Think It Over

Road Trip to Texas

2004-11-18T05:53:00.000-08:00

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

2004-11-17T19:39:00.000-08:00

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

2004-11-16T20:29:00.000-08:00

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

2004-11-14T20:58:00.000-08:00

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

2004-10-29T20:42:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-28T20:56:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-27T20:54:00.000-07:00

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?

2004-10-25T20:29:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-23T20:57:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-21T19:20:00.000-07:00

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

2004-10-20T20:44:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-17T20:36:00.000-07:00

"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...

2004-10-16T19:38:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-14T20:58:00.000-07:00

"...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?

2004-10-13T20:44:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-12T20:55:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-10T22:51:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-08T20:57:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-07T20:00:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-06T20:48:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-05T20:55:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-04T20:37:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-10-03T20:36:00.000-07:00

" '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.

Let's Hold a Summit

2004-10-01T20:56:00.000-07:00

"The only summit meeting that can succeed is the one that does not take place."

- Barry Goldwater (1909-1998), American politician

This post by James Lileks over at his weblog, The Bleat, is hilarious, not in spite of, but because of, the truth it conveys. I hope you will read the whole thing.

Lileks begins by informing us that he watched the Great Debate last night and didn't like it. He explains why:

"But mostly I hate the debates because I simply cannot abide hearing certain statements I've been hearing over, and over again. I can't take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin'nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion?"

Lileks surmises that if Kerry is talking about France and Germany when he says we need more allies in Iraq, he's barking up the wrong tree--even if they are "wise and nuanced":

"And I don't want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks. Don't you think I know about France's relations with Saddam? Surely, the advocates of the French Touch must know, and don't care. Or they don't know--in which case their advice is useless."

Then he wonders if maybe it's the U.N. that the Democratic contender thinks he could talk into helping us:

"Perhaps the 'ally' is that big blue wobbly mass known as the UN, that paragon of moral clarity, that conscience of the globe. You want to anger a UN official? Tow his car. Short of that you can get away with anything...I don't worry that the UN is angry with us. I'd be worried if they weren't."

Shifting gears, Lileks gives his impression of Kerry's promise to hold a summit with the nations of the Muslim world:

"...do you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off...

I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of a big summit of non-allied allies after the election, either. Summits convened not to solve a problem but solve the perception that there is a problem...

Ask yourself this: you're a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you've bought off...

B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up with your crap any longer."

Mr. Lileks then tells us that he thinks he understands where John Kerry is coming from:

"So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasn't, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we haven't convened a summit so we could be castigated..."

And wishes he could live in the fairy-land that Kerry promises the U.S. voters:

"Here's the thing. I'd really like to live in John Kerry's world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well."

I'd like to livethere too, but I'm with Lilekson thisone.Kerry is living in a fantasy world if he believes he can convince any other countries to stand with us in Iraq. The ones who would do so are already there. When he publicly demeans our existing allies, he's not making a very convincing case for bringing new helpers into what he calls a "diversion in the broader struggle against the war on terror."

He's promised he will get us out of this conflict. Other countries know that. Would a potential new ally be willing to bet troops that Kerry would stay the course with them once they were committed? I can't speak for Chirac, Schroder or Putin, but I know what my answer would be. No.

Update: The inimitable Mark Steyn weighs in with some comments about Kerry's proposed summit.

School Funding: A Unique Approach

2004-09-30T20:56:00.000-07:00

"God made the idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board."

- Mark Twain (1835-1910), American humorist

In this piece titled "No Class," Robert Maranto, a professor at Villanova University, recounts a recent experience as a parent of a soon-to-be student at his local elementary school:

"...like any good parent, I called the principal's office at my local public elementary school to check it out before sending my son...On my fourth try I reached a live person, and had a brief conversation:

'Hi, I'm Bob Maranto. I'm a parent who lives in your school's attendance zone. My son will be old enough for kindergarten next fall...I was wondering if I could come visit the school sometime.'

'We don't have any visiting this year,' the administrator replied. 'We're doing construction and a lot of things are going on.'

'Could I watch a class in session?'

'No, even when there's no construction you could not watch a class.'

'Well, could I meet my son's teacher?'

'No, the teachers are busy teaching all day and then they go home.' "

Undeterred by the initial rebuff, Maranto persisted for five months, making 22 attempts at getting permission to visit the school. He eventually succeeded, but has yet to gain access to a live class.

He acknowledges that schools find some parents difficult to work with and suspects that having to comply with so many federal, state and local regulations also complicates a school administration's ability to give parents more attention. Those things considered, however, he believes things could be better. He cites a more positive experience he had in Arizona:

"But some public schools do better. Last year I led an accreditation visit to an Arizona charter school, Tuscon's Academy of Math and Science. I slipped away from the guided tour, roaming the parking lot as school let out to question parents about how school staff treated them. Thirteen of 14 parents said their school welcomed their input...Half the parents had watched classes. As one lady assured me: 'It's easy--you just talk to Mrs. Shannon at the front desk, tell her which class you want to go watch, and she'll tell you which room it's in.' "

Maranto goes on to praise Arizona public schools in general and concludes they're better than those in his home state of Pennsylvania because of a unique system of budgeting and an open enrollment policy:

"...Arizona has open enrollment across district lines as well as 500 charter schools--many started by teachers--so parents unhappy with one school can easily find another. In addition, state funding means that education dollars follow enrollment, so schools that alienate parents lose money which in turn alarms school boards and makes principals unemployed."

In other words, there's competition between schools for state education budget dollars. In order to get their allotment, they have to perform. If they don't, parents will enroll their kids in a school that does, leaving the under-performing facility in the lurch. Harsh maybe, but evidently quite effective.

Competition is nothing new, but this is the first time I've read or heard about utilizing it in this manner to administer elementary education budgets. Maranto is sold on the concept, and I must say he's pretty much convinced me. I wonder if anyone out there has any experience with such a set-up outside Arizona? I'd be interested in how it's working.

My Worst Nightmare

2004-09-29T20:46:00.000-07:00

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb, but doesn't have an air force."

- William Blum, American activist writer, editor

I've read this NewsMax story at several sites over the past few days, but reacted only mildly because I've seen so many similar warnings in the last couple of years. In a nutshell, the article states that those in the know are becoming increasingly concerned that al-Qaeda will "mount a devastating attack aimed at disrupting the (U.S.) political process." We've heard these types of warnings before, haven't we? The sky is falling, the sky is falling...yeah, yeah, I hear you; now go away and let me get back to my nap, my gardening, or whatever.

We have become somewhat numb to alerts such as this, and I was certainly headed down that path until I ran across this piece in USA Today. As I read through it, and thought about the NewsMax story, I began having an ugly premonition:

"Suicide attackers armed with hidden explosives that can weigh as little as a cell phone pose a serious threat to the nation's aviation system despite billions being spent on new efforts to tighten security, according to more than a dozen members of Congress and security consultants."

For those with the will to do it, and al-Qaeda operatives certainly have the will, it would be no great challenge to sneak a small amount of plastic explosive onto a commercial airliner and bring it down. Russian authorities believe this is what happened recently when two of their planes were destroyed by explosions in mid-air:

"The bombings of twin flights in Russia last month began a wave of Chechen attacks that have killed hundreds, including the takeover of a school that killed 335 people.

Russian authorities say that two women boarded the flights with explosives. The women had been detained by police when they reached the airport and were turned over to security officials, but the airport security chief let them go, according to Russian news reports.

The two flights disappeared from radar within seconds of each other. All 90 people aboard the two planes died.

It's not known how the women got the explosives aboard, but other Chechen suicide bombers have strapped them to their bodies. Only a small amount of explosives would have destroyed the planes."

Take a few minutes and read the entire article if you want a sobering education about how poorly equipped our airport security forces are to deter threats where plastic explosives are the weapon of choice. It's scary, and makes me very nervous about flying anywhere on a commercial jetliner.

My premonition is this. Suppose on the morning of November 2, 2004, a hundred or so al-Qaeda types attempt to sneak explosive devices onto a hundred or so heavily traveled flights here in our country. Let's say half of them are successful and bring 50 aircraft down within hours of each other. Let's say there are 200 people on each of these flights. That's 10,000 deaths, for I doubt that anyone would escape. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? I can't. It's unfathomable to me, but it would probably be worse than most of us can imagine.

Al-Qaeda keeps saying they're going to hit us really hard, and when they say that we tend to think in terms of another 9/11 or maybe the detonation of a nuclear device in one of our major cities. Perhaps they've read Sun-Tzu and that's what they'd like us to think so that we're not being watchful in the places where they plan to hit us.

Bombs and al-Qaeda go together like gin and tonic. If there's one thing they know how to do, it's how to make and use explosive devices. Replicating the Russian tragedy fifty times over in the U.S. would be easy for them compared to hijackings or finding and using a nuclear device. And the carnage would be greater than on 9-ll. That's my nightmare.

Hopefully, I only have an overactive imagination, but the scenario I've painted doesn't seem to me to require too much imagination. Let's hope and pray that I'm wrong, that the sky really isn't falling, that we can go back to our chores and not have to worry about something like this happening. I must admit, however, now that I've begun thinking about it, I'm going to have a difficult time putting it out of my mind.

Blue Apples and Pink Turkeys

2004-09-28T20:53:00.000-07:00

"Children are not things to be molded, but are people to be unfolded."

- Jess Lair (1927-2000), American psychologist, writer

Kindergarten teacher Wendy Kennar shares an experience as a child in elementary school when her teacher asked her to paint a landscape:

"I painted trees with round tops modeled after the pruned trees I saw as I walked to school each morning. I liked my painting; the teacher did not. She said my trees looked like lollipop trees; that they didn't look like real trees, although they looked like the trees I knew.

Mrs. E picked up a paintbrush and painted over my trees to make them look the way she thought trees should look."

That event had a profoundly negative effect on Ms. Kennar's attitude toward art for many years afterward, and in no small measure influenced how she teaches the children in her care today:

"Now that school is in session, I can't help wondering, worrying, what is it we're actually teaching our children? The three R's? Yes. But we're also teaching them, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, to conform, to extinguish the spark that makes them individuals.

Children inherently believe they are invincible; good at everything. They can achieve anything. They don't think they can't do something until a grown-up tells them so. And that's when it begins to happen. Our children begin to lose their zest for life, and along with it, their self-confidence."

As you might expect, Kennar lets her kids paint things as they see them, not as she does. They'll hear no criticism from her if their apples are blue or their turkeys are pink. In fact, she encourages them to follow their own rules as they exercise their creativity.

At the same time, she explains why conformity is sometimes necessary where individuals are working together as a group:

"I always try to give my students a reason why we do things. While on the floor, we sit with our hands in our lap so Mrs. Kennar won't accidentally step on anyone's fingers. We sit with our legs crossed so that our classmates can walk by without tripping. These rules make sense; they serve a purpose."

What a refreshing approach this young lady is taking with these youngsters. Any parent would be blessed to have their children in her keeping. I really hope she's typical of the caliber of teacher you'd find in a kindergarten today. My fear is she's not, but I want someone to tell me I'm wrong.

As I think back to my own childhood and recall how adults reacted as I strove to please them with my work, I remember best those who encouraged and praised me. They were the ones that I feel made great contributions to my self-worth.

There were others, of course, whose words were critical and whose methods rarely included any positive reinforcement. I remember them too, but not as fondly. Both approaches shaped me, perhaps unbeknownst to their originators. Those who were encouraging gave me confidence and self-esteem; those who discouraged me planted seeds of fear and insecurity.

If you happen to be a parent, a teacher, a coach, a counselor or anyone into whose tutelage children have been placed, you need to think about that. Kids are like sponges. The manner in which you respond to any effort they make will be with them for the rest of their lives. If you're unconvinced, think back to when you were seven or eight years old and try to remember some defining moments between you and the adults in your life. Not hard to do, is it?

Do You Know Any of These People?

2004-09-26T20:38:00.000-07:00

"Many speak the truth when they say that they despise riches, but they mean the riches possessed by other men."

- Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832), English clergyman

Forbes magazine recently published their annual list of the country's 400 wealthiest individuals. 78%, or 278 of them to be exact, are billionaires. 26%, or 106 are multi-billionaires. If I remember my basic math, a billion is 1,000 million. I can't count that high.

The Windows guy, Bill Gates, is still our richest citizen, a distinction he's held for eleven straight years. His net worth is a cool $48 billion, and he inherited none of it. His buddy, Warren Buffet weighs in at $41 billion. I think he earned all of his too, but I'm not sure.

For the curious among you, Forbes includes some little known facts for your consideration. There are links to biographies of the top ten members on the list, newcomers to the club, and the most eligible bachelors and bachelorettes for those of you who are single and want to find yourself a well-to-do mate. Sorry, no phone numbers were published.

Care to see how much of their fortunes these people donate to charity? In some cases, a lot. There's a link to that information right here.

There's also an interesting link showing what it costs people like this to live extremely well. If you shop at T.J. Maxx or Wal-Mart as I do, the sticker shock may numb you a bit, but hey, we suspected these folks spend a little more for their necessities, didn't we? Now we know.

Should you be interested in the kinds of homes our wealthiest countrymen live in, you can check out some of them in this article. Be sure to click on the slide show at the bottom of the page. They all have at least two things in common: they're big, and they're expensive. I find myself wondering if they've re-financed their home loans now that mortgage rates are so low. Just think what they'd save on their monthly payments.

Do I sound jealous? Not in the slightest. Who would want to own Bill Gates' home in Medina, Washington? It would take you a week just to finish the vacuuming. These guys' wives do make them vacuum, don't they?

Apologies: I just discovered that some of these links have stopped working. It's late and I need some rest, so I'll try to get them fixed tomorrow. The Forbes url is http://www.forbes.com and all of the links can be accessed from the article The 400 Richest Americans in their current issue.

Real Letters

2004-09-25T19:38:00.000-07:00

"Letter writing is the only device for combining solitude with good company."

- Lord Byron (1788-1824), English Romantic poet

When was the last time you wrote or received a real letter? I mean one written with a pen or pencil on real paper that's folded and put into an envelope with a stamp on it, then dropped into a mailbox? Most of us could probably count on the fingers of both hands the personal letters we've written and received this past year. The culprit? E-mail. I now correspond with my friends and acquaintances almost exclusively by using my computer, and they do too.

Is there anything wrong with this? Not really. It's certainly more convenient, that's for sure. But the folks over at the DailyOM website say we're missing something by not filling up our fountain pen, finding some stationery, going to a quiet, comfortable place and writing long-hand letters to those we care about:

"It's possible to brighten someone's day simply by sending them a handwritten note.

Most of us can think of at least one person in our lives we could write a letter to. It need not be a long letter; even a note card or postcard would be fine. It's the intention that matters, the thoughtfulness that says, 'I was thinking of you, and wanted to make you feel special.' "

I'm inclined to agree. There was a time in my life when I wrote hundreds of personal letters and notes each year. Many were to people I worked with to wish them a happy birthday, tell them I appreciated something they had done for me or to congratulate them for some achievement. Many were to my friends to thank them for a favor, offer condolences at a time of loss or offer my best wishes when their lives were changing. I am always surprised and humbled when I run into someone who received one of those notes and they tell me they still have it.

I too have kept letters that people wrote me from years ago. I still have letters that my wife-to-be wrote me when we were in college back in the early 1960s. I have others that were written by friends and family that are almost as old. I continue saving them even today because I enjoy getting them out and reading them again when I need a little boost. The ones that spoke to me at those times in my life when I needed to know there was someone who cared are always worth re-visiting.

And that's really what personal letters are all about, I think. They're about taking the time to tell the people in your life that you care. When a person knows you've put some effort into getting in touch by writing a "real" letter, I believe it means more to them. Yes, a phone call is nice, and an e-mail works too, but finding a hand-addressed envelope underneath the pile of bills in your mailbox is always a special treat.

And you never know how something you write might affect the person you've written. It could have a profound impact on them, and you might never realize it unless you're fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time. So find that old pen, get yourself some paper, envelopes and stamps, locate a comfy place and write someone you care about. Tell them something that will make them feel good. Who knows? Maybe they'll be so impressed they'll write you a "real" letter too.

Resources: Here's a great little web-site about Letter Writing and Intimate Disclosure with dozens of links that will give you a new appreciation for this almost lost art.

These two "how-to" sites are quick reads and will help you get started if you've gotten out of practice as I have: Notes From a Dreamer and Pagewise.

And this is a neat little book titled Writing Notes With a Personal Touch by Daria P. Bowman and Maureen LaMarca that has lots of great tips for anyone who wants to make his or her correspondence more personal.

Need stationery? Here's an excellent source if you want to order on-line. Nope, I own no stock in their company, but have ordered their products and always been pleased with them.

"Free" Cars

2004-09-24T20:56:00.000-07:00

"Only two kinds of people complain about taxes--men and women."

- Anonymous

Last week on her afternoon television show, Oprah Winfrey had a little gift for each member of her studio audience. She is often generous with those who've made the trip to Chicago to see her in person, handing out books, perfume, home accessories, CDs and other paraphernalia. This time, however, she outdid herself. She gave all 276 people who were there a brand-new Pontiac G6 sedan. Wow! They went nuts.

Unfortunately, there was a rather serious catch associated with the lucky recipients' acceptance of these sporty new vehicles:

"Yet while the folks on 'Oprah' screamed with excitement over their new rides, out in the real world, tax professionals were trying to calculate the wreckage come April 15. Over on TaxProf Blog, where experts can banter about hypothetical problems...they're buzzing now about the insanely complicated tax implications of the 'Oprah' giveaway."

Yuk! Based on tax expert Brenda Schafer's estimate, come April Uncle Sam will be looking for anywhere up to $12,000 in taxes on these windfalls:

"...there's no getting around the fact that it's a prize for being in the audience. And according to her rough, unofficial calculation, someone in the 15% federal bracket (making, say, $28,000 as an individual, or $56,000 if filing jointly) and a 5% state bracket who gets a $30,000 car...will owe an extra $6,000 in taxes. For a single earner in the 33% bracket kicking in at $143,500, the car adds $12,000 in tax."

Is there any way these people can escape the tentacles of the IRS? Apparently not. Even if Oprah or GM decided to pay all the taxes for these new car owners, that wouldn't solve their problem:

"...even if Pontiac were to pay not only the sales tax but all the various income taxes that the recipients will owe on the value of their new cars, there would be taxes due on the value of any 'free' tax payments too, a calculation known as a gross up."

Well, maybe they could sell the car, use the proceeds to pay the taxes and have some cash left over. A possible solution, but then they'd have no car, which defeats Oprah's stated purpose of inviting these particular folks because they really needed transportation. Curses!

The bottom line is there's no way of avoiding the tax consequences, or even postponing them. Even if they decide not to take possession of their gift until next year, they're still stuck. Ms. Schafer is quick to point out, "You got it when you got it. You see, there's this thing called the 'doctrine of constructive receipt.' "

Well, at least they were all happy about their good fortune for a little while. There's something to be said for that. But I'm reminded of how my late father once cautioned me when I told him of a windfall that I felt was coming my way: "If something seems to be too good to be true...it probably is." Things didn't turn out as I anticipated and as was so often the case, his homespun wisdom was right on the money.

Thank You, America

2004-09-23T20:50:00.000-07:00

"Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool...who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim."

- Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859), English historian

Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi addressed a joint meeting of Congress today. I was unable to tune in and catch the entire speech, but did hear excerpts on the evening news and liked what I heard. I found the entire transcript here and am posting it for those of you who, like me, didn't get to hear the live broadcast.

There were a number of things that Allawi told Congress that are important in light of the discussion about the Iraq conflict that is now taking place between our two candidates for president. With that in mind. let's look at what he had to say.

He began his address by expressing his gratitude to the American people:

"We Iraqis know that Americans have made and continue to make enormous sacrifices to liberate Iraq, to assure Iraq's freedom. I have come here to thank you and to promise you that your sacrifices are not in vain.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are grateful. They are grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein and the torture and brutality he forced upon us, grateful for the chance to build a better future for our families, our country and our region.

We Iraqis are grateful to you, America, for your leadership and your sacrifice for our liberation and our opportunity to start anew."

After summarizing Saddam Hussein's many inhumanities toward the Iraqi people, Allawi reemphasized how grateful he and the Iraqis are for our continuing support as we pay the "bitter price of combatingtyranny and terror." Then he expressed his determination to live up to the confidence our country has shown in them:

"Now we are determined to honor your confidence and sacrifice by putting into practice in Iraq the values of liberty and democracy, which are so dear to you and which have triumphed over tyranny across our world."

He recognized there are those in Iraq who despise the idea of freedom and are doing everything in their power to prevent Iraqis from achieving their goals of "liberty, of peace, of tolerance":

"...there are the tiny minority who despise the very ideas of liberty...Among them are those who nurse fantasies of the former regime returning to power. There are fanatics who seek to impose a perverted vision of Islam in which the face of Allah cannot be seen. And there are terrorists, including many from outside Iraq, who seek to make our country the main battleground against freedom, democracy and civilization."

Then, as far as I'm concerned, he delivered the most important lines of his entire speech:

"...the struggle in Iraq today is not about the future of Iraq only. It's about the worldwide war between those who want to live in peace and freedom, and terrorists. "

The remainder of his address was devoted to a discussion of the three-part plan the leadership has for "building democracy, defeating the insurgency and improving the quality of ordinary Iraqis." He provided specific examples of how they are making progress toward their goals in each of the areas of their plan and capped his summary with some comments about the proposed national elections:

"As we move forward, the next major milestone will be holding of the free and fair national and local elections in January next. I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date can be met. So let me be absolutely clear: Elections will occur in Iraq on time in January..."

He closed by asking for the continuing resolve and will of the American led coalition in helping to bring about a free and peaceful Iraq and expressed his thanks to the more than 30 countries who have troops on the ground there. He emphasized that giving in to the demands of terrorists only encourages them to foment more violence and urged us to refuse to bargain with them about our fundamental principles.

All in all, I thought Allawi presented an honest assessment of the current situation in his country. He acknowledged there are many problems, but he told us they are making progress too. He knows his country needs the on-going support of the coalition if they are to succeed and I think his clarity in stating that need will help ensure that it's met. Let's hope we stay the course, not only for the sake of Allawi and the Iraqi people, but for our own sake as well.

Update: John Kerry, who was not in Washington to hear Mr. Allawi, gave us his assessment of the speech later in the day. Evidently, Kerry, who is spending all his time on the campaign trail here in the U.S., has a more accurate picture of the situation on the ground in Iraq than does Allawi, who lives there.

Update II: Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch weighs in. Be sure to read the comments.

Update III: My post would not be complete without considering the views of Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn.

Update IV: Ann Althouse believes Kerry's criticism of Allawi is his final, fatal mistake.

Let's All Get In a Pile

2004-09-19T20:48:00.000-07:00

"If sensuality were happiness, animals would be happier than men; but human happiness is lodged in the soul, not in the flesh."

- Seneca (3 BC-65 AD), Spanish-born Roman philosopher

This morning as I was reading The Island Packet this piece on cuddle parties caught my eye, begging to be read. As I sipped my coffee and perused the story, I began to realize how behind the times I am. Some of you may be too.

Libby Copeland, the author of the article, writes about a new aspect of the social scene that so far has not made its way to my community--not that I'm aware of anyway:

"...nearly all of us are desperate for someone, anyone, even someone we've just met, to hold us, rub our feet, stroke our hair. And because this is about healing, this someone might give us a long, soul-baring kiss. Then, our needs fulfilled, we might venture back into the real world, boasting that we'd been to a cuddle party, the grandest social experiment since the 1970's brought us primal screams and group rebirthings."

Cuddle party founders REiD Mihalko and Marcia Baczynski say we live in a touch-deprived society and they're encouraging people to loosen up and learn how "to explore touch and affection in a nonsexual way." Interested? You'll have to ante up $30 to attend and here's what happens:

"Thirteen people arrive, mostly in twos and fours...They change into pajamas and put on name tags. World music and jazz soften the mood. Mihalko asks them to gather in a 'welcome circle' on blankets on the floor. He calls himself 'your cuddle lifeguard' and introduces the other organizer, Marcia Baczynski, who wears thick-rimmed hipster glasses and pajama bottoms printed with a Froot Loops design.

Mihalko then explains the rules for the get-together:

"Everybody must ask permission of everyone else before doing anything. Kissing is as far as things can go. Nobody has to cuddle if he or she doesn't want to. Nobody can take off his or her clothes...Mihalko tells people to discuss their 'cuddle boundaries' and turns them loose."

No alcohol is allowed and no one is permitted to wear lingerie. Mihalko holds the parties during the day to help reduce the sexual tension created by the activities of the participants and, in order to alleviate concern that the parties could be construed as orgies, he uses a kind of kindergarten teacher language to make everyone feel they are in a "safe space."

If you'd like to find out how to move into one of the hipper parts of the 21st century, I'd suggest you read the entire article. Should your curiosity not be sated by the article, here's a website where you can get in-depth information about this new type of therapy.

I'm curious about why people would participate in something like this. Putting myself in their shoes, I suppose if I wasn't getting my share of hugs from people I care about I might agree to attend one of these orgies...er, parties. It seems that it would be similar to going for a massage. You know, you're stressed out, you pay to have someone give you a rub-down, you go home de-stressed and relaxed until next time when you do it all over again. Maybe that's the deal here.

Somehow, though, I think it's not. I think maybe many of these folks are looking for intimacy and believe they might find it by getting affectionate with a stranger. And they might, but chances are they won't. I admit that I'm old-fashioned, for I believe that intimacy needs to grow out of an emotional connection with someone, not the other way around.

These days I see more and more young people who get physically intimate with their partner very quickly, think that the heat they feel for each other is love, get married because of that illusion, then wake up one morning when the passion has diminished and discover they're in bed with a stranger.

Why gosh, the kisses were so sweet at the cuddle party. We thought we were soul mates. Could we get a refund?

Kids Who Have Everything

2004-09-17T13:13:00.000-07:00

"What the vast majority of American children need is to stop being pampered, stop being indulged, stop being chauffeured, stop being catered to. In the final analysis it is not what you do for your children but what you have taught them to do for themselves that will make them successful human beings."

- Ann Landers (1918-2002), American advice columnist

Often, when Lisbeth and I get together with friends our age, the conversation turns to grandchildren. A not uncommon complaint we hear is about how many "things" the grand-kids have and how moms and dads indulge their youngsters' desire for the latest thingamajig even though they're not using the thingamabobs they already have.

Syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr., who is preparing to become a parent himself, is concerned about this too and suggests that children might be better served if they had to experience a "little hardship" now and then.

In this Seattle Times article, he reflects on how today's parents deal with their kids:

"A lot of parents can't say no to their children's demands to buy them more of this and newer and more expensive versions of that. Parents are even flocking to daylong seminars where experts tell them how to stand up to their kids, how to say no to their demands and how to hold firm."

Thinking back to how his grandfather dealt with his son, Navarrette's father, he makes some comparisons:

"I can't imagine my grandpa ever needing a seminar to remind him who was the parent and who was the kid. A spanking, a scolding or even a disapproving glance did the trick.

The parents of today seem to be out of ideas about how to deal with...pint-sized 'wanting machines.' They don't want conflict or to disappoint their children. So they give in."

To what extent are they giving in? Navarrette points to research indicating that spending for kids is a major segment of total consumer spending:

"According to market research done by a company called Packaged Facts, families with kids ages 3 to 12 spend $53.8 billion annually on entertainment, personal-care items such as make-up, and reading materials for their children. And when the kids get older, they take their parents' credit cards or their own disposable income and buy even more goodies. Last year, according to a firm called Teenage Research Unlimited, 12 to 19-year-olds forked out $175 billion."

While I have no data on how much of this comes out of the parents' pockets and how much is earned by the kids themselves, I do know that I don't see as many youngsters mowing lawns, flipping burgers or bagging groceries as I did when my two boys were growing up. That would lead me to believe that a large chunk of these billions is coming from mom, dad and complaining grandparents.

Why does this matter? Well, I think it matters because our kids aren't learning that there's a price to be paid for the things that are coming their way. Many of them don't have to exert any effort, except possibly making the request, to get the things they want. This is not the way the real world works. It's not what they'll find when they leave the nest. Many will be sorely disappointed to learn, as my late father used to say, that "money does not grow on trees."

I won't cite chapter and verse all the negative things that can and do result from adults' fawning behavior toward their offspring, though I believe there are many. I will say this, however. I see more children than I think I should who were given everything their hearts desired when they were younger, went off to school and got their degree, became disenchanted that working took more effort than they were willing to put forth and returned home to live with their parents--often with a child of their own in tow. Unbelievably, their folks took them back in, continuing to treat them like kids even though they were adults.

Can anyone really be happy in this type of situation? I have my doubts. The sad part of it all is most of these situations could have been avoided had parents been somewhat less indulgent as their kids were growing up. While it's natural for kids to want things, parents aren't doing them a favor by showering them with gifts and asking for nothing in return.

Consider the Break

2004-09-16T19:22:00.000-07:00

"Game, noun: any unserious occupation designed for the relaxation of busy people and the distraction of idle ones; it's used to take people to whom we have nothing to say off our hands, and sometimes even ourselves."

- Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715-1780), French philosopher

A friend of mine sent me the link to this little putting game. I wanted to share it with you because I believe that even if you've never played golf, you'll get a kick out of trying to get the ball into the hole.

Here's a hint: before you putt be sure to consider the break, or slope, as the game designer calls it. I found that I usually missed on the low side of the hole. When I factored in extra break, the putts started dropping a little more frequently.

If you'd like to challenge me, my personal best is three in a row. Not so hot, I know, but I'm an old geezer with shaky hands and poor eyesight. It shouldn't be too difficult for any of you youngsters to whup up on me.

Should I improve on my best effort, I'll update the post to let you know. You can use the comments section to tell me how you've done. Good luck.

Ron

Update: All it took was a little practice, my friends. The record for me is now 8, that's EIGHT, in a row! Move over Tiger!

Update II: I just rolled in twelve consecutive putts and was feeling cocky enough about it to submit my score to the host. Thought I might be their new champ. Actually, I'm their chump. Someone named Kenny has made 362 putts in a row! I guess we could call him the leader in the clubhouse.

The Secret is Out: It's a Conspiracy

2004-09-14T20:54:00.000-07:00

"Our job is only to hold up the mirror--to tell and show the public what has happened."

- Walter Cronkite (1916- ), American broadcast journalist

As most of you know by now, CBS's Dan Rather is being accused of using forged documents in a 60 Minutes II story about George Bush's Air National Guard service that was aired last week. I've been following the blogworld's coverage of this for several days now and have seen both sides of the issue argued with equal fervor.

To be sure, depending on how you want this to come out, you can find someone in blogland who supports your point of view. This e-mail posted on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish captures one of his reader's thoughts about the various arguments for and against Mr. Rather's story and I must admit they closely match my own.

So what is the truth? It's hard to say, but the attention that bloggers have given the story is now spilling over into major media. It appears that Rather and CBS may have painted themselves into a corner from which it will be difficult to escape--at least without a lot of damage to their credibility as a news organization.

To that point, Belmont Club's Wretchard reported earlier today that the Washington Post has made a pronouncement on the authenticity of the documents and CBS would not find it to their liking:

"The Washington Post has run an article which practically humiliates CBS and Dan Rather. It begins with a repudiation of the Killian memos by the 60 Minutes chief document expert, Marcel Matley. The Post then pronounces on the documents themselves: they are fake."

Wretchard fails to see how CBS can continue to insist that the memos are the real mccoy in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Andrew Sullivan joins the Belmont Club blogger in chastising Rather in this post which includes excerpts from his recent article appearing in The New Republic.

The dilemma that remains for me is why Rather and CBS would have chosen to go with a story like this when the experts they conferred with had so many questions about the authenticity of the documents. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps there's a conspiracy at work here. Some have already said there is, and that Republican Karl Rove is masterminding it. Come on now. Would anyone believe such a thing?

Rich Hailey over at Shots Across the Bow does, but he suggests it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are responsible for these shenanigans. What could the Dems possibly hope to gain from such devious behavior? Hailey knows and he reveals the secret right here. Good grief! Who woulda thunk it?

Traveling Again

2004-09-09T07:52:00.000-07:00

"We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never been a candidate."

- Frank "Kin" Hubbard (1868-1932), American humorist

I'll be in the Tar Heel State for the next few days visiting with some old friends. While I'm away, here are some articles I've read recently that may be of interest to you:

Alan Bromley's "Fear and Loathing in Manhattan" talks about how hatred and revenge is motivating some of the potential voters in this year's presidential election.

Janet Daley of London's Daily Telegraph talks about sincerity as it applies to politics and politicians. While her focus is on British politicians she closes with a comment on the Americans.

American soldier Austin Bay has returned from Iraq and makes some observations about what is going on over there and what he feels we must do as we go forward.

At InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds opines about the latest round of accusations regarding Bush's military record that are flying around cyberspace. He links to several other pundits who have researched this story and written about it on their weblogs. A worthwhile read.

New Kerry Advisers: CNN "Crossfire" Co-Hosts

2004-09-08T20:32:00.000-07:00

"One might as well try to ride two horses moving in different directions, as to try to maintain in equal force two opposing or contradictory sets of desires."

- Robert Collier (1885-1950), American writer

The Campaign Desk, Columbia Journalism Review's excellent segment providing critique and analysis of the 2004 campaign, weighs in on CNN's latest fair and balanced reporting entry in this piece titled "Spin Buster: Spinners Spin Selves." It seems that James Begala and James Carville, co-hosts of CNN's "Crossfire," have joined the Kerry campaign. Not a bad decision really; Kerry needs their expertise. Some would say there's a small problem, though. Both have decided to continue their affiliation with CNN:

"There are plenty of pundits practicing today who once upon a time worked for a political campaign or a presidential administration--but concurrently working for a news organization and a political campaign seems an obvious conflict of interest to us."

Not to worry, says CNN spokesman Matt Furman. There's really no conflict. Begala and Carville have, in Furman's own words:

"...an informal role advising some members of the Kerry campaign; they are unpaid, they don't have an office or desk at campaign headquarters, and they don't regularly meet with the campaign."

Well, okay. That's a start, but tell us more:

"What about CNN's viewers? What are they to make of the fact that the network which bills itself as 'America's Campaign Headquarters' now employs two Kerry campaign advisers as hosts of a daily show?"

"So will viewers be informed of the "Crossfire" co-hosts' dual roles?" Furman insists it's already being done, citing announcements by CNN's Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper and Larry King. Exercising a modicum of skepticism, the Campaign Desk editors review the broadcasts themselves:

"...Carlson, not suprisingly, used the news to rib his co-host...speculating on what Carville's hiring might say about the state of the Kerry campaign. The notion of a conflict of interest apparently never crossed Carlson's mind.

...Cooper noted yesterday that a 'group of familiar faces' recently joined the Kerry campaign, including Begala and Carville. He then exchanged some harmless back-and-forth with Carville, noting that Kerry is making some strategic changes and that Carville is glad to help.

Larry King asked Paul Begala...yesterday, 'Are you going to work on the Kerry campaign, that was in The New York Times yesterday?' Among Carlson, Carville, Cooper, King and Begala, only Begala seemed alive to the potential hot potato implicit in the question. His halting reply: 'Yes--no, I work for CNN, Larry, I'm going to keep working for CNN...I absolutely--I support John Kerry. And I will advise him as I would advise any Democrat who wants advice, but I do it for free and I do it for love. So I'm going to continue to advise Kerry and support him but I'm not going to work for anybody but CNN.' "

Wow. That little speech has absolutely convinced me that Begala will be able to keep his two roles completely separate. And there's no doubt in my mind that CNN is continuing to take the high ground by exercising only the highest standards of journalism. After all, I see nothing wrong with "keeping two attack dogs like Carville and Begala on the payroll even after they sign on with the Kerry campaign." Yeah, right. Nothing wrong at all.

Update: Lots of interesting comments accompany this piece. You can find them here.

Update: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly weighs in on the Begala and Carville conflict of interest in this New York Daily News op-ed.

Some Time for Ourselves

2004-09-07T20:55:00.000-07:00

"It would do the world good if every man in it would compel himself occasionally to be absolutely alone. Most of the world's progress has come out of such loneliness."

- Bruce Barton (1886-1967), American businessman

I found this little essay titled "The Beauty of Solitude: Spending Time Alone to Rejuvenate" over at the DailyOM website and thought it worth sharing.

For those of you whose careers are still in full sway, whose children haven't left the nest and demand big slices of your time, or whose daily responsibilities make a moment to yourself virtually impossible, I dedicate this post. Perhaps you'll find something in it that gives you pause, allows you to clear your mind, postpone your obligations, truly relax and focus on yourself for awhile:

"Time alone isn't easy to come by and reserving time for oneself feels unnatural or unimportant. But all life is a balance, and, while we enrich our outer selves with activities and hobbies, we have the tendency to ignore the quieter inner self which is the source of creativity and serenity."

How does a person go about finding time for herself? It's not always easy. I remember when I was still in the business world with a hectic travel schedule, customer and supplier meetings to attend, employee and union relationships to take care of, a constantly ringing telephone and an in-box full of correspondence that had to be answered, I sometimes felt trapped-- unable to escape the continual grind and wishing the day would hurry up and get over.

In the evenings and on weekends when I should have been relaxing and focusing on my family and myself, I didn't always capitalize on that free time, often having my mind on something that I hadn't done or that needed to be un-done back at the office. Solitude, at least for me, was in short supply.

You can get away though, and it doesn't always require that you physically transport yourself to a distant location. Said another way, you don't have to wait until you can take a vacation to find time for yourself:

"Early in the morning or late at night, when others are sleeping, are perfect times to steal a few moments alone without any interrupts to let your mind wander, to prioritize, or simply to rest and replenish. During longer periods of solitude, you may want to engage in solitary activities that bring you peace, joy, or comfort, such as writing in a journal or taking a long bath. Take advantage of unexpected solitude whenever you can. If you find yourself caught in traffic, turn off the radio, and spend a few fulfilling moments de-stressing."

I found that using the wee hours worked for me. Being a person who requires less sleep than most, I would use the quiet time between midnight and 2 AM to get my batteries recharged. Reading something enjoyable, working a crossword, writing in my journal or writing letters worked wonders for me.

When I had more time, like on a weekend, I'd go fishing. Sometimes I'd take a friend, but often I went alone. When I returned home, whether there were any bass in the live well or not, I always felt refreshed.

Taking care of our own needs can be a challenge, especially in the world we live in today. With so many other things demanding our time, it's easy to allow that aspect of our lives to go unattended. But we shouldn't. We shouldn't because there's a price to pay for that inattention. If, when we reach the end of our life the debt to ourself is great, we'll most likely regret that we didn't allot some time for self-nurturing. Regrets, as we all know, are so unnecessary, especially when we know better. And we do know better.

Evolution: Of a Political Nature

2004-09-06T20:53:00.000-07:00

"I don't know why, but they seem to have a tendency to separate us, to keep us from one another, while nature is always and ever making efforts to bring us together."

- Sean O'Casey (1880-1964), Irish playwright

Karl Zinsmeister says the two U.S. political parties have changed, no longer fitting the stereotypes of the past:

"Democrats: the party of the little guy. Republicans: the party of the wealthy. Those images of America's two major political wings have been frozen for generations.

No more. Starting in the 1960s and '70s, whole blocs of 'little guys'--ethnics, rural residents, evangelicals, cops, construction workers, homemakers, military veterans--began moving into the Republican column. And big chunks of America's rich elite--financiers, academics, heiresses, media barons, software millionaires, entertainers--drifted into the Democratic Party."

He supports his premise with data from polls of those who voted in the 2000 election: only 7% of voters in pro-Bush counties earned at least $100,000 while in pro-Gore counties 14% were at that level of income. In those same counties 38% of Bush voters earned less than $38,000 compared to 29% of Gore supporters below that figure.

Zinsmeister points out that contributors to the Democratic Party are increasingly the well-to-do:

"The financial pillars for Democrats are now super-rich trial lawyers, Hollywood entertainment executives and megabuck financiers. Both parties have their fat cats, obviously, but Federal Election Commission data show that many of the very wealthiest political players are now in the Democratic column."

He tells us that lawyers are by far the largest donors to the party of the common man, contributing 71% of their money to Dems and 29% to Republicans, and that ultra-wealthy brokers and bankers are not far behind the lawyers in their generosity to theDemocrats.

Zinsmeister says that John Kerry "is a perfect embodiment of the takeover of the Democratic Party bywealthy elites":

"If elected, he would become the richest man ever to sit in the White House...And there are now many Democrats like Mr. Kerry--from Sen. Jon Corzine to Sen. Jay Rockefeller--who are simultaneously top of the heap in wealth and on the left in politics.

Migration of the rich and powerful to the Democrats has been so pronounced, John Kerry has actually pulled in much more money than President Bush this spring and summer. Mr. Kerry's fund-raising totals have routinely doubled or even tripled Mr. Bush's sums. And while Mr. Bush has relied heavily on flocks of small donors, the money on the Kerry side has come much more from well-heeled individuals like the Hamptons beach-house owners who handed him $3 million in one day at the end of August."

How will this shift impact the Democrats' chances of capturing the White House this fall? Mr. Zinsmeister feels it will have a negative effect:

"From Andrew Jackson to George Bush the elder, U.S. politicians have known that leaders who put on airs or otherwise separate themselves from ordinary Americans will be penalized by the electorate."

Who can really say? Zinsmeister may be right, but I don't think the statistics he uses to support his view make a strong enough case that the "common man" has deserted the party of FDR and the rich have replaced him. I do believe, based on what I see around me, that there are many more lower and middle-income Americans who support the Republican Party today than there were when I was a young man. Conversely, there also seem to be many more Americans in the top-income brackets who've thrown their support to the Democrats.

No doubt, both parties find themselves with a different mix of constituents than the ones who were party faithfuls 10, 20 or 30 years ago. This can't help having an impact on their policies as they attempt to address the concerns of these voters. Capturing seats in Congress, winning governorships, or taking the White House will require strategies that would never have worked when, as Zinsmeister said, the Democrats were the party of the little guy and the Republicans catered to the rich.

Sloppy or Dishonest?

2004-09-05T20:50:00.000-07:00

"Once a newspaper touches a story the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists."

- Norman Mailer, (1923- ), American writer

Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit links to a sloppily researched article by Kate Zernike in the New York Times and asks, "When, oh, when, will we get a decent press corps?"

What has Glenn so frustrated is Zernike's use of an untrue story about George H. W. Bush which showed up in the Times back in 1988:

"Maybe she copped that from Juan Gonzales in the Daily News a couple of days earlier, who wrote: 'Can we ever forget the look of utter amazement on Bush, the father, the first time he found himself facing and electronic scanner at a supermarket counter 12 years ago?' "

According to Snopes.com, Bush was neither where the piece said he was nor was the author of the article present at the event.

Errors like this make you wonder if reporters are not getting the little stories right, how well they're doing on the big ones. Deadlines on major breaking news might put pressure on writers to release their work before every single detail is verified, but something like the Zernike and Gonzales pieces that are not that time-sensitive should be dead-on accurate in my opinion. That said, I'd be inclined to chalk their oversight up to plain old sloppiness, rather than dishonest reporting.

I can't be as generous in my assessment of the recent Associated Press bogus boos story, however. It was a flat-out fabrication according to Hindrocket over at PowerLine. I would agree, as Hindrocket suggests, that its author should be fired. In fact, I would go even further and say he should never be allowed to report for any major, or minor, news organization again. He's broken the trust of every reader who gets the news from outlets who use the AP as a source, and there are hundreds of these.

This Reynolds post explores the breach of trust rather thoroughly. Read the whole thing, and when you're finished ask yourself how we've arrived at this point. When did it become acceptable to fictionalize what is supposed to be news? How much of what we read assuming it is factual is anything but?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I do believe something good may be coming out of all this. The media's seeming reluctance to police themselves is creating an army of fact-checkers in the blogging world. These folks are refusing to allow traditional media to get away with anything less than honest reporting. Armed with their powerful search engines and connected to each other by an extensive informal network, they are verifying almost everything being published today.

To me, that's a giant step in the right direction. Anything that's happening that will help bring a higher level of honesty and integrity to our print and broadcast media is a good thing. I applaud these new detectives and urge them to continue their criticism of those who are not taking their responsibilities as journalists as seriously as they should.

Where Is Osama?

2004-09-04T20:49:00.000-07:00

"Some defeats are only installments to victory."

- Jacob A. Riis (1849-1914), Danish-American journalist

Sarah, a friend of mine, left a comment on yesterday's post and summed it up with a legitimate question: "Where is Osama?" I wish I knew, but I don't.

Coincidentally, tonight as I was reading through some other blogs I ran across a post on Bill Adams' Idler Yet weblog that spoke to Sarah's question. Bill links to this story from the Air Force Times that suggests the arrest of Osama Bin Laden is imminent.

It seems I've heard this rumor before, though I can't recall where specifically. I haven't taken it seriously because I don't believe we'd be publicly announcing that we're closing in on Osama. Why do that, possibly tipping him off that we're about to spring the trap? Broadcasting our plans for achieving his capture makes absolutely no sense. No, I think we'll do our best to surprise the old boy in his sleep, and announce his arrest only after he is handcuffed and in one of our jails.

I'm also aware that some have suggested that Dubya has already captured Osama, has secreted him away somewhere, and plans to bring him out sometime between now and November 2. A Republican coup if I've ever heard one! Though laughable to me, it's to this theory that Mr. Adams speaks:

"So, although Osama's capture this month would be logically foreshadowed by publicly observed events--it would still strike many people as a rabbit out of a hat. The hard-core Democratic response is predictable, but if the Democrats want to make a majority of Americans believe it was a put-up job, they have to act immediately. They must vigorously spread the rumor, already started for them, that Osama was captured, oh, about a month ago and is being held secretly until a better 'capture' time closer to the election. There needn't be any quibbling over evidence, since in their hearts they have always believed that Bush would do this, because this is what Satan would do."

If you're into conspiracy theories, you'll enjoy reading the rest of Adams' piece. If you're not, don't bother, unless you're in need of some comic relief.

As for your question Sarah, all I can say is that Osama is somewhere, maybe dead, maybe alive. If he's alive, I believe he'll eventually be caught and brought to justice. Sadly, his capture won't bring an end to international terrorism, but it would represent major progress in our fight against Al-Qaeda. That's something I think we'd all like to see.

Update: San Francisco Chronicle's James Sterngold speculates about the impact the capture of Osama bin Laden might have on the war on terrorism, particularly with regard to al Qaeda.

The Issue That Trumps All Others

2004-09-03T20:55:00.000-07:00

"He serves his party best who serves the country best."

-Rutherford B. Hayes (1822-1893), 19th U.S. president

This November many lifelong Democrats will be casting their vote for President Bush rather than their party's candidate, Senator John Kerry. One of the Dems who will be making this switch is Ed Koch, former New York City mayor. Jeff Jacoby writing for TownHall.com, explains why in a column titled "Why Koch is on Bush's Bandwagon":

"Ed Koch identifies himself with pride as a lifelong Democrat...says his values have always been those of the broad Democratic center--the values of FDR and Harry Truman, of Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He disdains the Republican worldview as cold and unfeeling...No surprise, then, that Koch disagrees with George W. Bush on just about every domestic issue, from taxes to marriage to prescription drugs.

But he's voting for him in November.

'I've never before supported a Republican for president,' Koch told me last week. 'But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter.' "

Koch told Jacoby that he has serious doubts that his party's leadership has the resolve to "press on in what is going to be a long and grinding conflict." He points to the Democratic Convention, where 9 out of 10 delegates wanted to get out of Iraq, as revealing the antiwar mindset that pervades the Democratic Party leadership. He has no faith that Kerry would have the courage to stand up to those who are now in charge of his party:

"But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? 'That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign,' Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and 'when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want.' "

Democrats and Independents who feel as Koch does, that terrorism is the most crucial issue facing our country today, will very likely vote to re-elect the President. Voters who see terrorism as less important than issues like the economy, health care and education will probably vote for Kerry, unless they are Republicans.

With terrorist activity continuing to occur, as it has in the past few days at a school in the Russian town of Beslan where hundreds of innocents have been murdered, Americans will be constantly reminded that this threat remains with us. Bush's resolve with regard to these enemies is a known. Kerry's is not. For that reason, I believe that unless we see a drastic reduction in terrorist attacks throughout the world, we will see a landslide victory for the President this fall.

I think this issue, and this issue alone, will determine who our next president will be. If I'm correct about this, then in order to win Kerry must convince Americans that he will be a better commander-in-chief than Bush. That will be a terrifically hard sell, especially with long-time Democrats such as Koch publicly announcing their support for the President.

On The Road Again

2004-08-29T12:29:00.000-07:00

"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?

2004-08-28T22:29:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-27T20:53:00.000-07:00

"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?

2004-08-25T19:43:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-22T20:41:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-19T20:43:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-13T08:19:00.000-07:00

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?

2004-08-13T08:11:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-12T20:53:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-11T20:48:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-09T21:00:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-07T20:49:00.000-07:00

"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?

2004-08-06T20:57:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-04T20:38:00.000-07:00

"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?

2004-08-03T20:55:00.000-07:00

"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?

2004-08-02T20:59:00.000-07:00

"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

2004-08-01T20:55:00.000-07:00

"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.

Who Is John Kerry?

2004-07-30T20:18:00.000-07:00

"Saying is one thing and doing is another: we are to consider the sermon and the preacher distinctly and apart."

-Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), French essayist

Political pundit Dick Morris pretty much nailed John Kerry for me in his New York Post oped, "The Bagel Candidacy." Morris, assessing Kerry's Friday night Democratic Convention speech, raises important questions that deserve answers:

"What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate?

What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in?

What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?"

Morris says that all we know about Kerry is he fought in Vietnam and then ran for president.

In his speech last night, Kerry had an opportunity to fill in some of these blanks as well as elaborate on how he plans to deal with current issues like Iraq, future threats to our security and the economy. The Washington Post editors (registration required) say his speech failed to provide that critical information to the American voter:

"He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy...But what is 'the job' in Iraq? He didn't say...a President Kerry...would face momentous decisions based on inevitably imperfect information, whether about Iran or North Korea or dangers yet to emerge. How would he respond?"

Lawrence F. Kaplan shares many of the Post editors' concerns in an article in The New Republic Online titled "Apocalypse Kerry," and criticizes Kerry for touting his four months of service in Vietnam as experience that would enhance his effectiveness as commander-in-chief:

"...whether it describes a Republican or a Democratic candidate, the fact that a politician has 'fought under that flag' tells us nothing about his qualifications to be a wartime leader--even less when the would-be leader devotes far more of his convention speech to a long-ago war than he does to the war in which America happens to be presently engaged.

If his Vietnam service offers proof that he is 'decisive' then why is it that for two decades Kerry has been 'only an average Senator,' as pro-Kerry columnist Al Hunt wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal? If his wartime feats prove that Kerry is 'strong' on national security, then why did he oppose virtually every stand-out weapons system in the U.S. arsenal today, speechify against the first Gulf War, and refuse to fund the second? Why, indeed, unless no correlation exists between his biography and his record?"

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Mr. Kerry doesn't give us the details of his Senate achievements of the last 20 years because there are few of them to brag about. I believe his reluctance to tell us specifically how he plans to deal with the Iraq and Afghanistan situations, how he intends to retaliate against possible future attacks on our homeland, and how he would manage our long-term economic issues stems from not wanting to be called to task should he fail to fulfill the promises he made as a campaigner if he becomes our next president.

This is not surprising, for it's how many politicians run a campaign. I just expect more in a race of this importance. If Kerry really wants to have a shot at winning this fall, he'd enhance his chances by being less evasive and much more specific as he presents himself to potential voters across the country. If he doesn't do this, I predict that Bush and the Republicans will bury him come November.

Update: Tom Maguire at his weblog JustOneMinute has some thoughts too. In addition to a couple of the links I used he provides some others, and there are many interesting comments in response to his post.

Update: Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell weighs in on Kerry's "Missing Years" in this Townhall.com oped.

Walking Home a Different Way

2004-07-22T20:37:00.000-07:00

"Normal day, let me be aware of the treasure you are. Let me learn from you, love you, savor you, bless you before you depart. Let me not pass you by in quest of some rare and perfect tomorrow. Let me hold you while I may, for it will not always be so."

- Mary Jean Irion, American writer, educator

Christian McEwen in this Christian Science Monitor essay titled "Take the Time to Take Things More Slowly" urges all of us to slow down a bit and enjoy the moment we're in--something that in today's world can be difficult to make ourselves do. He shares one of the experiences he had teaching a writing class in London twenty years ago:

"There was a man in this last group whom I'll call George. He was a creaky, lanky, doubtful sort of fellow...I remember his response to one of my assignments: It was the sort of lesson--at least for me as a teacher--that I hope I will never forget...I had asked the class to take some ordinary task--washing the dishes, dusting the bedroom, tidying up the children's toys--and tackle it at less than half the usual speed."

George, a retiree, had a part-time job and at the end of the day always walked home using the same few streets. Thinking about McEwen's assignment, he decided to make his way home using a completely new route. I hope you'll go to the link above and read what George had to say to the class the next day.

McEwen's reaction to his student and his perceptive advice are worth anyone's consideration:

"It sounds so simple--almost too simple to be worth saying. But taking the time to slow down in this way can be a tremendous source of joy. It gives you time to listen, to pay attention. And that in turn allows you to take in whatever surrounds you in the outer world: to be engaged and nourished by it.

Just as important, slowing down frees you to listen inwards: to muse, to remember, to imagine, to dream. It gives you time to mull over a book you've been reading, or to sort out your jangled reactions to a difficult conversation."

How do we slow down and tune in? How do we become more aware of what's going on around us and immerse ourselves in the present moment? How can we truly savor each day, and live it to the fullest?

I don't believe the old Nike commercial, "Just Do It!" is the solution, though it has its merits and sometimes works for me when I'm procrastinating about something. These questions, instead, require some reflection, and that's what McEwen is suggesting we do--slow down, become more aware of things and reflect a bit about what's happening around us. Keeping that in mind, I'd say there are two things that have helped me do this.

Writing is one of them. Not the writing I do on this weblog, but the writing I've done over the years in my personal journals. I find that sitting down, usually in the morning, taking a pen in hand and writing about whatever is on my mind, has always helped me to better understand what is happening in my life.

Many times after writing about something that is troubling me I find in my written reflections an answer that I don't think I would have discovered had I not taken the time to put my thoughts on paper. Going back and reading something I wrote years ago can be helpful too. Reading about my past has often given me the insight I've needed to deal with things going on in my life today.

The other thing that has helped me with these things is photography and art. As a kid I always enjoyed drawing and sketching. Seeing something that was pleasing to me and drawing it gave me a great deal of satisfaction. When I discovered cameras, another world opened up for me. I found that, as with the sketching, I was always looking for something to photograph and this constant search for a subject enhanced my sensitivity to the things around me.

Now, anytime I find myself too busy, too caught up in the hectic times in which we're living, not interested or engaged, or taking the beauty in my world for granted, I try to remember to reach for my journal or my camera, or both. They help me to slow down, lookaround and consider the things that are important in my life. Soon, I'm back on track. They work for me. What works for you?

He Just Can't Win

2004-07-20T20:53:00.000-07:00

"Experience informs us that the first defense of weak minds is to recriminate."

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), English poet

There's no way George Bush can win. At least that's what Rich Lowry thinks. In his National Review Online article titled "W.'s Double Binds" he tells us why:

"Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters."

Lowry explains how Bush's decisions on the major issues of the day are being evaluated by his political adversaries:

"If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all.

Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.

If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion."

There's more, and it's a fun essay. Mr. Lowry's conclusion, in particular, is hilarious. Read the whole thing if you need a chuckle.

Contrarian Steyn

2004-07-15T20:55:00.000-07:00

"Neither smiles nor frowns, neither good intentions nor harsh words, are a substitute for strength."

- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), 35th U.S. president

With practically every poll I see showing the Kerry/Edwards ticket defeating Bush/Cheney, and listening to my wife tell me she thinks the Democrats will win in November, it would be easy to become discouraged about the Republican's chances of being re-elected this fall. But I am still optimistic for many of the reasons suggested by columnist Mark Steyn in his article in the U.K.'s The Spectator magazine (brief registration required).

In his inimitable manner, Steyn opines that the "anyone but Bush" Democrats whose votes Kerry and Edwards are counting on may become disenchanted if Kerry doesn't do something to hold their interest between now and election day:

"...the question is whether the base's strong anti-Bush motivation can survive its non-existent pro-Kerry motivation. Key demographics--such as blacks and Hispanics--are reported to be antipathetic to the candidate and difficult to corral. Even the fawning press has a tough job talking him up."

He quotes Jodi Wilgoren writing about Kerry in the New York Times:

"Like a caged hamster, Senator John Kerry is restless on the road. He pokes at the perimeter of the campaign bubble that envelops him, constantly trying to break out..."

Steyn suggests that it would have sounded better if Wilgoren had substituted "caged tiger" for "caged hamster," but surmises that she had her reasons for describing him as she did. His reaction to the Wilgoren piece leads him to describe Bush as a rat--lab rat that is:

"Bush, meanwhile, is like some indestructible lab rat. They keep tossing some lethal new poison in there every week and he digests it all and keeps on going. The economy's a bust! Iraq'sa quagmire! There are no WMD!But Bush just ploughs through it all, and in the end the dynamic of the race seems barely affected."

Having said that, Mr. Steyn predicts that Bush will win and provides us with an analysis of how he thinks the voting will play out in November. He summarizes by giving us another reason he puts his money on Bush:

"But the other reason I'd bet on Bush is more basic: he tends not to lose. In 2002 Michael Moore gloated that the midterms would be the shot heard round the world--a massive repudiation of the moron warmonger--and instead the President had a great night of significant incremental gains in the Senate and House. If he's a moron, he's the luckiest moron who ever lived."

He addresses issues such as the economy, Iraq, and the President's "lies" that are being touted as negatives by Kerry/Edwards, then cites a Pew poll that identifies the strongest associations people have with Bush as being positive:

"The Bush characteristics most frequently cited by the public are that he is tough and won't back down (53 per cent) and that he is strong and decisive (48 per cent), although 44 per cent did describe him as stubborn. Conversely, only 18 per cent selected Kerry as the candidate who most epitomises strength and decisiveness, and only 15 per cent saw him as the one who is tougher and more tenacious...The only theme that more of the public saw as best describing Kerry rather than Bush was that he was a flip-flopper."

Why does this matter? Steyn tells us why he thinks it does:

"...if voters think this election is about the small print on your credit-card statement or ten-year-old girls without winter coats or any of John Edwards' other bizarre obsessions, they'll ditch Bush and Cheney. But if they think it's about American resolve in dangerous times, Kerry and Edwards look way out of their league."

I don't know about you, but I think it's, as Steyn puts it, "about American resolve in dangerous times." Stanley Crouch, columnist for the New York Daily News, does too. If Kerry and Edwards are to have a chance of defeating Bush, they'd do well to give all this some consideration, but I bet they won't.

A New Outlook

2004-07-14T20:07:00.000-07:00

"A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894), American writer

Sometimes when you're paying the least attention to what you're doing and you're not looking for anything in particular, perhaps just passing the time, something happens that gives you a fresh perspective on things. Such was the case with Michelle Brown who was meeting a friend and her children for lunch even though she was in a really bad mood.

"I was having a bad day--a really bad day. Maybe it was one of those trickledown yellings. I was working at the University then, so maybe I felt caught in one of the many departmental power struggles."

Though she had no desire to make the date, out of a sense of obligation she went on anyway and found herself alone with little Lucas when her friend, Karen, and her other two kids got ahead of them. As she and Lucas followed Karen, Lucas heard what he thought were baby birds and stopped to look for them.

"Then Lucas stopped and said, 'Listen.' I heard them, too--baby birds up in the trees somewhere. So I stepped back and looked. Sure enough, a nest was tucked into the top of a nearby tree. I told Lucas, 'See? It's right up there.' 'Where?' he asked. 'There to the left of the street light,' I said, a little annoyed, pointing to the nest. He still didn't see it, so I squatted down next to him and realized that, from his height, the nest was completely blocked by the other tree."

Michelle then reached down, picked Lucas up, and from his new vantage point the little guy was able to see where the baby birds' chirps were coming from. This made him very happy. And guess what? All of a sudden the things that had been weighing Michelle down became inconsequential. She was out of her funk. No therapy, no medication, no pity-party--a simple hug from a grateful child was all it took.

Isn't there a lesson here for most of us who are caught up in the agonies of this mad, mad world we live in today? I think so. In Michelle's case, it was a curious child that enabled her to see things in a new light. But it could be anyone, adult or child, who we take the time to connect with that could do the same for us. All it takes is a little more awareness. The rest will take care of itself.

"Poor" John

2004-07-13T20:53:00.000-07:00

"The enemy is not conservatism. The enemy is not liberalism. The enemy is bull."

- Lars-Erik Nelson (1941-2000), American journalist

In a Los Angeles Times opinion column (brief registration required), David Gelernter suggests that John Edwards' life clashes with his campaign message:

"...I can't believe the public is going to buy this act. Last week, I heard an admiring TV pundit explain, to general agreement from his fellows, that Edwards' 'two Americas speech' is his No. 1 asset, followed closely by his self-made-man, up-from-the-working-class life story. The problem is, they cancel each other out."

Gelernter says that Edwards' message that our country is divided by some sort of economic barricade is political guff. Economic historians tell us that American society is constantly moving from poor to middle class to well-off to rich, and this country provides myriad opportunities for almost anyone to realize the "American dream" if they are willing to make the effort. John Edwards himself is a great example:

"More important to the campaign: Edwards' life story shows that his message is false. If your story is 'poor boy makes good,' your message can't possibly be 'this is a two-part nation where poor boys are prevented from making good.' Exactly how dumb are the voters supposed to be?"

Mr. Gelernter continues:

"Edwards' whole campaign shtick suggests he's a regular guy, just plain folks, a slob like us. So if he got over this barricade...why can't anyone who really wants to? Answer: Anyone can, and everyone knows it. Edwards' story says so loud and clear. This is still the land of opportunity, where a talented working-class boy can grow up to be stinking rich and even be a candidate for vice-president."

There's more. Read the whole thing and consider Gelernter's suggestion that Edwards take his campaign message and really do something with it by being straight up with American voters. Can political discourse ever evolve to really "telling it like it is?" I doubt it. I believe that most politicians would view attempts at such honesty as the kiss of death. The American people may be ready for it, but until the candidates believe they are it will never happen.

Update: Some of you have written and told me you're having trouble getting the link to David Gelernter's article to work. I've checked the URL and it's correct. Sometimes going outside the journal entry and typing it into your browser will get you there. Here's the story title and address: "Edwards' Life Clashes With Campaign Message" http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-op-gelernter11jul11,1,4514197.story . Good luck.

Vain Is a Pain

2004-07-12T19:23:00.000-07:00

"You can't see the world through a mirror."

- Avril Lavigne, Canadian born singer

Bernadette Malone, in what I think is a hilarious op-ed she wrote for The Union Leader, provides us with one female's reaction to some of John Kerry's recent comments:

"John Kerry probably lost untold numbers of votes when he announced he and his new running mate John Edwards have 'better hair' than their opponents George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a vain man."

She goes on to talk about what she believes are some of Kerry's other missteps:

"Kerry had already committed several offenses in this category that were starting to make me feel uncomfortable. The first was when he posed for Vogue magazine wearing an electric blue wet suit. It's only borderline acceptable for a man to pose for Vogue, and it's only borderline acceptable for a man to wear an electric blue wetsuit. The combination of the two, however, took things a wave too far. Real men just don't do that.

Then there were other reports...that Kerry receives Botox treatments to diminish his wrinkles. I thought it was great that his wife admits to using Botox, but women are supposed to be vain. The thought of my next President lying back in the dermatologist's chair to have botulism bacteria injected into his facial muscles so his eyebrows and smile will freeze in place and look taut makes me queasy."

Ms. Malone continues her criticism of the "vain male" with observations about Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Kerry's new running mate, John Edwards. She also opines about how Hillary Clinton might have become Kerry's choice for vice-president had she only recognized John's fixation with hair.

I'm wondering if Malone's turn-off with the "vanity thing" in men is a prevalent attitude among women. Somehow I don't believe it is based on comments I hear women making about Edwards' good looks, or the teeny-bopper adulation expressed toward Bill Clinton by the mostly female Oprah Show audience when he was a guest there a couple of weeks ago.

It is amusing to see the kinds of things that cause some voters to cast their ballot for a candidate and to realize how little some of these things have to do with that person's ability to perform the job. I suppose this will always be the case, however, especially with the advent of television and the ability of the media to create an image of a candidate that may or may not reflect who that candidate really is.

Phew...Glad That's Over!

2004-07-07T20:53:00.000-07:00

"It seems a little ridiculous now, but this country was originally founded as a protest against taxation."

- Anonymous

The Americans for Tax Reform organization announced today that the "Cost of Government" date has been reached. What does this mean? Christoper Lee, of the Washington Post tells us in this story (brief registration required):

"A group that favors smaller government will celebrate another kind of independence day today, marking the date by which the average American worker has earned enough money to cover his or her share of the cost of federal, state and local government."

Put another way, Americans have to work on average 189 days out of the year just to meet all the costs imposed by government. Amazingly, all forms of American government consume over 51% of our national income.

You know, on its face, that sounds oppressive. To think that all of us work more than half a year for Uncle Sam and all his little siblings is enough to make you want to revolt. But we won't. Withholding taxes from our income spreads the misery over the entire year for most of us, and makes our tax burden less noticeable and a little easier to swallow.

I would think those who have no withholding and must ante up a tax payment every quarter feel the pinch to a much greater degree than plain old wage earners or pension recipients like most of the rest of us. Still, it's sobering when presented in this manner, and it makes you feel like writing your representative to see if you can convince him to tighten up the purse strings at least a little bit. I think I will.

As far as I know, it's been awhile since any federal legislation has been introduced that would cut spending or reduce the size of the government bureaucracy. It would seem to me that such action is long overdue.

Our governor, Mark Sanford, is making some attempts in this area but is practically at war with the S.C. legislature. He vetoed over 100 bills this year, only to have our lawmakers overturn all but one of them. Frustrated at his lack of success, he carried a live pig into one of their sessions to drive home his point that "pork" has to go. That little shenanigan didn't endear him to (m)any of our representatives, but my sense is the populace thought it was appropriate. Such is Southern politics.

Anyway, Sanford is trying to do something about the growth of government and taxes in our state, and I think the people are with him. We need more public servants like him who are willing to do something about the fact that we're having to work 6 months of each year to support our governments. Sadly, he's in the minority.

Update: Grover Norquist, president of the Americans for Tax Reform organization, adds his two cents in this National Review article, "Today, We Start Working for Ourselves."

If It Happens Again

2004-07-06T20:34:00.000-07:00

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."

- William T. Sherman (1820-1891), U.S. Civil War Union General

None of us like to think of the possibility of another 9/11-type attack occurring in our country. Most of us have stored the memories of what happened on September 11, 2001, into some recess of our brain that we try not to access any more than we have to. I believe that most of us realize that we remain vulnerable despite the precautions we have taken, but we cling to the, perhaps false, hope that 9/11 was a moment in time that won't be repeated in our lifetime.

Something keeps gnawing at us, though, and we find ourselves wondering if the next newsflash will bring word of another heinous deed committed by terrorists somewhere in our country. Can't happen, you may say. All the Islamic extremists are focusing their murderous intentions on our soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're too busy over there to be able to plan anything over here.

Yes, they're over there--but they're over here too. And they're not only kneeling on their prayer mats, they're actively planning ways to kill as many of us as they can. And what if they're successful? What if they kill another 3,000, 30,000 or, God help us, another 300,000 innocent souls? What will we do? How will we retaliate? Who will we retaliate against?

Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, makes some observations about our experts' belief that such an attack is inevitable in his essay "ANOTHER 9/11?"

"Almost daily we are assured that another attack on the homeland commensurate with 9/11 is inevitable...Our experts weighed in over the 4th of July weekend and seemed to disagree only over the method of mass murder to come...We talk endlessly about 'they' without ever specifying exactly who 'they' really are who are planning to butcher us at home...While we speculate idly about the nature of the attack to come, and the inability of our homeland-security forces to stop it, very few talk about what we should do post-facto if the promised disaster actually transpires."

He suggests that when your enemies know what your response will be if they attack you, as they did in the Cold War, it can help create deterrence:

"...our silence is almost surreal given the standard past American policy in the Cold War of quietly announcing that a Soviet first strike on the United States would result immediately in massive retaliation...in the absence of any better strategy, Mutually Assured Destruction kept the peace for 50 years and prevented millions of Americans from being incinerated."

Hanson recognizes that our enemy today is totally unlike the one we confronted from the 1950's through the 1980's. We knew who the Soviets were and we knew where to find them. How do you retaliate against the shadowy foe we face today?

"So what would the United States do the next time we are hit? Strike who or what--and where, when and how? The problem with the likes of a supposedly nation-less bin Laden, Zarkawi, or their copy-catters, we are told, is that they are like metastasizing brain tumors whose ganglia are deeply embedded in the surrounding tissue. Surgery or chemotherapy often kills the host as well as the cancer. They and their stealthy patrons both know and count on just that ambiguity and imprecision.

Thus the genius of the jihadists is that they provide psychological rewards on the cheap for millions in the Arab Street without costs, and in turn thrive on 'credible deniability' of their tacit hosts. They smirk that postmodern Western liberality precludes Shermanesque collective punishment against the pre-modern. After all, a Christiane Amanpour can be at the front in 24 hours before a live 60-million-strong audience to yell to U.S. troops on patrol 'Don't step on that child!' But do they also know that another 9/11 would throw such restraint out the window?"

Hanson suggests that these killers cannot carry out large attacks without the direct aid of host nations such as Syria, Iran, Lebanon and secret elements within Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and other countries. Even as their governments disassociate themselves from the murder of our citizens, many of them are aiding and abetting those who would do us harm. These countries, then, would be the targets of our retaliation for another 9/11, and Hanson feels they should understand that in no uncertain terms:

"The key for the United States...is to convey the message that if there should be a repeat of 9/11, the United States will hold any countries responsible who are proved to have aided or sheltered any of the guilty.

We should be clear about a proper response now and inform the appropriate parties exactly of the real damage they should expect--and it won't be moral fuzziness about guilt over endemic poverty, ancient support for the shah, past Aramco antics, the misery of the Arab Street, and all the other bottled causes and complaints that the Middle East counts on for its accustomed pass from a supposedly neurotic, decadent, and self-loathing West."

There's a lot more. I would suggest you read the whole thing. And while you're doing that, pretend that you are our president, or a member of congress, or secretary of defense and you're trying to decide how we should respond if we're attacked again. We should have a plan, shouldn't we? Actually, we probably do, and it could have more terrible consequences than what Hanson suggests. Can you think of a better way? One that would deter future acts of aggression, or in the event of another attack, punish the perpetrators and those who aided them?

This? Or That?

2004-07-05T20:56:00.000-07:00

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

- Yogi Berra, American baseball player, manager

Stuart Jeffries, Guardian Unlimited columnist, thinks that having too many choices has the opposite effect of what most of us believe it should. In an article written earlier this year, he surmises that "Hell Is 57 Varieties," and proceeds to tell us why having so many things to choose from makes our lives more complicated and stressful.

Citing a new book by American social scientist Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice, Jeffries suggests that reducing our options helps limit our anxiety and makes us happier. He gives us some hints from Schwartz's book about how this might be accomplished, but then offers a word of caution. He points out that having a lot of things to choose from may allow us to discover something we don't yet know we need, so if we limit our choices we may miss something that could be really important to us.

Sounds like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I agree with Mr. Jeffries that we now have tons of choices, especially here in the U.S.A. But I haven't found that having 21 varieties of raisin bran, 28 brands of vodka, a gazillion types of golf balls or 348 channels on my tv to be much of a problem. I take about 2 minutes to make my selection, usually based on price or taste, then go on my merry way. Having lots of "stuff" to choose from has rarely been a problem for me.

Life choices, on the other hand, have sometimes gotten sticky. You know--Do I want to marry this person? Should I have children? Do I really need to get a physical? Is this really where I want to spend the rest of my life? Should I let Mom move in with us? Is lending money to my friend a wise thing to do? Am I tipsy enough that I should find someone else to drive? Is it okay to lie just this once? Choosing the cereal I want to eat is a snap when you consider these dilemmas.

You may want to read the entire article and see what you think. Jeffries makes some good points, as does Schwartz, but I don't agree with them that having so many things to choose from these days creates that much stress. I kinda like it, because I can remember when there was only one type of milk, two or three brands of cereal and one flavor of ice cream at the grocery where Mom used to shop. The variety we have now is wonderful. So what kind of beer do I want this week? Eeny, meeny, miney, moe...it works for me.

Conflicting Reports

2004-07-04T20:49:00.000-07:00

"Journalism is popular, but it is popular mainly as fiction. Life is one world, and life seen in the newspaper another."

- G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), English writer

Iraqi blogger Omar on his weblog Iraq The Model, tells us about his reaction to the recent farewell speech of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority leader, Paul Bremer in a post titled "Small Party and Great Hopes":

"The hall was busy and everyone was chatting and laughing loud. They had Al-Jazeera on...Then suddenly Mr. Bremer appeared on TV reading his last speech before he left Iraq. I approached the TV to listen carefully to the speech, as I expected it to be difficult in the midst of all that noise. To my surprise everyone stopped what they were doing and started watching as attentively as I was."

Omar describes the effect that Bremer's words had on his co-workers and friends who were watching the broadcast with him:

"I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She'at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, 'So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?' My friend smiled, still touched and said, 'Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes, God bless him.'

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, 'I must admit that I'm beginning to believe in what you've been telling us for months and I'm beginning to have faith in America."

Take a few minutes and read the whole thing, and when you're finished take a look at this post on the blog, The Ombudsgod, to see what the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post had to say about the Bremer speech that Omar and his friends liked so much.

Sad, really.

Gore Voters: What Will They Do?

2004-07-02T20:41:00.000-07:00

"No man sees far; the most see no farther than their noses."

- Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), Scottish born English writer

James Taranto, in a post for the WSJ Opinion Journal titled "Landslide Kerry?" quotes two gents who are predicting that John Kerry has the 2004 presidential election pretty well sewed up. Chuck Todd, editor of the Hotline, predicts a landslide for Kerry:

"The reason...is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators...it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout."

And Josh Marshall, on his weblog Talking Points Memo, makes the following prediction:

"President Bush's approval rating rests at 42%. Meanwhile, 60% say the Iraq war has not been worth the cost. In other words, that it was a mistake...These two numbers, particularly the first, are really close to the whole story. Incumbent presidents who fall short of 50% approval are in some danger. Those who aren't much over 40% are fighting for their political lives...I take it as a given that virtually no Gore voters from 2000 will pull the lever for Bush...And since there were more Gore voters than Bush voters last time anyway, well..." (underlining is mine)

Taranto suggests that Marshall's belief that no Gore voters will mark their ballot for Bush sounds far-fetched and perhaps "Democrats in 2004 are repeating the mistake Republicans made in 1996: assuming that the intensity of their own loathing for the incumbent means that loathing is widespread beyond the partisan base."

In a subsequent post Mr. Taranto provides some evidence that what Marshall predicts may indeed be far-fetched. Readers of his "Landslide for Kerry?" entry who were Gore voters in 2000 and plan to support Bush in 2004 wrote him with their rationale for a switch from Democrat to Republican. These make for some interesting reading and can be found at this link.

Then in another post titled "Gore No More-II," Taranto provides us with more correspondence from Gore defectors. You may read them by clicking on this link. He highlights one reader's take on why he believes significant numbers of Gore voters will vote for Bush this fall. Some of his thoughts:

1. Gore got a few points for being the incumbent...and an even bigger boost for being an incumbent when the economy seemed to be doing well. Bush will get the incumbent and 'improving economy' vote this time.

2. Most Vietnam vets remember Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War activities, and not fondly. Huge numbers who voted for Gore...will desert Kerry--especially since any doubts about Bush's National Guard service are old news now, eclipsed by his post 9/11 performance.

3. Reports from the Jewish community indicate sizable movement--all of it toward Bush. No one thinks Bush will win the Jewish vote, but even being competitive will be a big swing in several battleground states.

Taranto closes by cautioning you ecstatic Republicans out there that his conclusions are highly speculative and that there may be those who voted for Bush in 2000 and have become disenchanted enough to vote for Kerry, though he hasn't heard from many of them. If you're a "Bushie" who plans to switch to Kerry, he'd love to hear from you. You can e-mail him at this address.

November, in political parlance, is a lifetime away. Many things can happen between now and then. I hope Taranto is right and Todd and Marshall are wrong, but at the moment it's anyone's guess--despite what any polls or pundits may say. Stay tuned.

Picking Up the Pieces

2004-07-01T20:53:00.000-07:00

"The human heart dares not stay away too long from that which hurt it most. There is a return journey to anguish that few of us are released from making."

- Lillian Smith (1897-1966), American writer

A blogger who calls herself "Right Thinking Girl" has fallen in love with Sean, a man who lost his wife in the World Trade Center terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. She recounts what it's like to talk with him about his dead wife and to share the pain he is still carrying in his heart for her.

Recently, Sean told her he had experienced a nightmare about his wife's death:

"He started to tell me that he had a nightmare and she had jumped. She was standing in the window, in her little pantsuit and pumps, looking down. It was flames or freefall. Then he was there, beside her, and he was asking her to try and get out, then she fell...When he woke up he was sick."

"Right thinking girl" tries to console him, giving him assurances that his spouse wasn't in pain when she died, but thinks he's unconvinced. She listens to him talk about how guilty he feels that he couldn't save her and she attempts to persuade him there was nothing he could have done.

She's angry and sad that the fall-out from that terrible day continues to haunt her and many others like her, and realizes the grief will be with Sean, and with her, for a long time:

"The fight against terrorism isn't just happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. It's still happening here at home, in places like Virginia and New York City...It's being waged every time a wife wakes up to the crying baby who will never know his father, and every time a man wakes up in a cold sweat dreaming that his wife jumped to avoid being burned alive."

Read the entire post. It's a touching story, one that those of us who weren't directly affected by this great tragedy need to hear again and again.

My thanks to A.W. over at the Free Speech weblog for this link.

Update: Should you need reminding about what happened in New York City on that crisp, fall morning in September, 2001, click on the link in this old entry.

The Miracle League

2004-06-30T20:43:00.000-07:00

"Give a little love to a child, and you will get a great deal back."

- John Ruskin (1819-1900), British social theorist

Here's a wonderful story about people helping people by The Christian Science Monitor staff writer Elizabeth Lund. It's a heart-warming account of how the Miracle League and its volunteers are helping handicapped kids learn how to play baseball:

"Ken Ware kneels behind his son, Cal, steadying the little boy, who stands inches from a T and a bright yellow ball. Together they raise a metal bat, which slips back and bonks Dad in the head.

'You can do it, Cal,' says the game's emcee over the intercom system.

The two finally take a swing together, knocking the ball three, maybe four feet. Mr. Ware picks up the boy and runs with him past first base, second, and third. By the time they reach home plate again, everyone in the park is cheering, even the opposing team."

In these games there are no strike-outs, runners are never tagged out and every player gets to bat and hit the ball. There are two innings played and the final score is always a tie. Each player is worthy and welcome. All are equal.

This wonderful program was started by Eddie Bagwell, a Conyers, GA, coach who was moved to invite a wheelchair-bound child to join his baseball team. His experience with this youngster led him to begin wondering if some of the other 79,000 disabled children in the Atlanta area would like to play too. The rest is history:

"The Conyers field opened in 2000...Since then, 11 other custom diamonds have been built across the U.S. at a cost of roughly $450,000 each. Another 60 fields are under construction, with community organizations and individuals picking up most of the tab."

For most of the kids, the games are the highlight of their week. Their little faces are always beaming, whether they're in the dugout, at bat or in the field. Their parents are getting a kick out of them too. They can focus on their children's abilities rather than their limitations, and watching them play helps put the difficulties of rearing a mentally or physically challenged child on the back burner for awhile.

Another benefit of the games is that spectators who don't have disabled children are learning to become more comfortable responding to these youngsters. All of the kids' efforts are rewarded with lots of clapping, hugs, kisses and encouragement by everyone in attendance. It's a win-win for everyone, but most of all for the children.

My hat is off to the volunteers and contributors who are making this happen, the parents and children who are participating and Ms.Lund at The Christian Science Monitor for giving us a heads-up on the whole thing. People like these make me proud to live where I do.

Books, Books, Books

2004-06-29T15:39:00.000-07:00

"When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."

- Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), Dutch humanist

I love to read and I love owning the books I read. A problem associated with owning books, however, is their tendency to accumulate in such numbers that you don't have a place to put them. I had no library in my old home in Atlanta, but purchased some inexpensive build-it-yourself bookcases to create a place where I could display my collection of literary treasures. I ringed the walls of a spare bedroom with these and packed them with so many books that the shelves sagged under their weight.

Sometime after I retired, and just before we re-located to the home we live in now, I decided (with some help from Lisbeth) that I needed to get rid of some of the books I had accumulated over the years. I knew I wouldn't have room for all of them in our new home, and didn't want the added expense of moving them. Painful as it was for me to discard any of my library, I identified about 1,000 titles that I felt I could somehow do without.

It was with much regret and sadness that I put them in with all the other things we hoped to sell in our moving sale. As the sale progressed and I watched my books disappear, I felt like I was losing a bunch of old friends, and I guess I was. Every book a buyer carried away elicited feelings akin to watching my children leave the nest. But I persisted, and by the end of the day all but a few hundred of the books were gone. These I donated to Goodwill, leaving me with maybe 300 that I simply couldn't part with.

At our new home, I had the foresight to include a library in the planning, a luxury I'd never had at any of the other homes we'd owned. This, I thought, will solve the problem of what to do with all my books. I now had floor-to-ceiling built-in bookcases with adjustable shelves--how much better could it get? The books I brought with me from Atlanta occupied maybe half the available space, and I had plenty of room for expansion, or so I thought.

This afternoon, as I write this, I am surrounded by three walls of floor-to-ceiling bookcases--now all filled with books. Not only that, there are stacks of books on the floor, books on the shelves and tables in the living room and den (where the wife tells me that knick-knacks and photos are supposed to be displayed), books on and under the night-stand by my bed, books in my car and books in boxes in the attic. I suppose you might say that I'm right back where I was before I moved. Over-booked.

Is there anyone else who has half a dozen books sitting in a stack waiting to be read, as he heads to the bookstore to buy a couple more? Is there anyone else, at any single point in time, who finds herself reading five or six books simultaneously and looking for another one to get started on? Is there anyone else who can't pass a bookstore without browsing for at least a few minutes? Does anyone know of a cure for this affliction?

Some have advised me to use the public library more, borrowing and returning everything I read. That's never worked very well for me because every book I read is read with a highlighter, felt tipped pen or both. I love to mark up the text and make notes in the margins as I read, and I would imagine that our hometown library would frown greatly upon this practice. And there's something that feels good about knowing a book is mine, that I can read it at my leisure, loan it to my friends and pull it off the shelf years later to find a special paragraph that I want to enjoy again. You can't do that with library books.

Frankly, I've about decided I'm stuck with my problem. Despite threats from my wife, lack of habitable space due to the expanding piles of books and hardly enough time to do anything but read, I continue falling under the spell of the written word. I acknowledge my habit and know that where books are concerned, I am truly weak, unable to control my urges, and most likely in need of some serious counseling. I've about given up. In fact, I'm going to run up to Barnes & Noble in a few minutes and see if they have anything new. Wanna join me?

Countdown to Sovereignty

2004-06-26T20:41:00.000-07:00

"If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere."

- Frank A. Clark

Author Con Coughlin, writing for London's Daily Telegraph, tells us of some of the near-term objectives of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's first post-liberation prime minister:

" 'It's not my ambition to run Iraq,' he told me when I last saw him in Baghdad. 'My objective all along has been to bring an end to Saddam's tyranny and establish a government in Iraq that is accountable to the Iraqi people.'

In many respects, then, this week's handover represents the halfway stage in a tortuous process that ultimately will result in Iraqis being given the opportunity of electing a government for the first time. Before that can happen...security within Iraq needs radical improvement and Allawi, who is well acquainted with the worlds of the military and intelligence, is well suited to the task.

Indeed such is his enthusiasm for tackling Iraq's lamentable security that he and his close aides have already dropped heavy hints that they intend to introduce martial law if the terror attacks continue at their current level.

Another measure of Allawi's no-nonsense approach is his determination to bring Saddam Hussein and the other leading Ba'athists currently languishing in American custody to trial at the earliest possible opportunity. So long as their fate remains unresolved, he argues, they remain a rallying point for disaffected Iraqis who oppose the post-Saddam political process."

Coughlin believes if Allawi can stabilize Iraq's security that the country's prospects are promising. He provides many examples of progress thus far:

"More than five million Iraqi primary school children have returned to the classroom...The coalition has spent $1 billion renovating and rebuilding hospitals and clinics...The Iraqi dinar has risen in value by 25 per cent since introduction of the new currency was completed in January...Unemployment is falling and will fall further as Allawi's government intensifies its recruitment drive for the armed forces."

Perhaps a new development has occurred with regard to insurgency that will aid Allawi in dealing with the continuing threat of terrorism. This Washington Post story (registration required) by Edward Cody cites the protests of many Iraqi opponents of the U.S. occupation who are speaking out against the foreign guerrillas who are killing Iraqi citizens:

" 'We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq,' Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, a Sunni eleric with a wide following, declared in his Friday sermon at Umm al Qurra mosque in Baghdad...'Which religion allows anyone to kill more than 100 Iraqis, destroy 100 families and destroy 100 houses?' raged Samarrae in his sermon. 'Who says so? Who are these people who do this? Where did they come from?...It is a conspiracy to defame the reputation of the Iraqi resistance by wearing its dress and using its name falsely. These people hurt the Iraqis and Iraq, giving the occupier an excuse to stay longer.' "

Other key figures, including the once rebellious cleric Moqtada Sadr, have also taken a pro-Allawi stance, calling for his followers to cooperate with Iraqi police in quelling the violence of foreign fighters. The actions of these clerics are good news for Allawi, who needs the support of the population if he is to bring an end to the destruction and discord being fomented by those who wish the new government to fail.

Could we call this a light at the end of the tunnel, or is it too soon to become optimistic? It's hard to say at this point, but come Wednesday and the days following the coalition turnover of government to Allawi's team, perhaps we will begin to understand how some of these things will play out.

Update: Robin Wright, staff writer for the Washington Post (registration required), gives us some more good news. A recent poll indicates that almost 70% of Iraqis have confidence in their new leaders. "The numbers are in stark contrast to widespread disillusionment with the previous Iraqi Governing Council, which was made up of 25 members picked by the United States and which served as the Iraqi partner to the U.S.-led Coaltion Provisional Authority. Only 28 percent of Iraqis backed the council when it was dissolved last month..."

Update: Omar, an Iraqi blogger, shares his views on Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Scroll down to the entry titled "From Um Mushtag to Abu Haider."

Our Almost President

2004-06-25T20:51:00.000-07:00

"We are never so easily deceived as when we imagine we are deceiving others."

- Francois La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680), French moralist

In an emotionally charged speech reported on Thursday by the Associated Press, Al Gore rebuked President Bush, accusing him of lying about an Iraq - al Qaeda connection and refusing to admit his error because of the potential political fallout:

"They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever."

Gore went on to accuse Bush of deliberately ignoring intelligence warnings that the claim of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam was false:

"So, when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding no 'credible evidence' of an Iraq-al-Qaida connection, it should not have come as a surprise. It should not have caught the White House off guard."

Funny, what the commission actually said was they "found no credible evidence of a link between the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and Iraq," not that there were no links at all. Funnier still, John Tabin, writing for The American Spectator, tells us that back in 1998 when you-know-who was vice-president, the Justice Department's indictment of Osama bin Laden included these words, which were the position of the Clinton administration of which Mr. Gore was a part:

"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

1998 was also the year that Clinton bombed an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant (thought to be producing VX nerve gas) in Sudan in retaliation for the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. He and his security advisers believed the Iraqi government's chemical weapons programs were connected to the Sudanese facility, and knew the Sudanese were in bed with al Qaeda. They feared that chemical weapons would find their way into the hands of al Qaeda because of the connections between the three parties.

And this wasn't the Clinton administration's first brush with Saddam:

"Indeed, the Clinton administration's experiences with Saddam's penchant for terrorism go all the way back to Clinton's first term, when it was confirmed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had attempted an assassination of former President George H. W. Bush. Clinton ordered a missile strike on the IIS headquarters in June, 1993, in retalitation."

One of Clinton's top officials gave a speech shortly after the retaliatory attack was ordered:

"The suffering inside Iraq can come to an end when Saddam Hussein's regime is replaced. And I hope--and most of the world hopes--that this regime based on terrorism and atrocities against his own people will be replaced. Over time, we hope to achieve that result."

The official? Vice-President Albert Gore. I guess you can have it both ways--especially if you're Al Gore.

Update: Andrew C. McCarthy has more on the Iraq - al Qaeda connection over at National Review Online. McCarthy has some unkind words for the manner in which the New York Times has handled this story.

Update: Scott W. Johnson at Powerline has more on Gore's contradictions.

Allah's Warriors

2004-06-24T20:52:00.000-07:00

"The most dangerous madmen are those created by religion, and people whose aim is to disrupt society always know how to make good use of them."

- Denis Diderot (1713-1784), French philosopher

Andrew Bolt, a columnist for the Australian Sunday Herald Sun, expresses his concern about the adversaries we face in the Middle East and the manner in which those critical of the war view the threat of terrorism. "What a way to lose a war. Two stories this week prove we'd rather shoot our own leaders than admit we have enemies who would, literally, cut our throats."

To his point, he writes about Fawwaz bin Muhammad al-Nashami, one of the terrorists who participated in the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia where 22 people were murdered. Quoting excerpts from a chilling interview of al-Nashami that was posted on the website Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Jihad), Bolt tells us of the ruthless, cold-blooded murders committed on behalf of Allah:

"Al-Nashami says he and his 'brothers' shot their way into an oil company compound, where, as police confirm, they killed a British worker and tied his body to their car. He says they drove on until 'the infidel's clothing was torn to shreds and he was naked in the street...and everyone watched the infidel being dragged, praise and gratitude be to Allah.'

The terrorists then stormed a second compound, and found an American infidel. 'I shot him in the head, and his head exploded. We entered another office and found one infidel from South Africa, and our brother Hussein slit his throat. We asked Allah to accept (these pious acts) from us, and from him.'

The terrorists then killed guards at the third compound, where al-Nashami says they found Johansson: 'Brother Nimr cut off his head and put it at the gate, so that it would be seen by all...'

They caught other workers and checked their religion. 'We found Filipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers the Mujahideen in the Phillippines. We found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats, too, and Allah be praised...We utilised the time for (teaching) the Koran to the Muslims who remained.' All true, say witnesses.

They then found an Italian hiding on the stairs. 'We...decided that he should call al-Jazeera (the Muslim cable network) and talk to his people and send them a warning about the war of Islam and its people...He spoke (to al-Jazeera) for several minutes. I asked the broadcaster, Did you record that? He said, yes, and then the hero Nimr cut (the Italian's) throat.'

These are terrorists of a movement that some commentators say has reasonable grievances we must discuss. In fact, these are terrorists who have even bloodier mayhem in mind for us."

The second story to which Bolt refers is the one about the interim reports released by the 9-11 Commission and the subsequent misinterpretation and misreporting of the Commission's findings by many in our news media:

"In a little-reported passage, they warn: 'Al-Qaida remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks.' ...experts believed 'the trend towards attacks intended to cause ever-higher casualties will continue.'

This week's 9/11 commission reports also said Saddam approached al-Qaida at least three times when it was based in Sudan, and again, it seems, when it was in Afghanistan.

The reports for some reason don't discuss other reported links between Iraq and al-Qaida, but cautiously conclude: 'We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida co-operated on attacks against the United States.

This is almost word for word what Bush has long said. Yet ABC TV news said this week's reports prove al-Qaida 'had no links with Saddam Hussein, as suggested by the White House,' and ABC's The World Today added: 'One of the Bush administration's central arguments for going to war with Iraq appears to be in tatters.' "

The debate about this has been raging in the blogworld for some time now. Paul on his weblog, Wizbang, goes into a little more detail than Bolt has if you're interested.

The part of this story that really got my attention was the Fawwaz bin Muhammad al-Nashami interview where he was praising Allah as he dragged the body of one of those he'd murdered behind his car. These Islamists, my friends, are in the midst of what is to them, a "holy" war. And anything they do, no matter how ruthless or inhumane, is okay, because it is "God's" (Allah's) will.

I believe they will stop at nothing to inflict as much harm on us as they possibly can. I believe those who crashed into the World Trade Center and murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11 are of the same ilk, the only difference being their choice of weapons. I do not believe they can be negotiated with, for they have a cause. That cause was recently articulated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian born terrorist who now threatens Iraqi prime minister Allawi's life: "We will carry on our jihad against the Western infidel and the Arab apostate until Islamic rule is back on Earth."

The world is now in a war, a terrible war, and Iraq and Afghanistan are only two fronts in this conflict. Unless all of us wake up and come to grips with this, no matter who our president is, we are going to see more and more death at the hands of these fanatics. Still unconvinced? Just keep watching the evening news, reading your morning paper and listening to your radio. Everyday, it happens again, and al-Nashawi and his friends have no intention of stopping the killing, and won't, until we make martyrs of them.

Update: James Joyner, at his weblog Outside the Beltway, has more on the Iraq - al Qaeda connections.

The Price of Freedom

2004-06-22T20:15:00.000-07:00

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

- Dolores Ibarruri (1895-1989), Spanish Communist Party leader

Imagine if you will what it would be like to be asked to become a city councilman, a county commissioner, a representative to your state legislature or even a member of your country's congressional body, and to know that in accepting such an honor, you would be signing your death warrant.

How many of us would have the courage to step forward? How many of us would be willing to stand up for our principles? How many of us would not be intimidated by those who would threaten us, our families and friends, and take a leadership role in our government? Given the option of either serving at the risk of my life, or opting out to assure my safety, I would probably opt out. Most of us would, I think.

Such a threat is what those who have agreed to serve in the political institutions in Iraq now face. This Washington Post article (brief registration required) by foreign service reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran talks about what it's like to be a council member in Baghdad:

"The weekly meeting of the Rashid district council began last Wednesday with a prayer for two of the group's 33 members. One was in critical condition at a U.S. military hospital after being shot seven times in an assassination attempt. Another was in hiding after gunmen attacked her house and killed her brother...Council members voted to close the meeting to the public because of fears that assassins would slip in and mark members for death. To enforce the decision, U.S. and Iraqi soldiers surrounded the council building and stationed snipers on the roof."

It's a story worth reading in its entirety and I hope you will. As you do, try to imagine how these people must feel as they face this challenge. Can you fathom their situation?

What would cause someone to put her life on the line in order to be a part of the new government? In addition to being the targets of assassins,many Iraqis are critical of them and view them as illegitimate because they were not elected. Most have had little time to prepare to govern and are unsure about their new responsibilities, and there still exists great conflict about whether their new system will be democratic, Islamic, or some combination of the two. I doubt the pay is very good either.

And yet they courageously come forward. Their fellow council members die and still they come forward. I fear greatly for them, for many will continue to die and it will take much resolve on their part to continue their work. But I believe they possess great determination and will eventually prevail. Why? Because they are hungry for freedom. They're weary of living in a country where saying the wrong thing, looking the wrong way, or committing some other minor offense could get them imprisoned, tortured or killed, so they're willing to risk their lives in order to change things.

Put yourself in their shoes if you're able. Would your hope of being free, of having a society where you had a voice in your destiny, and a future free of tyranny outweigh the obstacles you had to overcome in order to make that dream a reality? Pearl Buck once said, "None who have always been free can understand the terrible fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not free." If Ms. Buck was correct, perhaps we can't empathize with these heroic people, but I believe we should try.

They are not foolish enough to believe their task is not daunting, but they are willing to begin the process, even at great peril to themselves. I wish them the best, and I hope all of you do too.

Update: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian-born militant, and his henchmen say they will assassinate Iyad Allawi, the new Iraqi Prime Minister. Allawi scoffs at them.