Road Trip to Texas

When traveling with someone, take large doses of patience and tolerance with your morning coffee.

   - Helen Hayes (1900-1993), American stage and screen actress

I'll be away for a couple of weeks and there will be no posting. The wife and I will be driving, yes driving, to Texas to visit one of our sons who lives in Fort Worth. We both know this trip will test our marriage for we've never been in the car together for two weeks straight. Our travel preferences differ greatly--she's a "get there as quickly as possible" person; I'm a "why don't we go down this little road and see what's there?" type. We both hate to compromise. Wish us luck.

I've been fighting the urge to give up on this little project so maybe the time away will re-ignite my enthusiasm for continuing to blog. Sometimes, as I've discovered in the past, getting away from an activity that I've been excited about but gradually lost interest in helps me to get refocused and return with renewed passion. Let's see if it works this time.

In the meantime, everyone take good care of yourselves, be kind to each other and stay safe wherever you may be.

Ron 

Be Careful What You Wish For

A man is never on trial as in the moment of excessive good fortune.

   - Lew Wallace (1827-1905), American writer, statesman

Sometime earlier today the AOL Welcome Screen featured a story, actually a rather sad one, about people who have won the lottery. It seems to have disappeared from the screen as I write this, but I think the link still works. If it doesn't you can try this one over at Yahoo! Finance. I believe it's still up.

I've never known anyone who actually won the lottery, so I have no personal knowledge about what happens to a person when they suddenly come into tons of money. Ellen Goodstein has done some research though, and what she has discovered should make anyone think twice about the potential downside of striking it rich. Just listen to some of the stories:

"Winning the lottery isn't always what it's cracked up to be," says Evelyn Adams, who won the New Jersey lottery not just once but twice (1985, 1986) to the tune of $5.4 million. Today the money is all gone and Adams lives in a trailer.

Adams couldn't say no to those who wanted to share in her good fortune nor could she stay away from the slot machines in Atlantic City.

Perhaps if the prize were larger a person could hang on to enough to still call himself wealthy. William Post won $16.2 million, three times more than Ms. Adams, yet today he lives on his Social Security:

"I wish it never happened. It was totally a nightmare," says Post.

A former girlfriend successfully sued him for a share of his winnings. It wasn't hisonly lawsuit. A brother was arrested for hiring a hit man to kill him, hoping to inherit a share of the winnings. Other siblings pestered him until he agreed to invest in a car business and a restaurant in Sarasota, Fla.,--two ventures that brought no money back and further strained his relationship with his siblings.

Within a year, he was $1 million in debt.

Missourian Janite Lee won even more than Mr. Post--$18 million to be exact. Alas, she too was unable to manage her windfall:

Lee was generous to a variety of causes, particularly politics, education and the community. But according to published reports, eight years after winning, Lee had filed for bankruptcy with only $700 left in two bank accounts and no cash on hand.

Ms. Goodstein relates account after account of lottery winners who hit the jackpot, enjoyed their new wealth for a short time, then found themselves entangled in financial nightmares that ultimately resulted in the loss of all they had won. How does something like that happen?

Goodstein cites financial expert Susan Bradley who tells us that many lottery winners go broke:

Going broke is a common malady, particularly with the smaller winners. Say you've won $1 million. What you've really won is a promise to be paid $50,000 a year. People win and they think they're millionaires. They go out and buy houses and cars and before they know it, they're in way over their heads.

She says there is an emotional connection to the windfall that many winners fail to address:

There are two sides to money. The interior side is the psychology of money and the family relationship to money. The exterior side is the tax codes, the money allocation, etc.

The goal is to integrate the two. People who can't integrate their interior relationship with money appropriately are more likely to crash and burn.

Often they can keep the money and lose family and friends--or lose the money and keep the family and friends--or even lose the money and lose the family and friends.

The bottom line (no pun intended) in all this is that being really wealthy is much more complicated than most of us would ever believe. Should you ever be fortunate enough to suddenly become the lucky recipient of mega-millions, Ms. Bradley suggests that you immediately set up a decision-free-zone:

Take time out from making any financial decisions. Do this right away. For some people it's smart to do it before you even get your hands on the money.

People who are not used to having money are fragile and vulnerable, and there are plenty of people out there who are willing to prey on that vulnerability--even friends and family.

It's not a time to decide what stocks to buy or jump into a new house purchase or new business venture.

It's a time to think things through, sort things out and seek an advisory team to help make those important financial choices.

Good luck. Now excuse me. I've got to go check my PowerBall numbers.

 

There Oughta Be a Law

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.

   - Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Irish born British statesman

The London Daily Telegraph's Philip Johnson is a wee bit upset at the spate of new legislation flowing from his country's parliament. I would imagine that many of his countrymen share his distress. He recalls freer times:

It is said, though less often now than it used to be, that the basis of English liberty is the rule of law, under which everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited. According to A.V.Dicey, the 19th century constitutionalist, this was one of the features that distinguished England from its continental counterparts...

Effectively, this principle limited the scope of the state to intervene in people's lives. Law set boundaries of personal action but did not dictate the course of such action.

Mr. Johnson laments the continuing erosion of British liberty, providing example after example of parliamentary intrusions into the lives of ordinary citizens:

The Housing Bill will make it an offence to place your own home on the market without first spending £600 or more on a home information pack...

By February, or within a few years, depending on what happens in Parliament this week, it will be a crime to mount a horse and ride off in pursuit of a fox...

Since 1997, it has been a criminal offence to possess any handgun, even a .22 calibre, for sporting purposes. An individual whose most aggressive instinct is to fire at a target can no longer do so in this country, even under licence...

Since June, it has been illegal to own a horse, a donkey or a Shetland pony without obtaining an ID card for the animal to ensure it does not poison anyone who eats it...Atthe last count, for we are a law-abiding nation, 400,000 owners had registered their animals, paying £50 or more for a 20-page document that must include a description drawn up by a vet, who, understandably, charges for doing so...Failure to get the "passport" will mean a £5,000 fine or three months' imprisonment, or both...

Pausing, perhaps to catch his breath, Johnson takes a moment to share one of the ironies of all the new legislation:

Yet, at the same time, the Government has introduced a new regulation whereby a thief who steals goods worth £200 or less from a shop will not automatically be arrested and taken to the police station but handed an £80 fixed penalty notice, without any criminal record provided it is paid on time.

So, you can go to prison for not getting a horse an ID card when it has been perfectly lawful to own an animal without state interference since our forbears painted their faces blue. But if you are a thief, expect a rap on the knuckles, apparently because it takes up too much police time to deal effectively with "low-grade" shoplifters.

New laws have also been passed prohibiting the use of cell phones in cars even though the car is not moving but the engine is running and criminalizing teenage necking, or "canoodling" as the Brits call it. Setting off a firework after 11 PM is now a crime as well--punishable by a £5000 fine or six months in jail.

Mr. Johnson, obviously writing out of some frustration with all of this, concludes that even the right to exist may be in jeopardy:

Until now, at least it has not been an offence simply to exist; but the Identity Card Bill in next week's Queen's Speech will mean that, from 2007, everyone renewing a passport will be issued with a compulsory ID document and their details entered on a national register.

He has my sympathy. As time goes by, it seems there's a natural tendency for governments to pass more and more laws. Many are well-thought out and necessary to ensure that society functions smoothly, citizens are secure and the thieves among us are appropriately punished for the crimes they commit. But some legislation, as Johnson suggests, seems to be ill-considered and appears to hinder rather than enhance the freedom of those being governed.

I suppose English citizens have the right to express their disapproval to those in power as we do here in the U.S. If they're all as unhappy about what's coming out of London as Johnson seems to be, they need to start writing, calling and e-mailing. Tomorrow would be a good time to begin.

Update: In an earlier Telegraph article by Caroline Davies, Dr. John Reid, Britain's Health Secretary, expresses the bureaucratic viewpoint which raises the ire of Philip Johnson and others like him:

"What people want in today's world is as much support and assistance from the Government as possible to help them make the healthy choices that will give them a better quality of life," he said.

Oh really? Blogger Andrew Sullivan begs to differ. Money quote: We can't even eat anymore without government help?

Good Advice

An obstinate man does not hold opinions--they hold him.

    - Joseph Butler (1692-1752), English theologian

I've been somewhat disenchanted and dismayed by the insults and disparagement being hurled back and forth by both sides since the election. The fracas seems to have a life of its own, and I have found myself pulling away from it, disappointed that the rifts can't seem to be allowed to heal.

I know those who wished for a Kerry win are disappointed. I know those who were pulling for Bush have breathed a sigh of relief. I know there's a tendency on the one hand to bitch about the loss and on the other to gloat over the victory.

Whatever one's inclination, I think it's time to be done with the emotional rejoinders and get on with trying to make the best of the realities we now face. For supporters of both parties I think this means making an attempt to find common ground and working together to do what's best for the country.

With command of the presidency and majorities in both Houses, the GOP runs the risk of allowing its advantages to overshadow the need for bi-partisanship. Awareness of and sensitivity to the issues that are important to the voters who cast their ballots for Kerry will be critical if we are to have any semblance of unity over the next four years. Is cooperation possible? That remains to be seen.

In the meantime, the Dems need to get their act together so they'll be able to run a viable campaign in 2008. I've seen much advice tossed back and forth about how they might accomplish this. I think the best counsel I've come across appeared in this op-ed by Jonathan Gurwitz at the San Antonio Express-News. Gurwitz suggests, and I agree, that our two-party system depends on the vitality of both parties and that the Democrats have some work to do:

Republicans need you to challenge their assumptions in meaningful ways. Right now, you've priced yourselves out of the marketplace of ideas with shrill attacks on the traditions and beliefs that animate most of our fellow citizens.

He follows through with some specific suggestions for the Democratic leadership:

Lose the hate. Successful politics depends ultimately on optimism about the future, not hostility about the past. Personal animus toward Bush has commandeered your partisan vehicle. When you allow the likes of Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy to take the Democratic wheel, they drive your party off a bridge into political oblivion.

End the arrogance and condescension. The necessary corollary to the accusation that Bush is a moron is that anyone who would vote for Bush is also a moron, particularly conservative churchgoers. Liberal columnists are giving this theme expression. Nowhere is it better displayed than in a Slate magazine article with the subtitle, "The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States."

Remember that we are all Americans. The best message from either candidate during the entire election came from John Kerry in his concession speech at Faneuil Hall:

"In an American election, there are no losers. Because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning, we all wake up as Americans. And that--that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth."

Gurwitz closes his piece with a couple of observations:

Dwell on that message as you consider a poll on the Democratic Underground Web site: "Which was more depressing--what happened on 9-11 or what happened the day after Election Day, 2004?" A week after the election, 73 percent incomprehensibly chose 11-3 as more depressing than 9-11.

Start with these basics and they'll lead you to broader truths, such as why 22 of the 27 Democratic congressional candidates supported by the MoveOn PAC went down in defeat.

That's pretty sobering, at least to me it is. Yes, we desperately need a two-party system--now more than ever. My fear is that one will be a long time coming unless some of my liberal friends are willing to face truths they still seem unwilling to face. Hopefully, there are level-headed realists in the Democratic ranks who will step forward, grab the party faithful by the scruff of the neck and convince them to make some hard-nosed, much needed changes before it is too late.

Hat tip to RealClearPolitics for the Gurwitz link.

Update: Syndicated columnist William Raspberry gives us his thoughts about how the healing might begin. Brief registration required. Sorry 'bout that.

Making Up One's Mind

Indecision may or may not be my problem.

   - Jimmy Buffett (1946-     ), American singer, songwriter

In the last couple of weeks I've seen more and more bloggers who were undecided about who they planned to vote for in next week's presidential election take the plunge and name a name. Perhaps the most reasoned and thoughtful outline of the issues that I've seen is on Megan McArdle's weblog, Asymmetrical Information.

Megan gives us her assessment of each candidate's probable impact on such matters as the environment, education, health care, gay marriage, the economy, trade, tax policy, the budget and foreign policy among other things.

If any of you who still don't know which man will get your vote on Tuesday, you may gain some insight that will help you decide by taking a look at McArdle's excellent post.

German Surprise

The only thing that should surprise us is that there are still some things that can surprise us.

    - Francois de la Rochefoucauld, (1613-1680), French writer

Not that it matters but the largest newspaper in Europe, Germany's BILD, has just endorsed Bush for president. I don't know what to make of that in light of most of the continent's alleged dislike of the American chief executive.

Davids Medienkritik weblog has posted an English translation of the editorial and lists the ten--yes, you heard that correctly--ten reasons BILD editors give for their support of the President's re-election. There's also a link to the original German version if you're so inclined.

You may want to take a few minutes and look at BILD's rationale for their endorsement. I'm still scratching my head over the irony here. Who knows? BILD's offices may get torched tonight by angry anti-American Berliners. Such brazenness on the part of their journalists would have to be punished, don't you think?

Thanks for the links are in order for Michael Totten who is posting at Instapundit while Glenn Reynolds is away.

Lady In Red

When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to learn they're not it.

    - Bernard Bailey, American corporate executive

Earlier today I decided to visit one of my favorite little brunch spots and indulge myself a bit. Shortly after I found a comfortable spot to sit, the waitress showed up and took my order: a fluffy seafood omelet, a bowl of creamy grits, one hot buttermilk biscuit, grape jam and a tall glass of freshly squeezed orange juice. I could hardly wait. 

As I settled into my chair I noticed four young ladies being directed to a table near me. Judging from their attire I assumed they were business people and perhaps on their lunch break. 

One of them, dressed in a red sweater and black skirt, was expressing herself rather animatedly as they seated themselves. She continued her discourse as the menus were distributed, was briefly interrupted as orders were taken, and continued chattering as they waited for their meal.

I was mildly amused as I watched her companions' reactions to the monologue. One was feigning interest, making occasional eye contact but interacting not a whit. The other two had these blank stares on their faces, obviously not doing a very good job of concealing their lack of interest. Ms. Chatterbox was oblivious to all of it. She just kept right on talking.

My meal arrived which usually signals the end of any people watching I may be doing. I dug in, intending to concentrate on feeding my face, but continued to be distracted by the lady in red. She was, as some less tactful than I might put it, a real motor mouth.

I spent about 45 minutes from when I sat down until I left the restaurant and she blathered on the entire time I was there. I never could figure out what great truths she was sharing with her three friends. I doubt if they could either.

It was obvious to me after watching and listening for the better part of an hour that she didn't have a clue that she was the only person talking. I left wondering if her three friends would be riding back with her to wherever they worked and if the remainder of the afternoon would be a continuation of what went on at their luncheon. I hope that it wasn't, but I fear that it was.

Update: Listening--David Cornfield tells us how it's done in Why We Don't Listen. Perhaps the lady in red reads my weblog. Awww, that would be asking too much.

What the !#%*@ Do We Know?

There is only one thing about which I am certain, and that is that there is very little about which we can be certain..

    - W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965), English writer

On rare occasions I see a movie that begs for another viewing. I think you know what I'm talking about--one that presents so many possibilities that you know you didn't absorb them all the first time you saw it.  What the !#%*@ Do We Know? is one of those movies. It's about quantum physics.

I'm kidding, right? Nope. I'm not kidding. This is not the quantum physics of your high school or college classroom, at least not like you'd remember it. Think Quantum Physics textbook with diagrams, equations and boring hard-to-understand scientific language. Now think Alice In Wonderland with animation, well-acted scenes and erudite but plain-spoken narrators. In this movie you get the latter, an entertaining and thought-provoking story that will tweak your curiosity and perhaps inspire you to see it more than once.

If you'd like to read a well-written review take a look at this one by Stephen Humphries. Humphries does a good job of capturing one audience's reaction to the film:

By the time the staff of the Metreon cinema had finished sweeping up the last kernels of popcorn in the theater aisles, no one had left their seats--over 600 people were buzzing about the independent movie that poses metaphysical questions such as "Is matter real?" and "What effect does thought have on our bodies and our experience?"

It made such an impact on me that I decided I wanted to learn more about quantum theory. A rather heavy subject, yes, but the film simplified it to a degree that I felt I could handle it. A trip to the local bookstore resulted in the purchase of John Gribbin's In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. I finished it tonight and must admit that I'm afraid to look in the box to see if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.

The book was a bit of a struggle for me even though Gribbin made a Herculean effort to write so that a layman could understand what he was saying. Alas, my frame of reference where science is concerned made his task virtually impossible. I won't say he failed, but he came up miserably short. 

Faced now with the embarrassment of going back to the bookstore and asking for something more basic, like a quantum physics comic book, or seeing the movie again as a refresher course, I think I'll opt for the movie. It's more fun.

Why don't you check out the film's website? Who knows? You may want to learn a little more about quantum physics too.

Saving Civilization

Everyone realizes that one can believe little of what people say about each other. But it is not so widely realized that even less can one trust what people say about themselves.

   - Rebecca West (1892-1983), English journalist

PC Magazine's John Dvorak has written an entertaining column titled The Zeros vs. the Ones in which he predicts "the Internet will prove to be the undoing of society and civilization as we know it." He cites politics as an example in making his point:

Just look at politics. Thanks to the Net and the so-called New Media, the entire political scene has become one massive virtual Hyde Park corner filled with kvetching, squabbling bores...

Rather than benefit from intelligent debate, the public is subjected to a lot of bickering fanned by the Internet. I used to think that everyone was entitled to his opinion, but no longer. Most opinions are worthless. As a culture, we are trained never to believe or say that opinions are worthless. For some reason, opinions are supposed to be revered because, uh, well, it's free speech!

John suggests there are simply "too many opinions from too many people--a large number of whom are seriously disturbed or feebleminded." He continues his thesis by reminding us that the great majority of bloggers cloak themselves in anonymity, which he believes should give us pause:

Almost everyone on the Net is anonymous. When you see someone on the street handing out a flyer, it is usually not hard to determine whether he or she is a lunatic. Not so with the haughty blogger who, by hiding behind a good online template, is actually taken seriously. A blogger who stays hidden long enough may even become famous. I know, not every blogger is a whack job--but that's the point. How can you tell?

Dvorak's on-line experiences lead him to believe that the anonymity of the Web encourages some people to pretend they're someone other than themselves:

I first noticed it with alter egos cropping up in e-mail, newsgroups, and especially online chatrooms, where true dweebs are suddenly transformed into Don Juans. The persona thing sometimes goes into new dimensions as boys are turned into men, men pretend to be women, and women turn into sex fiends. Just keep the lights turned off.

Not being one to identify a problem without offering a solution, he tells us how he would take care of the mess created by the Internet:

If it were up to me, I'd shut down the Net tomorrow and make people get out of the house and mingle. By the time the liberal and conservative extremes, incensed by blog-driven blather, leave the house, it will be as two swarms of locusts hell-bent on revolution--or on battling each other: The Zeros versus the Ones.

I suppose after such strident criticism by a celebrated columnist I should consider closing down Think It Over  even though it sports a well designed AOL template and a color portrait of yours truly. John gets the big bucks for sharing his views with thousands of PC Magazine's readers so you'd assume he knows what he's talking about, wouldn't you? 

I, on the other hand, am one of the lowly bloggers of whom he speaks. It's probably doubtful that I am offering anything of value to the 14 people who read my journal each day. So Mom, brothers, nephew, wife, friends and acquaintances--when you sign on tomorrow, go to your "Favorite Site" and get a "Page Not Found," you'll know what happened: John Dvorak has convinced me that I should be doing more mingling than writing, and my immediate resignation is required in order to save civilization.

Maybe I'll drive over to Harold's Diner in the morning and break bread with the locals. Surely none of the breakfast patrons will want to talk politics or have any opinions, and I will be safe there. Thanks John. 

Brits Meddle With Ohioans

You will always find some Eskimos ready to instruct the Congolese on how to cope with heat waves.

   - Stanislaw J. Lec (1909-1966), Polish writer

Someone at The Guardian newspaper in Great Britain decided to recruit its readers to launch a letter writing campaign in hopes of influencing U.S. voters in Clark County, Ohio. Ohio, as the pollsters remind us, is one of the swing states in this election and Clark County has been identified as a place where Bush and Kerry are neck and neck. The Guardian, being a rather liberal publication and having no use for our current president, would like to see Kerry elected come November.

Well, the Brits' letters began arriving yesterday and many Clark County residents are not all that happy with our "across the pond" neighbors' interest in how Ohioans cast their votes. Terry Brown is one of those people:

Terry Brown had received a letter from a Scottish Guardian reader. The navy veteran and retired lorry builder was "offended" as he read the polite note, from Nicola Smith of West Lothian, with its denunciation of the Iraq war as a "farce," and closing plea to remove from power "the parties responsible for this war."

Mr. Brown looked out at his front garden, decorated with a US flag on a tall pole, a giant carving of an American eagle and a wooden cross marked: "September 11, 2001."

"I feel very strongly that this was an invasion of my privacy," he said. "The right of my wife and myself to decide whom to vote for should not be affected by any other country. That was a freedom we fought for many years ago. It was 1776." 

The Guardian editors were able to buy a list of what they thought were undecided voters from Clark County officials, which is interesting in itself. They then published the list on their website and urged their readers to write those whose names appeared on it in an effort to persuade them to vote for Kerry. Unfortunately, there was a slight problem with the list:

But the newspaper misunderstood Ohio polling law, according to the county's elections supervisor, Linda Rosicka. Being "undeclared" on the roll means someone did not choose to vote in the last two party primaries, in which party candidates are chosen. "It doesn't have anything to do with being undecided," she said.

So instead of the letters going to real "undecideds," most of them went to partisans. Oops! On top of this little glitch, many of The Guardian's letter writers were left-wing celebrities who perhaps were less restrained in their criticism of Bush and the US than were average citizens who decided to correspond with the Americans: 

Ken Loach, the film director, began his letter: "Friends, you have the chance to do the world a favour. Today, your country is reviled across continents as never before. You are seen as the greatest bully on earth."

Antonia Fraser, the historian, suggested: "If you back Kerry, you will be voting against a savage, militaristic foreign policy of pre-emptive killing, which has stained the great name of the US so hideously in recent times."

The Guardian project "has sparked disdain from the Right, and dismay from Kerry campaigners." Hundreds of letters and e-mails are finding their way back to The Guardian and a majority are highly critical of the British intrusion into the affairs of American citizens.

What did they expect, I wonder? Probably not what they got. Can you imagine the reaction of the British, the Australians or the Canadians if we Americans pulled a similar stunt and began writing individual voters about who they should or shouldn't vote for? Arrogance may produce results I suppose, but I believe the results this time will be the opposite of what was intended--at least in Clark County, Ohio.   

 

Taxes, Outsourcing and Social Security

"An economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's."

    - Will Rogers (1879-1935), American humorist

Arizona State professor Edward Prescott recently shared some of his views about the U.S. economy with Russ Wiles of The Arizona Republic. Wiles asked him to comment on the impact of taxes on economic growth:

" 'That's an easy one,' said Edward Prescott, the Arizona State University professor who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics.

'When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up,' he said in a phone interview Monday with The Arizona Republic."

Prescott, who supports the president's tax policy, declared that Kerry's proposal to roll back the tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000 a year would be counter-productive:

"Prescott, speaking from Minnesota, where he advises the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, described Kerry's plan to roll back tax cuts for top wage-earners as counterproductive.

'The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid,' he said.

Bush's campaign on Monday released a letter signed by Prescott and five other Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's proposal to roll back tax reductions for families earning $200,000 or more.

In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.

'It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household,' Prescott said. 'We want those highly educated, talented people to work.' "

Prescott also questioned Kerry's claims that outsourcing jobs to countries where labor costs are cheaper is damaging the economy:

" 'All the rich countries are economically integrated,' he said, citing a jump in productivity and wealth in Western Europe after Germany, France and neighboring nations formed the Common Market after World War II.

By contrast, Prescott cited high tariffs imposed by the United States as a 'disaster' that exacerbated the Great Depression.

'All economists are for free trade,' he said."

Mr. Prescott also believes that reforming Social Security by allowing people to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in private savings accounts is a good idea and would incent more people to work. I assume his logic here is that giving workers the opportunity to increase the size of their retirement fund would provide that incentive. 

He suggests that such an arrangement would eventually lead to more tax revenues for the government. If I'm continuing to follow his logic correctly, the resultant larger base of worker/taxpayers would generate more revenue without having to burden anyone with additional tax increases.

This all makes sense to me but I must admit that I've always been in favor of minimal taxes and maximum ownership. If that's not your cup of tea, you don't have to look very far to find someone who disagrees with Prescott's theories. There's always Paul Krugman and, let's don't forget, John Kerry.

 

Across Party Lines

"In order to remain true to oneself one ought to renounce one's party three times a day."

    - Jean Rostand (1894-1977), French biologist

A friend of mine sent me a link to a London Times op-ed by Sarah Baxter, a Brit who is also a citizen of the U.S. She supported the Labour Party while living in England, so it was quite natural for her to register as a Democrat when she moved to this country. November 2 will be her first time to vote in America and she says she's voting for Dubya, not Kerry, to lead the nation for the next four years:

"I will be one of the millions voting for Bush because I trust the president's judgment on the war on terror more than Kerry's. In this election, I am a single-issue voter. It is that simple. Even in the New York metropolis, there are more of us out there than he imagines...

My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush's defeat. They do not deserve to win, even if Bush deserves to lose, a position I am not quite willing to concede."

Ms. Baxter says her "vote for Bush involves a fair amount of gritting of teeth" because she is not a Republican and can generate little enthusiasm for most of the policies of the GOP. She cares not a whit that the rich may have to pay more taxes, is a pro-choice advocate on the issue of abortion, favors more federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, supports expanding free health care and is against the death penalty. Despite all this, she can't bring herself to vote Democratic because she doesn't believe Kerry will deal effectively with terrorism:

"I am determined my children will grow up in a world of increasing democracy where terrorists are captured, tyrants overthrown. When Bush said in last week's debate: 'We can be safe and secure if we go on the offense against terrorism and if we spread liberty around the world,' I felt he spoke with conviction. When Kerry said he was going to 'hunt and kill' the terrorists, I heard a politician's soundbite...

On foreign policy, Bush is the idealist and Kerry the conservative, afraid to disturb the status quo. I've never abandoned my belief in human rights and democracy...

At best, he [Bush] is advancing the cause of freedom and democracy. I was very moved by the long line of Afghans queueing to vote for the first time in their lives last weekend. Overwhelmingly, they were proud and happy to cast their ballots...

Kerry has nothing to say about Afghan democracy. His official campaign website still whines that the Afghan presidential elections are 'seriously threatened by the prospect of warlord intimidation' despite the fact that they have already taken place peacefully."

Ms. Baxter has a few other problems with Kerry too, but it's the foreign policy thing that is the deal breaker for her. Her strong opinions are not solely based on perceptions gained by listening to the debates either.

When she was a cub reporter in the late 1980s she was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. She had an opportunity to personally interact with Hamas leaders as she was doing research for a story about them. That experience provided her with new perspective:

"...I was disturbed that the Hamas leaders I met would never look me in the eye. To them, it was indecent even to glance at a member of the inferior sex. All their answers were directed at my boyfriend, who was taking pictures. But they were cooperative and eager for publicity.

We were taken upstairs in a mosque and, to my shock, were introduced to a dozen or more would-be suicide bombers in their mid-teens, who declared their fervent wish to martyr themselves for their cause.

At the time, there had been no suicide bombs in Israel. Some Hezbollah members in Lebanon had blown themselves up, but they were Shi'ite Muslims: Palestinian Sunnis were not supposed to go in for that sort of thing. Yet here I was, looking at a bunch of boys with kaffirs masking their faces, brandishing knives and practising karate in a place of worship. These weren't boy scouts in a church hall; they were being trained to become fanatical killers by their religious elders...

When mosques are raided by US forces, I am not surprised. I know mosques are used as terrorist bases. I expect most of the young men I talked to are now dead or sitting in an Israeli jail. They were triumphalist about the global spread of Islam and confident that it would one day dominate the planet. They hated the West, they wanted to kill Jews, and none of them had ever heard of George W. Bush."

Sarah Baxter may be an anomaly: that lone Democrat who believes that the war on terrorism trumps all other issues and cannot vote for her party's candidate because she fears he won't take an aggressive stance against our enemies. She may be the exception, though I think she's not. I believe there are many others just like her, and they will make a huge difference come November 2. 

I hope you'll take the time to read her entire story, even if you don't think you can agree with her.

 

And the Winner Will Be...

"The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice--their choice."

    - Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th American president

The Chicago Tribune has done a pretty good job of capturing the essence of several key positions of our two presidential candidates in its recent editorial "Two Men, Two Visions, Revealed."

They start with an assessment of their different approaches on national security:

"Kerry puts more faith in diplomacy, summit meetings and international alliances to help protect America. Bush won't cede as much trust; he believes in a more self-reliant America that isn't deterred when the world chooses not to engage.

Kerry is on record as saying he would respond--a revealing choice of words--aggressively to terror attacks. Bush essentially says he would continue to take the battle to the terrorists overseas--pre-emptively and with casualties--rather than have those fights on U.S. streets."

I'm for diplomacy too but believe that the economic and strategic interests of countries like France, Germany and Russia trump their willingness to aid us in our fight against terror. When standing with us means aggression against a country such as Iraq where they had so many economic ties, they become very reluctant warriors.

As for waiting until we're attacked before we respond, that's a totally unacceptable policy to me. I am hopeful that the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq will send a message to countries like Syria, Iran and Pakistan that harbor terrorists, and we'll be able to deal with the threats they pose without using our military. Libya's decision to voluntarily disarm leads me to believe it's a possibility.  But if pre-emptive force is necessary to prevent an attack on our homeland, then so be it. I'm not willing to have one of our cities nuked if we can prevent that by striking first. I pray that will never be necessary, but if it is I would support it.

After a discussion about the candidates' differences on the handling of the war in Iraq, the Tribune's editorial staff outlines each of their positions on government spending, my personal hot button:

"Don't look for Bush or Kerry to make the hard choices necessary to begin balancing the government's checkbook. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition says Bush's taxing and spending proposals will grow the deficit by $1.33 trillion over the next decade; Kerry's proposals, including a massive health program, would grow it by $1.27 trillion. In their second debate, Kerry blasted Bush for engineering the country's first wartime tax cut. Kerry then added: 'I want to put money in your pocket...I have a proposal for a tax cut for all people earning less than $200,000.' No profiles in courage here."

I've constantly written my congressmen and the president about excessive spending for the past two years. The level of government spending is appalling and I will continue to voice my protests to anyone who will listen. Kerry is not a satisfactory alternative to me because his liberal record in the Senate leads me to believe he would spend just as extravagantly as Bush has. He doesn't walk his talk. In addition, he has said he would implement tax increases that I believe would have a detrimental effect on the growth of our economy. So I'm sticking with Bush here, but I plan to protest loudly and often no matter who gets elected.

The Tribune's editorial also had some comments about what both men have said about job creation:

"Presidents don't create jobs; small businesses and big companies do. And yet, as Newsweek economics columnist Robert Samuelson succinctly put it last month: 'Where [Kerry and Bush] agree is the presumption that presidents can deliver prosperity. Politicians, the press and the public all buy into this notion. Unfortunately, it isn't even a half-truth. More like a sixteenth. A president's policies do affect the economy. But they're just one of many influences. The others (including the business cycle, technology and the Federal Reserve) usually dominate.' Amen.

Wednesday night, Bush and Kerry again each clung to the fiction that he'll be a better Jobs Fairy than the other guy. Bush has correctly claimed that his tax cuts stimulated job creation, and Kerry has correctly claimed that those tax cuts raised the federal deficit. Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent; Kerry wants to raise taxes on high earners. Voters can pick their poison. But again, presidents don't create jobs."

I would add another amen. They're both full of it when they try to make us believe they have enough control over the American economy to be able to create jobs. The only jobs any president has ever created are government jobs, and I want fewer of those, not more.

As we make progress on the war on terror and the world settles into a more peaceful mode, consumer demand will pick up and economies will begin to grow. Then, and only then, will we see a significant resurgence in job creation. My belief is that going on the offensive in the war on terror as Bush has done will allow us to achieve peace more quickly than if we take Kerry's more defensive approach in dealing with these threats. And with peace will come prosperity, not only for us, but for other countries in the world.

The last line in the editorial sums up everything rather nicely:

"Listening to Kerry parse tax policy is to know who has the bigger brain. To listen to Bush talk about faith and family is to know who has the bigger heart."

My brain has almost turned to mush what with the constant hammering of the pundits, pollsters, analysts, broadcasters, newspapermen, bloggers and others trying to influence my decision about who to choose to lead our country over the next four years. With 17 days left before we saddle up and head for the polls to cast our votes, I'll make this prediction: the man I plan to vote for, George W. Bush, will win the election--and it won't be close.

 

 

Snake Oil Salesmen

"...most politicians have trained themselves to think thoughts that are useful, not thoughts that are necessarily true."

   - David Brooks, syndicated columnist

This past Monday John Edwards was giving a speech in Iowa and made the following promise:

"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases...When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Yes, he did. He really said that.

Republican Bill Frist says statements such as this mislead people who are suffering from tragic diseases and give them false hope. Someone once said, "False hope is better than no hope at all," but when you're the one who is incurably ill and facing your own mortality, having some politician suggest if he is elected he'll make you well is a real stretch.

Investors Business Daily, where the editorial about Edwards's speech was published, says "...the political charge that Bush is the only thing that stands between the sick and miracle cures because he's banned research on stem cells is demonstrably false." IBD then outlines some of the stem cell research that is currently taking place: 

"Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on existing stem cell lines has grown from zero in 2001 to $28.4 million, with no limits on future funding. Last year, the National Institutes of Health funded $190 million in 'adult' stem cell research on, for example, cells from bone marrow or placental tissue.

At the same time, state governments and the private sector are supporting research outside federal guidelines, with one study estimating that 1,000 scientists at more than 30 firms spent $208 million experimenting on embryonic and adult stem cells in 2002 alone."

They go on to point out that we are nowhere "close to a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or anything else. In Reader's Digest earlier this year, Reeve himself seemed to acknowledge that fact, saying: 'It appears, though, at the moment, that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating acute injuries and are not able to do much about chronic injuries.' "

Not only does John Edwards seem to be unwilling to acknowledge the lack of progress in embryonic stem cell research, but so does John Kerry.

In the second presidential debate Kerry mentioned that scientists had told him that "we have the option of curing Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries, or any other disease using embryonic stem cells."

Robert P. George, a professor at Princeton University, would like to know who those scientists are:

"...the Bush campaign should defy him to name the names. He won't be able to do it. No scientists--even those most pro-Kerry and aggressively in favor of the federal funding of embryo-destructive research--ever told Kerry any such thing.

...No one knows when--or even whether or not--human embryonic stem cells will be therapeutically useful in treating any major disease or injury. There are profound--perhaps insuperable--problems with the therapeutic use of these cells."

Professor George recalls the question that Elizabeth Long asked Kerry in the St. Louis Town Hall debate:

"Thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical-cord cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"

George says that Kerry answered Ms. Long with a lie, "a lie that will falsely inflate the hopes of countless people who would dearly love to believe that 'we have the option' of curing them."

Maybe I'm being a little harsh on these guys. Maybe they really don't know what's going on. Maybe they're not that informed about this research. But you'd think a former trial lawyer like John Edwards, who earned millions suing doctors and insurance companies would be better informed, wouldn't you? And Kerry, who has spent weeks preparing for the debates by arming himself with facts about every conceivable issue would have the details too, wouldn't you?

Maybe they forgot.

Update: Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer throws his hat in the ring with this piece titled "Anything to Get Elected." My thanks to Townhall.com for the link. 

 

 

 

Who Stands for the Innocent?

"There is only one way in which one can endure man's inhumanity to man and that is to try, in one's own life, to exemplify man's humanity to man."

    - Alan Paton (1903-1988), South African writer

Everytime I read another account like this one it turns my stomach. It's mankind's worst nightmare. Can any of us imagine what might have been the last thoughts of these men, women and children minutes before they were executed and tossed into the ditches that had been dug to hold their bodies? Their lives were about to end at the whim of a tyrant. There was no good Samaritan to stand between them and the bullets that would tear through their bodies. Their executioners had their orders and they carried them out.

The tragic part of the story is that it has been told over and over throughout history, not only in Iraq, but in China, Rwanda, South Africa, Russia, Sudan, Germany and yes, even America. It is the story of men murdering their fellow man because they are somehow different and therefore unacceptable to those who happen to be in power at the moment. It is the story of man's inhumanity to man.

How much longer will we have to witness such heinous behavior by human beings toward other human beings? How much longer before men are able to live peaceably with other men despite their differences? How much longer before atrocities such as these will no longer be tolerated by the nations of the world?

I wish I could say that cruelty such as this would end tomorrow and believe it, but I fear the correct answer is: It will never end.  And that's sad, really sad, to me.

Tolerating Terrorism

"Let the fear of danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears not, gives advantage to the danger."

    - Francis Quarles (1592-1644), English poet

After reading a New York Times piece by Matt Bai in which John Kerry made some remarks about terrorism, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had a few things to say in response:

"For some time...I've wondered exactly what John Kerry's approach would be to terrorism and I've wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

I'm wondering when Senator Kerry thought they were a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?"

Giuliani then elaborates on how unrealistic Kerry's view of the threat of terrorism is and how markedly different it is from what he and the President believe:

"This is so different from the President's view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don't confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that's when you're at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days--I'm assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s--they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he's not defining it correctly."

Giuliani's interpretation of what Kerry said is that the Democratic candidate believes there's some "acceptable level of terrorism." Rudy feels that such a stance from a man who wants to be our commander-in-chief is frightening:

"How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people who are killed, that we're going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we'll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry's thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking."

The Kerry consistency to which Giuliani refers is revealed in many ways: (1) the candidate's stance on Vietnam--that abandoning that country was the right thing to do; (2) his record of opposing the Reagan arms buildup necessary to win the Cold War; (3) his opposition to the Persian Gulf War despite having a U.N. resolution and a multi-nation coalition, which he now harps on ad nauseam with regard to Iraq; and (4) his proposal to significantly reduce our intelligence budget shortly after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  

Giuliani says the core of John Kerry's philosophy on terrorism is that it "is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we're ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?" He contrasts this with the President's approach:

"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made--significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we're going to face up to terrorism and we're going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There's no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there's no reason to tolerate organized crime."

I think Rudy has it right. I think John Kerry, despite the events of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in other parts of the world, views terrorism as only a nuisance, something akin to prostitution and illegal gambling, as he likes to put it. If Giuliani's assessment is correct, and I think it is, Kerry's election and subsequent abandonment of an aggressive offensive against terrorists would undo all that we have achieved thus far. It would leave Afghanistan and Iraq in the lurch, inviting our enemies to re-establish their tyrannical rule in these countries. It would diminish our standing as an ally to any who need our help and further reinforce the view held in much of the Muslim world that we are a "paper tiger," strong in the initial phases of battle but unwilling to press on when things get tough.

Update: Two well known columnists weigh in on what Kerry said in the New York Times interview with Matt Bai. Max Boot, writing for the Los Angeles Times, tends to agree with Giuliani's assessment. Tom Friedman's op-ed in the New York Times gives Kerry the nod. Both are worth a read. You may have to register in order to access them. Thanks to Real Clear Politics for the links.    

 

John-Boy Edwards

"Young men are apt to think themselves wise enough, as drunken men are apt to think themselves sober enough."

    - Lord Chesterfield (1694-1773), English statesman

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn shares some of his thoughts about the Dick Cheney/John Edwards debate in this piece titled "Edwards Has a Little Growing Up To Do." He says the two debaters were playing different games:

"But in the clash of the veeps it was as if each contestant was playing his own game: One guy was playing a tennis match, the other football. If you thought you were watching the Super Bowl, the football guy was clearly the winner. If you thought you were at Wimbledon, the tennis guy was serving aces."

Only Steyn would think of the event in this way, but he has a point. As my wife and I watched the two going at it I remember thinking how different the two men are, not only in age and bearing, but in the manner they go about presenting their arguments. Mr. Steyn put it this way:

"I loved Cheney's performance because I think he's in tune with the times: grown-up, unflashy, deadly serious. Edwards, on the other hand, driveling on like a Depression-era sob sister about the 'bright light' of America now 'flickering' is one of the funniest acts I've seen...

I don't care about Edwards' dad and his heartwarming, sepia-hued vignettes any more than I cared about the mythical 'coatless girl' he used to cite in his primary speeches: a wee shivering thing whose coatlessness was supposedly a result of Bush-Cheney reducing her parents to poverty...

So, when John Edwards starts doing his John-Boy Walton routine, I say put a sock in it. If necessary, borrow a sock from the coatless girl, if her dad hasn't sold her socks to raise the trolley-car fare to send her for an interview for the chimney sweep's job at the robber baron's mansion on the other side of town.

I think the Edwards smarmarama is ridiculous. It's all about oil, as the anti-war lefties say, and on Tuesday night the oiliness was practically oozing through the TV screen and all over the floor. If every Democratic candidate was as unctuous and oleaginous as Edwards, gas would be 50 cents a gallon and we could tell the Saudis to go to hell."

Well, I don't know about that, but I do know when the moderator asked these men what qualified them to be commander-in-chief in the event something happened to the president, I hardly listened. I had already made up my mind, perhaps before the debate even started. 

Throughout the 90 minute broadcast as I watched the candidates, I tried to imagine each of them sitting in the Oval Office as the leader of the free world. Try as I might, there was no way I could picture Edwards in that position. Gephardt--yes, Lieberman--yes, but Edwards? Frankly, even if I were inclined to vote for Senator Kerry, having Edwards on his ticket would keep me from doing so.

As Steyn so aptly puts it, "In time of war, free peoples don't stay free if they look to a smooth-talking shyster-president to shelter them in the embrace of the nanny state." I  agree with his assessment. Edwards comes across as the smooth talking trial lawyer who will say anything to win his case, and he's smooth to the point of appearing phony. Vice-president? A heart-beat from the presidency? Perish the thought.

Update: Paul Greenberg weighs in with "The Not-So-Boyish Charm of Dick Cheney."  Thanks to Townhall.com for the link.

An Afghanistan Milestone

"A nation which makes the final sacrifice for life and freedom does not get beaten."

 - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938), 1st Turkish president

Is this great news or what? Tomorrow, millions of Afghans will go to the polls and vote for someone to lead their newly free country. Getting to this point has not been without its difficulties, many of them fatal. Nevertheless, these feisty people have persevered through it all and for the first time in almost 40 years will have a voice in choosing who their leaders will be.

Scott Norvell over at Tech Central Station calls it "The Little Election That Could" and tells us how excited Afghans are about the coming event:

"They seem genuinely excited. Almost everyone does. In the markets, people are actually talking about the vote. Some are driving around with pictures of candidates in their car windows. Posters of every hue cover the walls of central Kabul. Even one of the much-maligned warlords--men more inclined to saber-rattling than campaign rallies--jumped into the fray."

Certainly the process will not be perfect, but it's happening-- despite the efforts of terrorists to prevent it, the unavailability of sophisticated voting procedures and the negative voices of critics here in the U.S. These people want to exercise their right to vote enough to risk their lives doing it. That's a pretty sobering thought when you consider the lack of commitment many Americans have where getting out to vote is concerned.

Might we learn something from the determination these people have shown in their march to freedom over the past couple of years? They're certainly good examples, not only for us, but for other countries in the Middle East. Word of their success should help pave the way for Iraq at least, and possibly others as they see the beginnings of a democracy taking hold in their part of the world.

Update: Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes provides more detail in this New York Post piece and opines about the ramifications of successful elections in Afghanistan.

Hat tip to Real Clear Politics for the links. 

Update: Fifteen of President Hamid Karzai's opponents are calling for a boycott of today's election. It was discovered that the ink used to mark each voter's fingers to prevent a person from voting multiple times could be washed off. Oops.

It seems to me that something so simple could have been checked before election day. What was supposed to be an historic occasion for these folks has been spoiled, not by a terrorist attack, but by not having the proper type of ink on hand. Stunning. Simply stunning. 

Update: Karzai's main challenger, Yunus Qanooni, has backed away from a boycott of the Afghanistan elections. He says he will accept an investigation of claims of vote-fraud by a panel of independent experts. He says the "national interest is my highest interest." This is good news.   

 

Buying U.N. Security Council Votes

"Honesty stands at the gate and knocks, and bribery enters in."

  - Barnabe Rich (c. 1540-1617), English author, soldier

It should be interesting to see how John Kerry uses the findings of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) when he debates the President in tomorrow night's Town Hall forum. My guess is he'll repeat what dozens of mostly liberal major media outlets who are summarizing its findings as "no WMD found" have reported, and hope that no one is familiar enough with the truth to call him on it.

Actually, the ISG uncovered a ton of damning evidence against Saddam Hussein and the U.N. Security Council members who voted against U.S. intervention in Iraq. Glenn Reynolds, in an article titled "Kerry's Case Collapses," outlines the reason he thinks the ISG's report has undermined Kerry's foreign policy position:

"The real centerpiece of Kerry's foreign policy stance, though, has been that he would be better than Bush at getting allies together, and at passing the 'Global Test' before taking military action. And that case is in total collapse this week."

In support of his position, Reynolds makes several points. First, he cites Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski's recent criticism of Kerry's lack of appreciation for the coalition sacrifices in Iraq, and provides a link to a post about this story on the Chrenkoff weblog.

Then he points to The Washington Times coverage of a Kerry speech yesterday in which the Senator admitted to his audience that he may not be able to convince France and Germany to help in Iraq:

"The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign,but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops."

Reynolds says that "the 'Global Test' bit looks kind of bad, in this light. But it looks even worse when you consider the other revelations of the Iraq Survey Group--namely, that most of the opposition to the war came from people who were being bribed by Saddam."

He quotes generously from a Fraser Nelson/James Kirkup story in The Scotsman as he elaborates on how France, Russia and China were bribed by Saddam to vote against the use of force against his country:

"Saddam Hussein believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France--having been granted oil contracts--would veto any American plans for war.

To keep America at bay, he focusing [sic] on Russia, France and China--three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers."

Reynolds sums up his argument with a tongue-in-cheek suggestion for Senator Kerry: 

"It's hard to pass the 'Global Test' when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would 'outbid the bad guys.' That approach is more likely to succeed than the one he's been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed."

I continue to be appalled at the apparent corruption and dishonesty in the French and Russian governments and at the highest levels in the U.N. Having an Islamic extremist jihad underway against the non-Muslim world is bad enough. Having countries who should be allies intentionally sabotaging efforts to fight this insidious enemy in order to satisfy their own greed is worse. It's really a pretty sad situation, and while I hope it will get better, I don't believe there's much chance it will, no matter who our next president happens to be.

Passing Grades--Always

"If the children are untaught, their ignorance and vices will in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences than it would have done in their correction by a good education."

   - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd U.S. president

Syndicated columnist Walter Williams has written an article titled "Believe It or Not" in which he harshly criticizes the academic policy of Benedict College in my home state of South Carolina. Williams says their liberality with regard to grading student performance "defies belief":

"Say I'm a freshman taking your class in biology. I learn little from your lectures, assigned readings and homework. I do attend class every day, take notes and manage to average 40 percent on the graded work for the semester.What grade might you give me? I'm betting that all but the academic elite would say, 'Sorry, Williams, but no cigar,' and I'd earn an F for the course. But if you're a professor at Benedict College and gave me that F, you'd be fired."

That's what happened to Benedict science professors Milwood Motley and Larry Williams who wouldn't go along with the school's Success Equals Effort (SEE) policy and assigned grades based solely on their students' academic performance. Benedict president Dr. David H. Swinton asked the professors to go back and recalculate the grades. They refused, so he canned both of them.

The SEE policy bases 60 percent of a freshman's grade on effort which ensures that only students who voluntarily drop out will fail to become sophomores. Requirements tighten up somewhat in the sophomore year. Then, 50 percent of a student's grade is based on effort. To its credit, in the junior and senior years Benedict assigns grades based on academic performance alone.

Williams thinks Dr. Swinton's SEE policy "borders on lunacy" and leaves its students woefully unprepared for future academic and career challenges:

"Imagine that a freshman gets an A for effort in his algebra class but has virtually no grasp of the material, earning him an F grade. Under the college's SEE policy, the student would be assigned a C for the course. What can we expect when the student takes Algebra II and later takes a course where algebra is a tool? He'll fall further and further behind because he hasn't grasped the material from the earlier courses. He'll graduate only if the fraudulent grading continues, and his job prospects will depend upon racial preferences."

The Success Equals Effort policy appears to be Dr. Swinton's baby, for it lacks support among members of the faculty. Dr. William Gunn is one of those. A professor at the college for the last 40 years, he recently voiced his displeasure about the policy in Columbia's The State newspaper. As I write this Dr. Gunn retains his position at Benedict, but the precedent set with Motley and Williams would indicate that he may have put his career in jeopardy for being so critical of the policy in a public forum.

Personally, I can't see how implementing standards like these could possibly be of value to the students, to those who might employ them after they graduate or to the always important scholastic reputation of the school.

I would think that Benedict students would want to feel that their diplomas represent real achievement, and that the knowledge and skill they gain as they earn them is on par with that of other institutions of higher learning. I would think they would want to know that their education enables them to be competitive with graduates from other colleges. I would think they would want their degrees to be held in the highest esteem by potential employers and the community at large.  I would think they'd want all these things, and more. 

I wonder, when they carry their diplomas off the stage at commencement, if they will feel satisfied that they're fully prepared to venture into the world and seek a livelihood? Given how they earned their degrees, I can't see how they would.

The Tiger Takes a Mate

"Marriage is the process of finding out what kind of man your wife would have preferred."

     - Anonymous

London's Daily Telegraph reporter Richard Alleyne has the scoop on Tiger Woods's marriage yesterday to Swedish model Elin Nordegren:

"Tiger Woods, 28, tied the knot yesteday to Elin Nordegren, a Swedish model, at the 19th hole of the Sandy Lane Golf Resort in Barbados in a ceremony reputedly costing more than £1 million."

What do you get for a million pounds sterling? Try this for starters:

"The golfer, expected to become the first sporting billionaire, hired the five-star complex for a week including its 110 rooms--which cost nearly £5,000 a night each--and three golf courses.

A £32 million, 150ft yacht, named Privacy, has been anchored off the beach exclusively for his 150 guests, said to include Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.

More than 500 roses were delivered to the hotel and a team of hairdressers from the John Frieda salon in west London were flown in."

Mr. Alleyne failed to indicate whether this extravagance helps ensure the couple's long-term prospects. Somehow, I doubt that it does, but it shouldn't keep them from giving it a shot.

I would think that being married to a celebrity as wealthy and widely-traveled as Mr. Woods would be a challenge for any young woman, especially if children become a part of the equation. But others have succeeded. Phil Mickelson, one of Tiger's fellow competitors, and his wife Amy, seem to be a happy pair and they have kids--and lots of money.

So let's take our hats off to Tiger and his new bride for being brave enough to take the plunge.  I wish them the very best as they embark on this new phase of their life. Who knows? Maybe now that he's taken a wife his game will turn around and he'll regain his number one world ranking. 

Favorite Sons Not Favored

"It's failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."

  - Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), Irish poet, novelist, critic

Many lefty bloggers are taking great delight in the fact that the Lone Star Iconoclast, a Crawford, Texas, newspaper has endorsed John Kerry for president.

In the interest of "fair and balanced" reporting, let it also be known that the Lowell Sun of Senator Kerry's home state has come out in favor of re-electing George Bush.

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish reacts with: "A great and ornery country, or what? The irony is amusing, I must admit.

In my opinion, both editorials are worth a read, if for no other reason than to get a sense of what each paper feels are the most important issues in this campaign. If you don't buy into their conclusions, just wait a day or two. There will be many more for you to sample. Who knows? We may become so exhausted by the constant barrage of news and opinion that by November 2nd all of us will be too confused to vote. No kidding.   

Making a Fortune in the Family Business

" 'You have no fortune.' I didn't need a cookie to tell me that."

  - Carrie, "Sex and the City" television series

It's always been fun to me to stumble across something I didn't know about some mundane item from everyday life. Tonight while checking out the interesting Arts and Letters Daily website, I was entertained by this Gabriella Gershenson story about Chinese fortune cookies.

Have you ever wondered how the custom of serving a fortune cookie after a Chinese meal came to be? Have you wondered how they're made? Where they come from? Who invented them? Well, wonder no more. Ms. Gershenson has done the research for us in this NY Press.com report:

"Next time you eat Chinese, pay attention to the cookie wrapper. You may very well find that the brand is Golden Bowl, a division of Brooklyn-based Wonton Food Inc., the largest producer of fortune cookies on the East Coast, and possibly in the country...As astonishing as it may seem, these guys produce and move four million cookies every day."

So many are produced and the company's storage space is so small that if their transport failed to show up for just one day, they wouldn't have a place to put all their cookies.

Wonton is a family business that was founded in 1973 and has grown steadily as new markets have been captured in the U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada and Europe. For whatever reason, they have been unable to develop a market for their cookies in China. Go figure.

Their original 1,000 square foot building has expanded almost ten-fold, and cookies once made one-at-a time now flow by the thousands out of a completely automated process:

"A batter of mostly flour, eggs and sugar is mixed upstairs and transported through a pipe into the main facility, which feeds a machine that releases drops of batter onto heated plates on which the cookies bake like pancakes. A fortune is deposited onto the still-soft cookie disk that is then folded mechanically into its claw-like shape. The entire process happens almost instantaneously."

Surprisingly, many of the fortunes that are baked into the cookies are written by Golden Bowl employees.

The company management claims to be the creator of innovations such as lucky lotto numbers, personalized fortunes and website advertising. These achievements should earn them the distinction of being a fortune cookie business that's on the cutting edge, I would think.

Next time you're in a Chinese restaurant and the server brings you a fortune cookie, take a minute and tell him what you've learned at this post. I bet he'll be impressed.