On The Road Again

"Nothing is inevitable until it happens."

   - A. J. P. Taylor (1906-1990), English historian

I'm going to be out of town until the end of this week thus won't be posting until I return next Thursday or Friday. While I'm away I offer links to several pieces I've enjoyed reading in the recent past:

An American Enterprise interview with Thomas Sowell, noted economist and syndicated columnist.

A Forbes magazine Food and Wine feature about vodka. Interesting from the standpoint of discovering the real difference between the pricey brands such as Grey Goose and Belvedere and the less expensive brands like Smirnoff and Monopolowa.

Orson Scott Card of science fiction fame shares an essay titled "Mud-Covered Presidents" in which he discusses men like Lincoln, Madison, Franklin D. Roosevelt in the same breath as George W. Bush. 

Have you ever heard of something called "talking sticks?" Seems to me that we could find a use for them on many of the shows we're watching where the winner is the person who manages to monopolize the discussion even if what he's saying makes no sense whatsoever.

Patti Davis of Newsweek gives us "The Price of an Opinion." Having your say without being attacked for it is becoming more and more difficult these days no matter what side of the political aisle you find yourself on.

Want to know a little more about the Fair Tax Plan? Neal Boortz gives us the skinny, from his perspective of course, about how this proposed legislation would affect all of us when and if it's enacted.

Speaking of taxes, here's a Detroit News story by Donald Luskin on how the Bush tax cuts have impacted the various income groups across the country.

Finally, Esquire's Tom Junod gives us The Case for George W. Bush, i.e., what if he's right?

All of you take good care of yourselves and each other while I'm gone. See you again at the end of this week.

Ron 

How Can We Lose to This Idiot?

"No prudent antagonist thinks light of his adversaries."

 - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), German playwright

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer tells us about an old chess match in which Latvian grandmaster Aaron Nimzowitsch went ballistic when he lost to an opponent he felt was an inferior player:

"Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, 'How can I lose to this idiot?' "

He goes on to compare Nimzowitsch's outburst to that of the Dems in past election losses to Republican candidates:

"Mr. Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same--with similar body language--ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Reagan. Twice, would you believe. With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic."

Krauthammer believes that vanity and revenge are driving forces in the Democrats' scorn for Bush. Vanity, because they believe their candidate is intellectually and morally superior to the president, and revenge because they believe that Dubya stole the 2000 election. He feels that other forces are at work too:

"But that is not enough to account for the level of venom today. It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him to both Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting president of starting a war ('cooked up in Texas') in order to gain political advantage for his re-election.

The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five best sellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this president, this presidency and all who might, God knows why, support it."

Mr. Krauthammer then humorously suggests that the hissing, sneering, ridicule and derision being heaped on President Bush is being caused by the "Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release." What is that, you may ask?

It really boils down to his belief that the Dems were not permitted, because of the events of 9/11, to adequately vent their hostility and anger about the unfairness of what happened in Florida in November, 2000:

"How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief?"

But then things began happening that gave them some justification for allowing their disdain to re-surface:

"The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMD's, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq...

The result has been volcanic. The subject of one prominent new novel is whether George W. Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged. Good God. What if Bush is re-elected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy."

What if he does win? How will his Democratic opponents react? I doubt that any of them will require therapy, as Krauthammer suggests, but there are going to be a lot of long faces and four years is a long time to stay sad. On the other hand, if their man Kerry wins, the long faces will belong to the Republicans and all good Democrats would probably say that's who should be wearing them. My Democratic friends have told me as much. 

Undeterred by this stubborn pig-headedness, I occasionally make my pitch for Bush to any of them who will listen. The other day after I had just finished explaining to one of them the benefits of re-electing the president, he smiled and said, "We've suffered long enough, haven't we?" I'm not sure if he was talking about Bush or me, but obviously, he was neither impressed nor convinced by my outstanding argument.

I tactfully reminded him that he's only had to endure four years of my man. I endured eight years of his. We laughed, finished our burgers and headed for the first tee. 

Backroads Adventure

"I was going to stay on the three million miles of bent and narrow rural American two-lane, the roads to Podunk and Toonerville. Into the sticks, the boondocks, the burgs, backwaters, jerkwaters, the wide-spots-in-the-road, the don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it towns. Into those places where you say, 'My god! What if you lived here!' The Middle of Nowhere."

   -William Least Heat-Moon, American travel writer

For many years I've had the urge to get in my car, leave the people and places that are familiar to me behind and undertake my own personal journey across this great country of ours. It would be a drive taken with no particular destination or pre-set route in mind, the only criteria being to stick to the backroads as much as practicable, avoid major population centers, and try to connect with as many of the people that I meet along the way as I possibly can.

While sharing this little dream with one of my old friends, he suggested that before I topped off my tank and rode off into the sunset I should read William Least Heat-Moon's book, Blue Highways: A Journey Into America. I'd never heard of it, but made myself a note and sometime later ordered a copy from Amazon. I just finished reading it this evening and would have to say it's the best travel book I've ever read.

Least Heat-Moon, who was born William Trogdon, had just lost his job and separated from his wife when he decided that he would hit the road and try to sort things out. His decision to travel only on blue highways, the secondary roads or "cow-paths" as we've come to call them, took him over 13,000 miles through hundreds of places where he met some of the most memorable characters you could ever imagine. There are black-and-white photos of many of them.  

He writes in a way that makes you feel that you're there beside him as he encounters these ordinary Americans in the little worlds in which they live. With varying degrees of success, he talks with those he meets, and often walks away with life-changing insight they had no idea they'd imparted.

As he draws near the end of his travels, having neither regained his job nor gotten back together with his wife, he thinks about what he's learned during his three months of wandering:

"The circle almost complete, the truck ran the road like the old horse that knows the way. If the circle had come full turn, I hadn't. I can't say over the miles, that I had learned what I had wanted to know because I hadn't known what I wanted to know. But I did learn what I didn't know I wanted to know."

It's really a great read. I would commend it to anyone who enjoys traveling, especially if you prefer the by-ways rather than the inter-states. For those who would like to learn more about the many Americans who make their homes in Really Small Town, USA, you won't find a better means of doing so without making the trip yourself.

As for me, I'm still thinking about my odyssey. At the present time, I've got a dozen reasons why I can't take a couple of months and make it happen. Well, maybe eleven, now that I've read Blue Highways. Happy traveling.

  

What's In a Name?

"I don't care anything about reasons, but I know what I like."

    - Henry James (1843-1916), American writer

Earlier this year just before my wife and I were planning to visit California, a wine connoisseur friend of mine who knows we enjoy wine but don't like to pay an arm and leg for it suggested we try a bottle of Two Buck Chuck while on our trip. "It's not bad and should fit your budget nicely," he quipped.

Well, we never found a place where we could buy any. Every retailer we approached was sold out, and at $1.99 a bottle we began to understand why. The story was the same everywhere: "We can't keep it in stock. As soon as we get a shipment, we get cleaned out. We're having to limit customers to two cases each in order to be fair to everyone."

Interesting, I thought. Here's an inexpensive wine with an unusual name that has the taste of a pricier brand. That should appeal to many people like me whose per bottle price limit is around $10. It seems it does and is part of a growing new trend (brief registration required) in the wine business:

"A small but increasingly visible group of winemakers has created wines with eye-catching, funky labels to complement their funny names--Goats do Roam (a play on Cote du Rhone), Love My Goat, Three Thieves, Tin Roof, Jest Red. The idea is to make wine less intimidating and more popular, especially with the 20's crowd."

Thinking this new marketing ploy might offend the sensibilities of someone like my friend who appreciates fine wine, the last time we were together I questioned him about how price influences his decision about the wine he buys.  He responded by showing me the latest issue of The Wine Spectator and pointed out several brands in the $7-10 range that he said were excellent choices for anyone who enjoys good wine.

He had many of them on hand, and gave us a bottle of Papio Chardonnay to sample at our leisure. In keeping with the funky label philosophy, it featured a three-piece monkey band. I don't know what tune they're playing, but I imagine it's something about making big bucks with lower prices and innovative packaging.

Update: Anyone interested in learning how to taste wine as a professional does can find instructions in The ABC's of Wine Tasting at The Wine Spectator Online. The same techniques apply whether you're sipping Gallo or Chateau d'Yquem Sauternes, so give it a try.

Update: A friend sent me the link to this story about Two Buck Chuck. All is not peaceful in Napa Valley.

 

He Doth Protest Too Much

"Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it."

- Thomas Cooper (1759-1851), English born American educator

I thought this short editorial that I read in this morning's New Hampshire Union Leader captured some of what I've felt myself thinking about the Kerry campaign's reaction to the ads being run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Here's an excerpt, but take a minute to read the whole thing:

"Meanwhile, John Kerry is trying to get bookstores to stop carrying Unfit for Command, the best-selling book in which veterans challenge Kerry's war record. So, where is the left-wing outrage over Kerry's attack on free speech?"

I believe that Kerry has made a big mistake in publicly criticizing this group and its attack on his military record. Doing so has brought it to the attention of big media and provided increased exposure for these veterans and their allegations. He would have fared better had he remained quiet and above the fray as Bush did while he was being trashed by detractors like Richard Clark, Joseph Wilson and Michael Moore. 

Now everyone who has tuned into the evening news knows he lied before the Senate about being in Cambodia in 1968 and are probably wondering how many more of the Swift Boat Vets' accusations are true. This is not a good position for Kerry to be in, and from where I sit, it's mostly of his own making.

Update: Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit presents an approach from a parallel universe which, in my opinion, would have worked much better for Mr. Kerry than the one he and his advisers have chosen.

 

Birds of a Feather

"Where all think alike, no one thinks very much."

- Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), American editor, writer

Columnist Shaunti Feldhahn has written an interesting op-ed for the Atlanta Journal Constitution titled "Let's Rethink Dangerous 'Groupthink'." Her inspiration for this column grew out of a reader's comment about something she'd said about President Bush in an earlier piece that you can find here. 

In the "Groupthink" column, Feldhahn points out how most of us tend to associate with those who think as we do and warns that this can lead to inattention to opposing points of view. A lack of consideration for the "devil's advocate,"  particularly by those in positions of power, often leads to less than optimal decision-making: 

"It's natural to surround ourselves with those who agree with us. But it's also dangerous. Thirty years ago, Yale University social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term "groupthink" to describe why people in cohesive groups sometimes make poor decisions. Consider how eerily familiar his eight symptoms of groupthink look today, for those on both sides of the political divide: an illusion of invulnerability, an unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, collective rationalization of group decisions, shared stereotypes of opponents, members of the group censoring themselves and withholding criticism, the resulting illusion of unanimity, a pressure on dissenters to conform, and the emergence of self-appointed 'mindguards' to block negative information."

She sees the greatest risks of groupthink occurring "where the consequences are most severe," places like government and media institutions where decisions are being made that will "affect and influence others for generations to come." She suggests that both the Bush administration and the potential Kerry administration seem to be promoting one-sided inclinations rather than seeking out and actually considering dissenting opinions.

I think Ms. Feldhahn is right on the money. I know that I'm guilty of holding points of view that mirror those of most of my friends. When we're together, as we were this past weekend, we all agree that our view of the world is the one that makes the most sense. We do so with great enthusiasm and with little fear that anyone will throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings. Anyone who does is quickly put in his place.

While I do have friends who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, it's rare that we get into meaningful discussions of our differences. We choose, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid the controversial topics like politics and talk instead about our families, our golf game or the obituaries--all more socially acceptable subjects.

There are exceptions, of course, but generally we try to "keep the peace." That's okay I suppose, but I would prefer that it be different, that we could agree to disagree and still be friends. Perhaps tomorrow I'll give my most staunchly Democratic buddy a call and see if he'd be willing to have breakfast for the specific purpose of discussing Kerry and Bush and the direction they want to take our country. I wouldn't be surprised if he hangs up on me. Nah, he probably won't, but I'll bet he'll be reluctant to engage in the proposed breakfast agenda. Maybe not. Maybe he'll give me an unexpected "yes." I can hope, can't I?

At any rate, I think you'll enjoy what Feldhahn has to say. Unfortunately, the Atlanta Journal Constitution requires you to register (it's free) in order to read Ms. Feldhahn's columns. Sorry for the hassle.

Update: Here's the link to the New York Times Daniel Okrent editorial to which Ms. Feldhahn refers. I highly recommend it.

South Georgia Golf Trip

There won't be any posting until next Wednesday. I'm heading over to Ft. Gaines, Georgia, for a little golf and fellowship with three old friends from Atlanta.

As I watch the Weather Channel's coverage of Hurricane Charley and the red and green hanging over their map of Florida and Georgia, I'm wondering if maybe we should have planned a fishing trip instead.

I'll remain optimistic as I motor my way over this afternoon and hope that by tomorrow the situation will have improved a bit. If it doesn't, hey, I'll still get to visit with my buddies. That alone is worth making the trip.

See you next week.

Ron 

Fair and Balanced?

"Reasoning against prejudice is like fighting against a shadow; it exhausts the reasoner, without visibly affecting the prejudice."

     - Charles Mildmay

Neal Boortz is usually a little too "over the top" for me, but his "War Stories" column at Townhall.com contains some excellent points about how major media has treated the questioning of Kerry's military record compared to how they covered that of the president:

"...earlier this year. George Bush was asking the voters of this country to reelect him on the basis of his previous four years as president and commander in chief. Suddenly Democratic detractors come forward with questions about Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard over 30 years ago...Reporters wanted details--all of the details--of Bush's National Guard service. They wanted pay records, dental records, medical records, flight records and statement's from fellow guardsmen confirming Bush's participation."

Boortz scrolls forward to the present day with some observations about how these same journalists are handling the claims about Kerry that are being made by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth":

"A group of Vietnam veterans step forward with some questions and charges about John Kerry's record of service in Vietnam, the very record that John has presented to the American people as the sole and exclusive reason (save for their hatred of George Bush) that he should be the 44th President of the United States. If the media's treatment of the George Bush AWOL charges were a guide, we would expect to see an immediate feeding frenzy from the mainstream media...it hasn't happened..."

Mr. Boortz concludes with a few questions and comments about Kerry's detractors and some of the people whose goal is to take Bush down:

"One columnist referred to a Houston housebuilder who had made a donation to the Swift Boat Veterans as a 'mysterious Republican moneyman.' Mysterious? A Texas homebuilder is mysterious? I think a Hungarian financier who finances Moveon.org and The Media Fund, both Kerry surrogates, might qualify as mysterious, but has anyone seen dark hints about the money behind these organizations?"

One thing that has been interesting to me is the contrast in how much air time major media has provided the detractors, whether they be anti-Bush or anti-Kerry. People like Richard Clark, Joe Wilson, Paul O'Neill, Michael Moore and George Soros, to name a few, were on our television screens almost constantly when they were making their claims about Bush in their books, movies and ads. I've seen only very minimal air time given to any of the Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Why is that I wonder? Maybe Boortz is onto something here.

AOLers Speak: It's Bush By a Landslide

"In times of stress and strain, people will vote."

     - Anonymous

Joe Kovacs over at WorldNetDaily delivers some surprising news:

"In what some political observers might view as shocking news, a poll of America Online members is currently forecasting a landslide victory for President Bush, who collects 48 of the 50 states in this year's electoral race.

The unscientific survey, whose results change in real time as more people vote, reveals with more than 34,000 participants, Bush takes a whopping 58 percent of the popular vote compared to 40 percent for Sen. John Kerry and 2 percent for Ralph Nader."

This translates into 525 electoral votes for the president and 13 for Senator Kerry, who wins only Vermont, Connecticut and the District of Columbia. He fails to win his home state of Massachusetts where Bush gets 51 percent of the vote.

All this is interesting in light of national poll results gathered by the likes of Gallup, Rasmussen, and others who have the race in a dead heat. What would account for the huge difference in the predicted outcome of the election?

Without knowing the demographics of AOL members, it would be hard to say, but it does suggest there's more at work in the country than is revealed by the professionals. Perhaps this "man-on-the-street" effort provides us a clearer, more accurate picture of what will actually happen this fall. Perhaps not, but it does give us bloggers something else to pontificate about.

AOL plans to re-poll each month, giving its members the opportunity to cast another vote. This will continue up until the November election, and allows those who have already made their choice and had a change of heart to vote for another candidate. A good idea, I think.

If you're an AOL member and would like to participate in this exercise, visit keyword: Elections 2004 and click on "Vote in the AOL Straw Poll." Consider it your patriotic duty.

Update: On August 19 with 64,217 votes tallied, Bush has collected 55% of the total. Kerry has captured 44% and Nader 1% of all votes cast. Bush leads Kerry in electoral votes 404 to 134.

Sit and Have Tea With Me

"Friendship is the only cement that will ever hold the world together."

    - Woodrow T. Wilson (1856-1924), 28th U.S. president

When I read stories like this one by blogger Michael J. Totten I'm encouraged to believe that someday there will be peace in this world. If people from different cultures can befriend each other as Totten and his wife Shelly did on their recent visit to Tunisia, I feel that there's hope for all of us.

Take a few minutes of your time and read "An American in Tunisia." When you're finished, ask yourself if what happened to the Tottens while they were there has to be the exception rather than the rule. It seems to me when government and politics are put aside, that the average American can usually connect with the average man-on-the-street from almost any other country on this earth in a warm-hearted and friendly way. It happens all the time.

Sadly, in today's world, when many of our country's enemies are Arab Muslims, most of us are likely to believe that friendship with any of them is impossible. Watching the evening news leaves us thinking that Muslims are fanatical bomb-toting, trigger-happy maniacs who have only one thing in mind--killing Americans. Clearly a dangerous part of the globe, few of us would ever consider visiting the Middle East, especially now. Who could be so foolish?

Yet there are exceptions to that kind of thinking, for Michael and Shelly Totten made the trip and discovered people like Jamel, Abdallah, Lotfi and M'hamed who were more than willing to open their homes to them. "You must come sit and have tea with me," sounds like something a good neighbor might say. Is it possible that many of those we view as the enemy are just plain folks who, when given the opportunity to get to know us, would actually want to be our friend?

Michael and Shelly's experience in Tunisia would appear to lend credence to that possibility unless we believe that the Arabs who live there are an anomaly. Are they? Perhaps, but I sincerely doubt it.

He's a Complex Man

"We generally see ourselves as we were, or as we want to be, rather than as who we really are."

  - Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, Swiss born American psychiatrist

The more I read about John Forbes Kerry, the more difficulty I have trusting him. I'm not alone in this regard. Most of my friends hold a similar view and not all of them are Republicans. There are just too many conflicting accounts about what he's accomplished, how he stands on the issues and what he's been quoted as saying for me to give him much credence.

This op-ed by Mark Steyn that I read in today's Daily Telegraph talks about the complexity of the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, not on the great questions of the day, but of the man himself:

"But with Kerry...the official narrative makes no sense. He's publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. But he volunteers for it. Then he comes back disgusted with his experience in war, publicly hurls his medals away (or someone else's: that story keeps changing), denounces his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists, and claims that he personally committed atrocities.

But then he decides to run for president and suddenly Jane Fonda morphs into John Wayne and all those war criminals are war heroes he wants at every rally and he's got his medals back and his disgust at his wartime experience has mysteriously turned into pride in his wartime experience to the exclusion of all else."

Steyn quotes a part of Kerry's address to the U.S. Senate in 1986:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there: the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory whichis seared--seared--in me."

He quotes him again in an interview given to the Boston Herald in 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

He also cites a similar Associated Press story from 1992, and tells us there's a slight problem with all of the Kerry accounts--they never happened. That's a strong indictment, yet Steyn seems pretty sure of himself:

"...since Vietnam seems to be the only subject on which he has anything to say, it would be reassuring to know that at least he's got that right.

For most of his adult life John Kerry has peddled as his central Vietnam anecdote--the one that drove him to turn on his nation's leaders--what appears to be a complete fantasy. Why would he do such a thing?"

Why indeed? It makes no sense to me that he would base so much of his campaign on promoting this aspect of his past. Too many witnesses are standing in the wings saying that his accounts of these events are simply untrue. Are they just blowing smoke, or is there something to what they're saying? Frankly, I'm not sure, but the more I read, hear and see, the more inclined I am to doubt the things he's telling us.

Update: Carl Frank has an interesting summary of Kerry's Cambodia stories at his weblog No Oil For Pacifists. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit for the link.

Update: More on Kerry's Vietnam experience on InstaPundit. Reynolds links to many other bloggers on this story.

Powell on Diplomacy

"Compromise: Such an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due."

     - Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), American writer

Secretary of State Colin Powell talks about zero-sum competition, the United States as a superpower, his belief that our country has worldwide obligations and opines about why the Middle East is full of political and economic failures in this excellent interview with P. J. O'Rourke of The Atlantic Monthly. It's worth your time. Read the whole thing.

Are Words the Problem?

"Most of us believe in trying to make other people happy only if they can be happy in ways which we approve."

      - Robert Lynd (1879-1949), Irish essayist

Thomas Sowell has penned an interesting column over at TownHall.com about how many of the words we use today often fail to accurately portray the reality of what we're describing. What prompted his op-ed was an angry reader's response to something he had written:

"A recent angry e-mail from a reader said that certain issues should not be determined by 'the dictates of the market.' With a mere turn of a phrase, he had turned reality upside down.

Decisions by people free to make their mutual accomodations with other free people were called 'dictates' while having third parties tell all of them what they could and couldn't do was not."

Sowell accuses the political left of playing with the language to paint pictures that are deceptive and misleading. He claims the left has changed the basic meaning of many words and substituted other words in order to debate issues in terms of a new vocabulary rather than on the real substance of those issues:

"The word 'swamp,' for example, has been all but erased from the language. Swamps were messy, sometimes smelly, places where mosquitoes bred and sometimes snakes lurked. The left has replaced the word 'swamp' with 'wetlands,' a word spoken in pious tones reserved for sacred things."

The reason for this, says Sowell, is to "impose the left's notions of how other people can use their own land." He continues his argument with a discussion of the word "bum":

"Another word that the left has virtually banished from the language is 'bum.' Centuries of experiencewith idlers who refused to work and who hung around on the streets making a nuisance--and sometimes a menace--of themselves were erased from our memories as the left verbally transformed those same people into a sacred icon, 'the homeless.' "

Just like swamps, he says, what was once inhospitable and disease-producing has been turned into something we have an obligation to protect. It is "now our duty to support people who refused to support themselves."

Sowell has no kind words for those who depict people who don't pull their own weight or exercise personal responsibility as individuals who have been denied "access," or deprived of "opportunity," "rights" or "social justice."

"The word games of the left--from the mantra of 'diversity' to the pieties of 'compassion'--are not just games. They are ways of imposing power by evading issues of substance through the use of seductive rhetoric.

'Rights,' for example, have become an all-purpose term used for evading both facts and logic by saying that people have a 'right' to whatever the left wants to give them by taking from others."

He closes with a few critical remarks about how we're currently educating our children and expresses regret that we once taught our kids "how to think," but now teach them "what to think."

While I agree with Mr. Sowell's observations about how the words we use to describe things today are changing, it's not just the left that attempts to promote its views with its rhetorical shenanigans, but the right as well. This country has more than its fair share of people on both sides of the aisle who want everyone to see and do things their way and can't understand or appreciate anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I don't have any problem with opposing views. In fact, I enjoy them, and love having a healthy face-to-face exchange of ideas with someone who doesn't see things as I see them. What I do not welcome, however, is having someone who is determined to impose his opinion on me whether I agree with him or not. That, I am afraid, is what is now dividing America. Many on both the left and the right believe they have the answer for all and are willing to do almost anything to ensure that their point of view becomes the law of the land. 

That's not what America is about. America is about diversity and difference. I think we should celebrate that, not try to create a society where we're trying to change every person into someone who looks, acts and thinks exactly like we do. With all due respect, Mr. Sowell, calling a "swamp" a "wet-land," or referring to a "bum" as "the homeless" is the least of my worries. We've got to bridge the divide that is tearing our great nation apart by applauding, not condemning, the diverse views that have always existed among us.

The Face in the Mirror

"You can live a lifetime and, at the end of it, know more about other people than you know about yourself. You learn to watch other people, but you never learn to watch yourself."

    - Beryl Markham (1902-1986), English aviatrix

Have you ever gazed at that face in the mirror in the morning as you shaved, brushed your teeth or applied your make-up, and asked yourself, "Who are you?" Have you ever pulled out your favorite snapshots and seen yourself, either alone or with others, and wondered "Who is that person?" I have, and I don't always have an answer, at least one that I feel is very serious.

No, I'm not going nuts--at least I don't think I am--but every now and then it occurs to me that rarely do I take a good hard look at myself. I really don't spend much time thinking about who Ron is and how he affects other people. Yeah, I know, I AM going loony tunes, but bear with me for a minute. How would you answer me if I asked, "Who are you?"

Do you have any idea who you really are? How others see you? Most of us would probably say, "Sure, I know myself," and proceed to prove it by listing all the facts we could think of, then maybe throwing in a couple of things we believe in or feel strongly about, and that would be the end of it. 

But would that list of facts capture the essence of you? Would someone who knows you well describe you in the same way you describe yourself?

When I worked for a living, my company would sometimes require us to attend training designed to help us become more aware of ourselves and how our behavior impacted those who worked around us. I recall an exercise that asked us to go to five friends who we felt knew us well and have them answer a series of questions describing us, questions that we ourselves had answered in advance. I was sometimes flabbergasted at how much variation there was between their answers and my own.

We also utilized what we called upward appraisals. These were used to allow those who reported to us to anonymously rate our performance based on a list of attributes that effective managers were supposed to possess. Again, we rated ourselves and compared our self-assessment to that of our subordinates. There were always some surprising contradictions between how they saw me and how I saw myself.  

Assuming we're interested, how do we discover who we really are, what we're really like? We can ask others, as I've pointed out, but in a non-business situation we may not get completely honest feedback because of the lack of anonymity. There are exceptions, of course. When someone's really miffed at you, you usually get feedback they'd never share with you in calmer times. You might even find yourself returning their favor if you get hot under the collar too. Hey, it happens.

Given the difficulty of getting honest input from others, maybe we'd be better served by figuring it out for ourselves. How do we go about that? Arranging for a little solitude, so that you can ponder uninterruptedly about yours truly may help you find some answers, but you need a good list of questions to aid you in your introspection.  It would also be smart to take a pen and paper or voice recorder to your place of refuge lest you lose track of all your personal revelations.

So what kinds of questions might you ask yourself? I'd suggest you come up with your own, but if you'd like a suggestion there are a couple that have been valuable to me when I've decided I need to think more deeply about myself. You know--those times when you've just had a fight with the missus and she's informed you that you don't have a clue--about anything. It's those occasions my friends, when you go to a mirror or other reflective surface, look yourself straight in the eye and ask, "Would I want to be married to me?" After you've given a "yes" or a "no," the follow-up question is, "Why?"

Your honest response might provide you with some new insights about yourself that could be helpful in having a better relationship with your kids, your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, your family, your parents, your customers,your team-mates, almost anyone. Yes, even your spouse.  But first, you gotta want to know...

Update: So my two questions just aren't enough to get you started? Okay. There's lots of help for anyone who'd like to pursue this. 

Sheila Bender has written an excellent book titled A Year In The Life: Journaling for Self-Discovery that leads you through a year of journaling that will help you with your self-refection.

Margaret Tiberio's The Book of Self-Acquaintance: A Guided Journal attempts to help you better understand who you are by posing questions that will assist you in discovering what shapes your choices, engages your emotions and compels you to action. As you work your way through this neat little book, you will gain insights that will help you in all aspects of your life.

Finally, here's one for the guys. It's titled Mightier Than The Sword: The Journal as a Path to Men's Self-Discovery and was written by Kathleen Adams. She calls it "a step-by-step guide for men everywhere to knowing and appreciating the emerging self, using a tool that is mightier than the sword--a pen." 

           

Who's Fooling Whom?

"He has the answer to everything and the solution to nothing."

    - Oscar Levant (1906-1972), American musician

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn gives us his two cents worth on the Democratic National Convention in his op-ed "How Dems Delude Themselves." Steyn's incisive wit always makes for an entertaining read, and this effort is no exception:

"John Kerry says he's running on his record, but, of his four decades of adult life, he's running on his four months in Vietnam. Of the other 39 years and eight months, there's nary a word..."

Steyn even pokes fun at the songs the party-planners used at the convention:

"Amid the variously labored song titles selected for the Convention--'We Are Family,' 'You've Got A Friend'--the one that struck me as most pertinent to the Kerry campaign was 'Blowin' in the Wind.' "

And opines about Kerry's choice of a campaign theme: 

The archetypal weathervane pol thinks he's got it figured out: The voters want tough talk--'strong,' 'stronger,' 'strengthen' evidently all poll-test well--but rather less action when they switch on the evening news. So Kerry's position on the war is this: 'Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.'

Got that? If the Empire State Building's taken out, he'll certainly respond to it. Next time 'round, there won't be any mistakes about where the WMD are because they'll be in the middle of a big crater in Chicago."

Steyn believes the Dems, and especially Kerry, are still not articulating what they're for, aside from getting rid of George W. Bush. He concludes that their search for a cause "with which to rally the citizenry" seems to have resulted in something akin to self-absorption:

"There's a narcissism about the tone of this convention that cuts to the heart of the Democratic Party's difficulties: They don't believe in anything except their monopoly of goodness."

Steyn's insights and humor aside, I do think that Americans are hearing the Democrats making lots of pledges about how they're going to fix everything that's supposedly broken, but sense a disconnect between these promises and the realities of today. So far, Kerry and Edwards' campaign rhetoric seems to have failed to convince the unconvinced.

My thanks to Jessica's Well for the link to the Steyn column.

Brilliant Tactic or Unforgivable Blunder?

"A man always has two reasons for what he does--a good one, and the real one."

   - J. P. Morgan (1837-1913), American financier

Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Gate thinks the Democrats should have selected Howard Dean as their presidential nominee. In her recent oped titled "They Should Have Picked Dean" she explains why:

"Item: According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, three-quarters of Democratic voters opposed the war.

Item: The same poll found that 86 percent of convention delegates opposed the war.

Item: 100 percent of the Democratic ticket voted with GOP President Bush on Iraq."

Saunders fails to understand how the delegates to the convention could talk about how excited and united they were when "they chose a man with whom nearly 9 out of 10 of them disagree on the most fundamental issue--the war."

Frankly, it bamfoozles me too. It now appears that Kerry and the Democrats have decided to make the war on terrorism a major plank in their platform. He's going head-to-head with Bush on national security, claiming that he will do a superior job as commander-in-chief, and citing his bravery in Vietnam as proof that he has what it takes. "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president," Kerry said in his acceptance speech. And his delegates went along with him even though most of them are uniformly against the war. Why would he take this approach? And why would his delegates allow him to? Obviously, because he thinks it will win the election for him and they do too.

But will it? Will his claims of strength appeal to the yet undecided voters out there who could give him the electoral votes he needs to win the election? Or will his new hawk-like stance on the war on terror be viewed as hypocritical and give them another reason to believe he can't be trusted? Perhaps the lack of a post-convention "bounce" in his approval ratings answers that question for us. Do you think?

And what about his base, those who weren't at the convention? Were they happy with his approach? At least two of them weren't. Leftie Rory O'Connor on his blog Media is a Plural had this to say:

"I think the framing is all wrong, and that the relentless Democratic drumbeat of militaristic jingoism is precisely the wrong framework for contesting George Bush in November."

He feels duped and wants to know what has happened to his party:

"How did it come to pass that thirty years on we're still on Vietnam--only this time 'our guy' is the one who volunteered to go over and kill Cong, and 'their guy' is the one who did his best to duck out?

...the Democrats are trying to sell us a pig in a poke by trying to come off as something they're not, something even they don't believe in--and it will inevitably show. People aren't stupid, the camera doesn't lie (even when the politicians do) and sooner rather than later enough undecided 'swing voters in the battleground (here we go again) states' will figure out that the message is phony...So why switch brands? By focusing on war, the Democrats (Republicrats?) will play right into the hands of their opponents, because when Americans think war, they think Republican."

Progressive Bob Dreyfuss on his weblog TomPaine.common sense expresses similar views in a post titled "Kerry The Hawk." Dreyfuss pulls no punches in his criticism of Kerry's unwillingness to attack Bush on the war:

"The liberal left watched it all with grins frozen on their faces, telling themselves that it was all just election strategy--that Kerry was pandering to the center-right to get elected, that it was a brilliant tactic, that Kerry is really a dove. But I don't think so. I think Kerry is an outright hawk in hawk's clothing, albeit a multilateral one, and it's hard to see what Kerry would do differently than Bush.

...'I know what we have to do in Iraq,' Kerry lied to the DNC. He doesn't have a clue. What he thinks he knows is how to kowtow to the so-called undecideds and swing voters and convince them that he has a plan. But he doesn't, and I don't think these confused, lost voters are going to buy it either. Kerry's refusal to attack Bush over the war in Iraq is an unconscionable, unforgivable blunder." 

Brilliant tactic, or unforgivable blunder? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Why? Because I think the O'Connor and Dreyfuss viewpoints represent the thinking of many Democrats on this issue. I also believe the Republicans will make Kerry look silly in the coming months as they lay out his dovish Senate voting record on the very issues he claims he will be strong on--the military and national security. How will he explain that?

Update: Jon Henke at QandO gives us the skinney on how Europeans feel about John Kerry's foreign policy pronouncements. Hat tip to Instapundit for the link.

Dying to Vote

"We know that the road to freedom has always been stalked by death."

    - Angela Davis, American civil rights activist

When I read stories about human courage such as this one by Craig Charney and think about how we Americans mostly take for granted the liberties that others in the world risk their lives to exercise, it makes me both proud and ashamed. Proud to live in a country where I can participate in government by voting for the candidates of my choice, ashamed that there are millions of people in the world who don't yet have that freedom.

Charney tells us of the hopefulness of Afghan citizens who are looking forward to their first free presidential election this fall:

"A major reason for Afghans' determination to vote is the rebirth of hope in their country since the fall of the Taliban. They know too well its problems with security, warlords and women's rights. But two out of three think Afghanistan is headed in the right direction, citing the progress toward peace, reconstruction and normality in most of the country...Afghans have placed great faith in democratic elections: Fully 77 percent say the election of a president and parliament will make a difference.

Almost two thirds of Afghans have gained some idea of the meaning of democracy; most mention freedom of rights. A solid consensus (more than 80 percent) supports equal rights under law--regardless of religion, tribe or gender--and the right to peaceably oppose government. Two in three now favor separating religious and political leadership, while less than 10 percent think democracy and Islam are incompatible."

Amazingly, almost 90 percent of eligible Afghans have signed up to cast ballots for their country's new leadership according to this Cnews report by Stephen Graham:

"First tallies since the eight-month registration drive began winding down on Saturday show that 8.7 million of an estimated 9.8 million eligible voters have collected ID cards for the Oct. 9 election. Forty-one percent of those registered were women."

Getting involved, as millions of Afghans have, can be a dangerous proposition:

"Shootings and explosions have killed at least nine election workers since May, including a worker and a would-be voter killed Wednesday by a bomb in a mosque used as registration center in Ghazni province. Afghan officials said a mine seriously injured three election workers in Uruzgan on Friday."

In a place where being found with a voter card could result in an on-the-spot execution by guerrillas who don't want this to happen, you have to have the courage of your convictions, that's for sure. And courage they have, for they continue to come forward, apparently convinced that real change is about to occur, and wanting to be a part of it.

The contrast between the Afghans' dedication to this process and our own is striking, really. Facing personal harm or even loss of their lives, almost every eligible Afghan has registered and is anxious to vote. In this great country, facing little inconvenience and having conveniently located polling places, only half of us cast a ballot. Go figure.