having abandoned LBJ – maybe for good reason, maybe not, but he got a delegation of ‘crats in his office telling him he should find a good moving company. Made him bitter enough that he refused to support anyone in the race for most of the campaign, which certainly hurt the eventual nominee, VP Hubert Humphrey. It also hurt the Democrats that Robert Kennedy was assassinated – it may be a stretch to claim that RFK was a lock for the nomination, but he was certainly a force in the election, and a portion of the Democrats simply lost any reason to vote when Bobby Kennedy was dead. Add to that the fierce anger in the South against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which manifested itself in support of George Wallace, and you can see why Richard Nixon was able to win the election with only 43% of the popular vote. The lesson is, never assume the other guy is so bad that you cannot lose, and once again that deserting your President will cost you for it.

Next, 1972. If it makes sense to say that Richard Nixon only won – barely – in 1968 because the Democrats blew their unity, identity, and party discipline, what does it say that Nixon blew away Senator George McGovern in 1972? It should be noted that the Watergate scandal indicates that Nixon’s campaign was actively working at underhanded ways to win, but it’s unsure whether it would have made all that much difference. Nixon won 49 states, including McGovern’s home state of South Dakota. This was partly due to McGovern’s poor handling of his campaign (he fired his VP pick in the summer, for example), McGovern’s poor selection of issues (McGovern based a lot of his campaign on a ‘cut and run’ strategy in Vietnam, missing the fact that the Paris Peace Accords had given Nixon a much stronger hand in that arena, and that most Americans felt that cutting out on an ally was wrong, even in an unpopular war). The lesson is, organization and consistency is a critical factor.

On to 1976. This one is pretty simple. The Watergate burglars were unable to keep their secret, and whatever his initial involvement in the crime, Nixon’s deliberate obstruction of the FBI was criminal. Like another President later on, Nixon’s lying is what did him in, and his own party confronted him with the threat of impeachment. Nixon resigned in 1974, leaving unlucky Gerald Ford to try to lead the GOP. The 1974 mid-term elections were a disaster, and Ford lacked both the resume to claim authority to lead and the charisma to charm the nation. A folksy Democrat from Georgia simply smiled a lot, promised not to lie, and won almost by default. 1976 was also the last time a Democrat running for President claimed a majority of the popular vote. The lesson is, the voters will punish the party for a bad individual, if he’s a Republican.

Next up – The New Republicans, and the New Democrats

America and Race 2007

Back a generation or so ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said ” I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Sadly, it appears that most of the nation is working hard to prevent that from becoming reality. And that includes the government which is charged with ending such discrimination.

Let’s start with the government. Try to do anything with the government, and you will find yourself filling out paperwork. And what always shows up early in that paperwork, as soon as people are involved? That’s right, a demand to know the demographics, including the race of the person(s) concerned. Besides the obvious problem with demanding to know the race of an applicant or participant in a program before deciding on whether to accept them, there is also the poor consideration that not everyone has just one race. My wife and I, for example, are different races, so there is no neat simple box to check for my daughter, and I am personally offended by demands that we identify her by her race. Sure, they can say that they will not use race in their judgments, but the only real way to make sure there is no racial bias is to not ask that question. It simply has no virtue, and no explanation justifies the practice. I certainly understand statistics, and so I know that the bureaucrats will claim the race information is necessary to define demographic parameters. The problem, of course, is the Observer Effect – people change their behavior when they know they are being observed, which means that asking someone’s race, especially when it happens with every government action, influences people to believe that the government makes decisions based in large part, perhaps solely, on race. We also see programs designed to advance one race, preferential treatment which has no justification except by claiming that one race should be treated differently than others. The practice is long-standing and widely accepted, yet is unconscionable on its face.

Society does this as well. Behavior which is unacceptable for one racial group and consequently penalized, may be tolerated and even promoted for another. A good example is language. In the United States, it is reasonable to expect someone to be able to speak English, or to ask for an interpreter. At the very least, someone who knows their command of English is not good, ought to have the good grace to recognize that fact and not become angry at an American for not speaking a foreign language. After all, if one were to go to France as a tourist, one should plan on speaking French or finding an interpreter. While there are many French merchants who speak English, it is a courtesy they extend if they do so, not something which should be expected. The same for traveling to any country; if you do not speak the language, expecting the host country to accommodate you is a bit boorish. Yet here in the United States, foreigners regularly demand that Americans address them in their native tongue, especially Spanish. Speaking bluntly, this is an unmentioned facet in the illegal immigration debate; the refusal of the new arrivals to even try to speak the language, choosing not to just retain their own culture but to superimpose it on the one already in place. And yet, if someone complains about Hispanics who refuse to speak English, they are likely to be called racist, and the people who are the actual offenders are given a pass.

Another societal example is vulgarity. Certain words are universally agreed to be so offensive, that no one can justify their use – unless you are the right race, of course. The notion that epithets should be tolerated if certain races use them is absurd on its face, and yet it is promoted as the civic standard in many towns. Entire sub-cultures have grown up with a confrontational attitude, hostile to all practices which defined courtesy for countless generations. Blatant exhibitions of violent. lewd, misogynist, or racist behavior are common in large portions of the under-30 population, that same demographic which refuses to assimilate to any demand for respect for others or civic ideals, then complains because the society they create is as vulgar and hostile as they are themselves. It’s as if the street gang persona has become pandemic, and the attitudes of race-based gangs permeates to the whole of the racial demographic at large.

Then there is the media. Look at what get promoted, in the NBA for example. In the NBA, the shoe deals and media attention are focused on the likes of Alan Iverson and Ron Artest, gang-wannabe thugs who diminish the game. The NFL recently had enough of the behavior of its worst offenders, yet the media questions whether Adam “Pacman” Jones is being treated fairly; after all, he’s only up for felony indictments for an incident where someone got shot. I mean, Rae Carruth murdered his girlfriend and the NFL did not even fine him for that, so I can sort of see why the media got the idea that criminal behavior was a good thing for role models. And yes, it has to be said that there is a racial component in this; it’s not white athletes who are generally getting gun-crazy and toting drugs in their car, like Dexter Devon Reid, although the Colts show no interest in penalizing Reid for his behavior. It’s just the fashion you see, and it’s almost become expected for black athletes to have drugs and guns with them, so apparently that makes it something to excuse. Millions of kids see and hear this behavior, and what lessons do you think they learn, especially when they comprehend that you are not accountable if your skin is a certain color?

The root of the problem is hostility. Speaking bluntly, there is a vacuum of leadership where it is needed most. I quoted MLK Jr. early in this piece, but the plain fact is that no legitimate black leader of a stature anything like King’s has been seen since his death. Not that there are not qualified black role models, but the people who succeed on their own merits and refuse to play the victim, are attacked as somehow traitors to their own race. Dr. Bill Cosby, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, J.C. Watts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and many other brilliant blacks have been marginalized for not being radical and socialist, which perpetuates the vacuum, as those individuals deemed ‘worthy’ invariably prove quite the opposite, as the careers of Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson so sadly prove. Racism is quite alive and as venomous as ever. We see it when a Congressman is found with enough money to buy a luxury car stuffed in his freezer, but he keeps his job and privileges because of his race, while another Congressman is hounded out of office on charges which are dubious at best and based on a personal vendetta by a political enemy who hates Conservatives. We see it when a District Attorney willfully hides evidence, because he wants to pursue what he knows to be false charges, solely because the men charged are a certain race and culture, and the plaintiff a different and certain race and culture. We see it when we are told that only one race can possibly act in a ‘racist’ manner, and that another race is ‘entitled’ to lifelong, indeed multi-generational compensation and preferential treatment, solely on unproven accusations. We see it when people here illegally are able to march in public for “rights” they know full well they have no valid claim to, yet they know they will be untouched by the law, simply because they are a certain race. We see it when people who uphold the law are punished for it, because of their race and the race of the people they apprehend. We see it when one minority is refused its due consideration by other minority races, solely because that race practices assimilation and refuses direct confrontation with the majority culture.

And it is this same racism which keeps its own promoters down. Those who teach hostility and confrontation to their children, who urge a wholesale refusal of proven societal values in deference to behavior which even they recognize is futile and self-destructive. Sexual promiscuity destroys families, spreads disease, and leads to unplanned pregnancies and personal dismay, yet certain races promote the “right” to such behavior. Drug use leads to financial loss, penalties from the law and dismissal from employment, poor mental and physical condition and performance, yet certain races excuse or even glorify recreational drug use. Dishonest and confrontational behavior damages existing relationships and prevents development of healthy associations, leads to conflict with law enforcement, employers, and family, and can escalate to fatal consequences, yet again certain races excuse deliberately offensive behavior, even to the point of violence, as a social condition which cannot and should not be redirected to more positive choices. In short, many members of minorities are encouraged to pursue behavior which inevitably leads to loss and unhappiness in the long term, yet when that result occurs, the minority will blame the very culture it rejected, for its own self-created trouble.

Fortunately, the modern day seems to have more individual participation than in earlier years. More and more people refuse to accept the social pressure applied by special interest groups and political manipulators. Just as more people marry outside their race and raise mixed-race children, so too do more people work to escape the cycle of defeat imposed by con artists who profit by the game. The lesson is that neither government nor racial activism programs will help resolve the condition faced by individuals, but only the individuals themselves must choose to think, speak, and act according to their own character and ideals. And when they do so, such individuals generally find that other people share that same character and those same ideals, regardless of cultural heritage or superficial appearance. In my neighborhood, four races share a community with similar values. We all work hard and focus on raising our families, we all love our kids and want to build for the future. We all cooperate in common endeavors and we all ignore the sort of people whose only motives are based on hate and suspicion.

MBA Update

Well, mid-terms are nine and ten days away, so naturally it’s time for me to catch up on some blogging. Seriously, it’s struck me that an update on my school work might serve a purpose.

I’m taking three courses this summer, and here’s how I am doing so far. Each course assigns a total of 1000 points, and so to get an A I need 900 points or better. Here’s the position for each class so far:

Strategic Cost Management

Grades so far:
Reading 1 – 20 out of 20 (100%)
Case Study 1 – 70 out of 75 (93%)
Reading 2 – 18 out of 20 (90%)
Reading 3 – 20 out of 20 (100%)
sub-total: 128 out of 135 (94.8%) Ceiling is 99.3%


Grade pending:
Group Case 1 – worth 75 points

After this grade, 21% of the grades will have been awarded.


Coming up:
Reading 4 – worth 20 points
Group Case 2 – worth 75 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 300 points

After June, 60.5% of the grades will have been awarded.



Management & Organizational Behavior

Grades so far:
Assignment 1 – 15 out of 15 (100%)
Assignment 2 – 65 out of 65 (100%)
Research Paper Outline – 20 out of 20 (100%)
Quiz 1 – 7 out of 10 (10%)
sub-total: 107 out of 110 (97.3%) Ceiling is 99.7%

Grade pending:
Quiz 2 – worth 10 points
Quiz 3 – worth 10 points

After this grade, 13% of the grades will have been awarded


Coming up:
Quiz 4 – worth 10 points
Quiz 5 – worth 10 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 150 points

After June, 30% of the grades will have been awarded



Business Statistics and Strategic Cost Management

Grades so far:
Homework DB 1 – 25 out of 25 (100%)
Homework DB 2 – 25 out of 25 (100%)
Case Study 1 – 100 out of 100 (100%)
sub-total: 150 out of 150 (100.0%) Ceiling is 100.0%


Grade pending:
Homework DB 3 – worth 25 points

After this grade, 17.5% of the grades will have been awarded


Coming up:
Homework DB 4 – worth 25 points
Case Study 2 – worth 100 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 250 points

After June, 55% of the grades will have been awarded


So, at this time it should be obvious that early points do not count all that heavily, yet are important to collect if you want good chances to get an A. The Mid-Terms, no surprise, count heavily, and the pace of work will increase as I move into the final month of the semester. I also need to register for the Fall Semester when registration opens in the last week of June.