NY Times and LA Times Aid Terrorists

The New York Times and Los Angeles Times were among the many liberal “news” outlets that took two courses of action when non-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame was “outed.” Their first step was to ally with over thirty other main stream media (MSM) organizations to present a “friend of the court” filing that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent.

Having done that, the same MSM campaigned relentlessly to have Republican heads roll for outing Valerie Plame, even though they had already agreed that no crime had been committed.

Now these same MSM have outed classified government anti-terrorist programs. Concerning the examination of international telephone calls involving contacts with suspected terrorists, and the examination of international money transfers, the MSM clearly have compromised national security by disclosing the legal methods used to monitor and investigate the communications and financial transactions of terrorists.

In the case of Valerie Plame, no adverse effects on security resulting from the disclosure of the name of a former covert agent who had worked openly in an office in CIA headquarters at Langley for over five years could be demonstrated. The MSM said as much in their “friend of the court” brief just before they launched their full-scale attack to try to bring down Karl Rove. Their pain when it was announced that Rove would not be indicted was heart warming. I guess Fitzgerald finally got around to reading the MSM’s “friend of the court” filing.

If nothing else, I guess this does prove that you really “can’t have your cake and eat it too,” even when you’re the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Now these formerly respected newspapers, not content with blowing away their shareholders’ investments, have deliberately disclosed classified information during wartime that will – not possibly, but that will – give aid to terrorists that will cause the loss of American lives and will reduce the effectiveness of anti-terrorists programs.

For that, I’m sure they expect Pulitzer Prizes. Knowing the MSM, I’m sure they will get them.

What I am most fearful of is that no legal action will be taken against them, meaning that the MSM will have anointed themselves as the ultimate security classification authority of this nation.

Of course, when American lives are lost because the MSM compromised anti-terrorist programs, the MSM will lay such failure on President Bush, and shamelessly deny their own blame.

THINGS TO DO LIST:

Cancel New York Times and Los Angeles Times subscriptions.
Read them online so you can criticize them truthfully without them making a cent off you:
New York Times online
Los Angeles Times online
Go to Atlas Shrugs for scathing criticism of the New York Times
Go to Patterico's Pontifications for analyses of Los Angeles Times biased reporting
Go to Michelle Malkin for creative reactions to the Times' outrages

Left Takes Pride In Losing Wars By The Rules

What sense is there to fight by the rules when your opponent doesn’t? To fight an opponent in accordance with the Geneva Convention when your opponent does not? Do we have a feeling of smug satisfaction that we lost a fight fair and square because our opponents fought dirty and cheated? Will that earn us their respect, so they will cut off our heads with a sharp knife instead of sawing away with a dull one?

The Left says that if we fight the same way as the Islamofascists (the Left of course does not call them Islamofascists), that we are as bad as them. In other words, we must follow rules that cause us to sacrifice our people to prove that we are better than them. This is the height of stupidity masquerading as moral superiority. The Muslim unlawful combatants torture then kill our soldiers, and yet when we capture them we are supposed to treat them better than we treat our citizen convicts?

None of this makes any sense, and Deluded America, by Diana West in the June 23, 2006 Washington Times, is must reading on the absurdity of our highly constrained approach to fighting Muslims who unleash uncivilized attacks on civilized nations.

Bill Clinton and the Democrats were right!

Bill Clinton and the Democrats were right after all. Let’s take a trip in the Way Back Machine to 1998, when Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and a hoard (I had better check the spelling) – better, big bunch -- of Democrats found that Saddam had all sorts of Weapons of Mass Destruction and was, in fact, a menace to the United States and the rest of the Free World. In fact, Bill Clinton and the Democrats were so sure of the Saddam menace that on December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton attacked Iraq and explained: “Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
(I added the emphases, just in case you were having a hard time catching the point I am making.)

In fact, for the dense Democrats who may be reading this - with one eye tied behind their backs so they don’t see all of it – Bill Clinton said: “Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.” That is “Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs”. (Annoying emphases also added by me.)

I know. No need to shout. You get the message. Bill Clinton and the Democrats thought Saddam had WMD. They were right then, and they stayed right until they decided that pinning Saddam with WMD possession was bad Democratic politics.

Of course, Bill Clinton and the Democrats were not alone at the time thinking Saddam had WMD. So too did the governments and intelligence services of France, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom, and many others. Naturally the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and North Koreans kept silent, but they also knew Saddam had WMD because they were selling him the stuff. In fact, as Saddam ripped off the United Nations “Oil for Food” Program, under the watchful eye of the United Nations, he slathered bribes on UN and foreign government officials like frat boys applying sunscreen at a swimsuit models convention.

When George Bush was elected President, most of the Democrat’s leaders still agreed that Saddam had WMD. Their belief lasted through the fall of Baghdad, and was only reversed when the main stream media reported that no WMD was found. While this was being reported and cast in stone, the troops on the ground steadily found WMD. In fact, finally, in a partially released segment of a classified report, since 2003 over 500 chemical weapons were found.

I will translate the above for dense Democrats (please excuse the redundancy). WMD was found in Iraq. I’m sure the Democrats will quibble. “That was old WMD, not new WMD.” But notice like the old TV commercial, “parts is parts”, WMD is WMD.

Democrats will protest: “Only 500 chemical weapons have been found.” Right, that means that chemical weapons have been found. Having chemical weapons is like being pregnant. There are no half measures. Remember, only 15 chemical weapons killed 5,000 Kurds.

The report also indicated that there are probably a lot more chemical weapons to be found in Iraq. More WMD may be found. Recently a tiny portion of the huge backlog of 36,000 boxes of Iraqi government records have been examined and translated, and a pattern of WMD research, production, and concealment is emerging.

If the main stream media put in half the effort inquiring into Saddam – WMD – al Qaeda issues as they do in inquiring about Angelina Jolie’s baby, the burning question of today would not be, “Did Saddam have WMD?” it would be “How much and what types did he have, where did he hide it, and how did he move it to Syria?”

Remember who, what, when, where, why, and how? Journalists used to be expected to ask such questions. Perhaps they will yet concerning WMD in Iraq, but at the moment it seems journalists are running from the story like it was a carrier of bird flu.

Once upon a time the Democrats knew Saddam had WMD. Then they knew he didn’t. Like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who both set records for saying “I don’t remember” in their testimonies in various judicial inquiries, Democrats all suffer from severe, selective short-term memory loss. They all appear to have “early Alzheimer’s”, as evidenced by their latest position paper for the 2006 Congressional elections. In it, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they’re clueless about why they should be elected, and particularly why anyone would elect them to any position that has anything to do with national security.

The Democrat’s next advertising campaign:

We said Bush lied
But it came to pass
WMD was found
Now our ass is grass

Burma Shave

John Murtha, Democrats Best Military Mind

Congressman John Murtha had a long and distinguished Marine Corps Reserve career, retiring in 1990 as a Colonel. Recently many conservative bloggers, for example Michelle Malkin, have ridiculed him for demanding that the United States pull its military out of Iraq and station elements nearby for use when needed in Iraq, and further suggested Okinawa as a suitable base. Many of Murtha’s conservative critics made significant errors in their criticism of Murtha’s Okinawa suggstion. It’s not that they were wrong saying that Murtha’s Okinawa idea was stupid. It’s just that they didn’t realize just how monumentally stupid it was.

A little background on Okinawa. The Air Force has Kadena Air Force Base on Okinawa, and the government of Okinawa would like us to remove it, and our other bases there, not enlarge it. It is puzzling that the Democrat's top military mind didn't know that.

To continue, Michelle Malkin noted that Iraq is over 4,000 nautical miles from Okinawa, and that it would take F-16’s flying at 1500 knots four hours to fly to Iraq. She also noted that the unrefueled range of the F-16 (carrying ordnance) is 750 miles, so they would have to be refueled several times enroute by KC-135’s, and since the direct line from Okinawa to Iraq passes over China and Iran, Michelle wondered how those countries would react to American fighter and refueling aircraft in their airspace.

There are many errors in Michelle’s analysis, and each error actually makes Murtha’s suggestion a lot dumber. The first major error is the route the F-16’s would fly from Okinawa to Iraq. There can be no overflying of China, India, or Iran. The F-16’s would have to fly south over the Pacific Ocean and thread their way into the Indian Ocean without upsetting Viet Nam, Indonesia, or Malaysia, then across the Indian Ocean and up or along the Persian Gulf to Iraq. Without upsetting Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. So the 4,000 nautical miles is now more like 6,000. And the flying speed is not 1500 knots, because the F-16’s wouldn’t be flying “clean” – they would have 500 pound bombs, external auxiliary fuel tanks, plus other armaments which would increase both their flying weight and aerodynamic drag – making the cruising speed about 600 knots instead of 1500. Michelle got the unrefueled range carrying armaments about right at 750 miles, so during the ten hour flight to the target the F-16’s will need to refuel eight times or more. The refuelers would probably be KC-10’s flying out of Diego Garcia in the heart of the Indian Ocean.

So now we have a flight of F-16’s over target, ten hours or more after their need was established. I hope they weren’t needed in a hurry. And that the bad guys waited around.

The pilots get the job done and…and now they get to fly home. Hopefully, before they do, they will be able to land somewhere and take care of basic physiological needs, like taking a healthy “John Murtha.”

Israeli Anti-Terrorist Fence Increases Livelihoods

The anti-terrorist fence Israel is building will also limit livelihoods, so says a San Francisco Chronicle article. It’s strange that the article didn’t also note that the fence will increase livelihoods overall. The first and most significant way it will increase livelihoods is by saving the lives of a large number of Israelis. Each Israeli on average creates more wealth than over twenty Palestinians (Israeli per person GDP = over $20,000, Palestinian per person GDP is under $1,000 and falling steadily since the Palestinians started the Intifada). Once the anti-terrorist fence is in place, Israel can substantially reduce military expenditures while increasing investment in new businesses and business expansion.

Second, the fence will revitalize tourism, and that will substantially increase the Israeli economy. Israel already has some of the most compelling tourist attractions in the world, and the vastly improved security provided by the fence will pay back huge dividends on its costs. Looking at the fence rationally and logically, the only question about it is why Israel took so long to decide to build it.

Conversely, the Palestinians will lose many, perhaps most, of their good paying jobs in Israel at the same time their businesses are collapsing in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian economy, which formerly received over $400 per person per year in foreign aid, will have that income cut to almost nothing because Hamas will not renounce the destruction of Israel.

However, if current trends continue, the loss of Palestinian incomes, admittedly an extreme loss in terms of their income before the Intifada, will be more than offset by the increase to Israeli incomes, and the incalculable value of the sharp reduction in violent Israeli and Palestinian deaths. The last point is probably cold comfort to the Palestinians, whose religion and teachings glorify seeking violent deaths, but over time even they may learn to renounce the futility and waste of “martyrdom.”

Therefore, the Israeli anti-terrorism fence, instead of limiting livelihoods, will actually result in a substantial overall increase in livelihoods when measured for the region as a whole.

Legal Immigration Problems

When trying to understand the illegal immigration problem, it probably helps to a certain degree to understand the legal immigration problem. The same feckless governments that find it is impossible to stop, reduce, or control in even the mildest form the illegal immigration problem, have designed a system for legal immigration that is complicated, convoluted, counter-productive, and crazy. And crass, cruddy, creepy; in other words, the sort of system that defies rational analysis.

Let’s look at it a moment. Those who apply to enter the United States legally face many years of expenses and frustration. They probably would be better off if they just came here on a tourist or student visa and got lost, or flew to Mexico or Canada and walked in. The first option worked for the 9/11 hijackers.

Instead, the legal applicants face fees. Then more fees. Then lost paperwork. And more fees. And more lost paperwork. And misunderstandings by the processors of their application which results in – you guessed it – more fees, more paperwork, more lost paperwork, and more misunderstandings.

Please read this San Francisco Chronicle article for all the fumbling, frustrating situations that legal immigration applicants face. After you read the examples, think of two things.

First, you want to reward the illegal immigrants for breaking the law, and at the same time make it even more difficult for the highly educated, highly skilled legal applicants to immigrate.

Second, you want the same government that designed the legal immigration system to take control of health care and continue to run Social Security.

That’s scary.

Choose Your Judge By Color

According to the San Francisco Chronicle Open Forum section, “It’s Time to Address Lawyer’s Lack of Diversity.” Charts and statistics were presented showing that most lawyers and judges in California are white, while just over half the California population is not. Apparently liberals think that justice should not be color blind. They must think a black man should have black lawyers, a black judge, and a black jury. That a Latino should have a Latino lawyer, Latino judge, Latino jury; that an Asian should have…you get the picture.

But wait. We have Philippinas, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Nepalese, and diverse others – shouldn’t each have their own diverse judiciary? Then there are Mexican, Guatemalan, El Salvadorian, Nicaraguan, Panamanian – and we still haven’t gotten to South America.

How do you draw the line on how much diversity is needed? No matter where you put it, someone is going to have hurt feelings. Unless you don’t put it anywhere, and just let natural legal forces map an ethical course. I would rather have an ethical judge than one who favored me because of my all-American Caucasian features, which tend towards the appearance of an Englishman. What if I got an Irish judge when I was being sued by Patrick Murphy?

Since this is the San Francisco Bay Area, the article also notes an emerging problem with the status of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender attorneys. What that problem would be I haven’t a clue, and I don’t want to know. Do they learn different law? Do these diverse attorneys and judges find litigants more or less worthy because of their ethnic or sexual status? If any do, including first, last, and always the white ones now a majority at the California bar, they should be forthwith disbarred. Ethics (and competence) over diversity any day.

But according to the authors of this cry for lawyer diversity, “We must adapt or become irrelevant to our clients and the community at large.”

How to adapt? “The first step to any meaningful change is serious self-examination. With this goal, the Santa Clara County Bar Association has appointed a blue-ribbon commission to address diversity issues in the legal profession in the Silicon Valley. Our society is changing and innovating, and the legal profession must begin to move to meet the demographic, business and professional demands of the future.”

Translation. They don’t have a clue.

However, I’ll bet that at some point they will put out a demand for lower standards for minorities in law schools and the professions. They will say, without blushing, and without saying “affirmative action,” that what the legal profession needs is less educated, less capable lawyers, who should be selected, compensated, and promoted at a higher rate than their white colleagues. The legal profession will fall all over themselves loving the idea, and trust that the Supreme Court, basic economics, and common sense will save them from themselves.

Meanwhile, the most capable of the minorities, for example the Chinese and other Asian ethnic groups that place a high value on education, will continue to ignore the legal profession and go into science, medicine, electronics, engineering, and other high-paying, hard-subject matter professions. And pray when they have to go to court that their judge didn’t get put on the bench through an affirmative action program, and resents that all the top students he competed against before law school were Asians.

In all the concern for ethnic, sexual, and gender diversity, there is one glaring omission. There is never a call for political diversity, even though almost all educators and journalists are liberals, and most of them are Democrats. Further, almost all defense attorneys, regardless of ethnicity, pledge their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor to the Democratic party, lest the specter of tort reform raise its fearful head above the land.

Wow, a defense attorney contributing to a Republican, that would be a real diversity breakthrough!

Newt Gingrich For President (Maybe)

Newt Gingrich is clearly running for President in 2008, and I am sorely conflicted. Alice and I were among the most fervent supporters of him and his powerful creation, “The Contract With America,” which swept Republicans to congressional power in 1994 for the first time in our adult lives.

We attended a Republican fundraiser in Walnut Creek featuring Newt in 1996, and Alice and I charged in amongst a crowd of protesters – paid union sign carriers, Berkeley “activists” (also paid), and other Democrat special interest groups – and we were so effective, just the two of us, that all the major newspapers the next day featured pictures of us, and none of the protesters. Can you imagine how bad that made the protesters feel? The Left owns protests. When you don’t have anything better to do with your time, like go to work, you can always join a protest. Yet there they were in Walnut Creek, spending their time carrying signs, yelling, looking for cameras to get in front of, and two Republicans in business suits get the front page pictures!



One Democrat couldn’t contain himself. The following morning, Alice answered our phone. “I saw your picture in the Oakland Tribune this morning. You’re awful people! (Sound of phone being slammed down).” That was the first hint we had that we had become part of the previous day’s Newt Gingrich news coverage. Soon we got several calls from friends, who saw our pictures in the Oakland Tribune, Tri-Valley Herald, and the Contra Costa Times.

Not long after this I started having doubts about Newt. First there were his messy personal problems. The same journalists that gave passes on personal issues to Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats could be trusted to be all over any personal problem of a Republican leader. Have you noticed how a (former) Klu Klux Klan member like Robert Byrd can be the worshiped leader of the Democrats, can be the longest serving Senator ever, and yet an innocuous flattering remark to a retiring colleague can cost a Republican his leadership position. Isn’t that right, Senator Lott?

And then Newt started to exhibit an uncanny ability to lead Republicans in rounds of self-inflicted shots in the foot and other more sensitive body parts, of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” He started to exhibit arrogance in the conduct of congressional activities that I thought was reserved for Democrats only. He single handedly resurrected Bill Clinton’s pathetic presidency. Bill Clinton went from pleading publicly that his presidency was still relevant, when it wasn’t, to appearing as the champion that saved beleaguered citizens from Republican indifference. When he said, “I feel your pain,” he was probably laughing inwardly at the pain Republicans were inflicting on themselves. Bill Clinton still presided over a “do-nothing” presidency, but was able to step between the warring parties (Dick Morris’ “triangulation”) and claim Republican victories like Welfare Reform as his own.

So Newt is running for President in 2008, and I don’t know what to make of it. The guy is smart, sometimes brilliant, articulate in a way few modern-day politicians are, and able to look for answers “outside of the box.” I agree with too much of too many of his positions to dismiss him out-of-hand, like the American electorate will. Therefore I welcome his Quixotic presidential quest, because I hope his good ideas will be stolen by one or more of his rivals, propel them to victory, and end up reshaping the focus and nature of our political debate for the many decades to come. Even if he never gets the job, I think Newt is one of the few, maybe the only, American leader who can take us away from special interest politics and give us a coherent vision of a rational system of national governance.

I have taken the liberty of copying his latest newsletter and including it below. Read it, weep for what might have been, hope for what might become.

Winning the Future, by Newt Gingrich
A Twenty-First Century Contract With America
June 19, 2006
Volume 1, No. 9

The First War of Globalization

Watching Congress debate the Iraq War last week reminded me of how many politicians in Washington still don't get it. Some completely miss the lessons of history that teach us how important victory in Iraq is for the United States. Fortunately, the House passed a resolution to "complete the mission" in Iraq and rejected a date certain for withdrawal of our troops. But before House Republicans prevailed on this resolution, we had to sit through a debate in which some members -- amazingly -- suggested that the death of the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by U.S. air strikes means it is a good time to withdraw our troops, completely ignoring the fact that coalition troops, along with the Iraqis, have conducted nearly 500 more raids since killing Zarqawi.

It is difficult for me to convey to you how wrong I believe this cut-and-run attitude is.

The killing of Zarqawi, as I discussed last week, was a substantial win -- a win that should be built upon with greater resolve to finish the job in Iraq. It should not be used as a justification to withdraw before the job is done.

The ‘Grey World’ of Terrorism

More importantly, our efforts in Iraq have to be understood in a much bigger -- a global -- context. We are engaged in a global, long war with the irreconcilable wing of Islam. In many ways, this is the first war of globalization. Just as globalization lets us send messages all over the world instantaneously via e-mail, use our phones to call people all over the world, transfer cash in and out of stock markets all over the world and travel easily and globally, it also has a downside.

Former CIA Director George Tenet describes this downside of globalization as the "Grey World." It's the world of terrorists who can organize much more effectively and globally, trafficking in human beings for the sex trade and trafficking in drugs, international crime, illegal arms deals and illegal international transportation that is made possible by technological advances. This Grey World is the dark side of the stunning increases in standards of living, communications and transportation that have marked the modern world.

That's why Zarqawi in Baghdad has a relationship with terrorists arrested recently in Britain and Canada. That's why Zarqawi in Baghdad relates directly to what happened in Mogadishu, Somalia, where a group of Islamic extremists took control, creating the potential that Somalia could become a new Afghanistan-like center of opposition to the civilized world. And that's why Zarqawi in Baghdad relates to the developments in Aceh in Sumatra, where a local group made a deal with the central government allowing them to impose sharia, the extremist, medieval Islamic law, on all citizens, including non-Muslims. By acquiescing to the imposition of Islamic law, a new center of militant behavior is being created right in the middle of Indonesia.


President Bush Should Call a Long War Council

Each of these developments is tied together by the fact that in this globalized long war, terrorists reinforce each other's worldview on websites, they study each other, they communicate with each other by e-mail and mobile phones, and they very often travel to many different countries. That's why we have to recognize that while it was right for President Bush to convene a war council on Iraq last week, my hope is that he will convene a council to plan for the long war. And in the months and years ahead, we need to have an open, honest dialogue around the world with those who are willing to defend our civilization. We need to discuss how we're going to make sure that the forces of democracy, the forces of the rule of law and the forces of freedom defeat the forces of terror and tyranny who seek to threaten us in every country in the world. Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. - The rush to judgment over allegations of military misconduct in Iraq got me thinking about its effect on our fighting men and women. So I asked a former Marine who served two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom how all this talk is effecting morale. His remarkable answer follows:

It should be noted that the Marines on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan are the true embodiment of what America and Democracy are about. They are the 19-year-old young men and women that are making a sacrifice. They are not enjoying rush week at a university or going to the beach for the summer, but rather offering their lives in the defense of each other, their families and their homes. These 19-year-olds are the true tip of America's spear and bear more responsibility each day than most Americans do in lifetimes.

It seems that in this day and age there is more support and misdirected justice for prison inmates than these dedicated young Marines. For any American -- most especially the media -- to condemn or judge them is absurd. They will be investigated and judged by fellow warriors who understand the circumstances and the enemy involved. Rest assured, no one holds their people more accountable than the military, most especially the Marine Corps. "Keep our Honor Clean" isn't just a catch phrase.


Ask Newt

Question: How about this idea for "guest workers." Do you think it would work?

Any "guest-worker" immigration legislation must stipulate that a percentage of their income (10-25%) is escrowed by their employer into a U.S. bank money-market account in the state where the employment occurs. They get the escrowed money when they return to their home country on time and have not violated any U.S. laws. Funds not qualifying, because of violations, are to be given to the state where the money was earned to defray immigration costs.


Richard H.
Summerfield, Fla.

Newt’s Answer: Thanks for the question, Richard.

I think this idea, and similar ideas like it that have been discussed, could be a very effective part of a work-visa program. Before I get to why I think so, I would like to make the point that in addition to holding some portion of each paycheck in an escrow account, I would like to see all payments to work-visa holders made by electronic direct deposit for the same reason that it adds another tool for enforcing compliance. With electronic payments we would have a way to easily know where in the country the worker is employed and who is paying, and if there is a change in the worker's legal status, the account could be frozen instantly.

Now to your question and the two reasons why I like the escrow idea.

First, it creates an incentive for work-visa holders to return home before their visa expires. Not complying with the law or returning home after the work-visa expiration date would put their escrow money in jeopardy.

Second, it could help to level the root inequality in opportunity and the pervasive poverty that is driving the wave of foreigners, particularly from countries to our South, to the United States in the first place. Upon their return home from working in the United States, the workers would be able to use the money they have saved in their escrow accounts to start a new small business, perhaps even with another or several other former work-visa holders. Escrow accounts would not only give workers the incentive to go home in order to withdraw the money, it would create the motivation to dream about the day when they can open their own business back home, be their own boss and create and accumulate wealth for their families, and -- because small businesses create jobs -- for other families in their communities as well.

Helping hardworking people to start small businesses in their home countries will do far more to improve the long-term health of the economies of Mexico and other Central and South American countries than any amount of U.S. foreign aid that may be offered, which is often poorly spent and is almost never used to tackle the root causes of poverty.

The Remittances Poison

Remittances are an addiction that poisons Mexico. As in all addiction, there is denial. Mexican politicians point to improvements in roads, schools, and investment in small businesses as positives for remittances, while using such improvements as excuses for not making fundamental changes to solve chronic Mexican problems of property rights and investment. If Mexican politicians couldn’t abuse the United States’ relaxed enforcement of immigration laws as a safety valve for their impoverished citizens, they would have long ago been voted out of office or thrown out by revolution.

In the United States we have politicians who pimp illegal immigration to get votes from legal immigrants. Just as the Mexican politicians look on illegal emigration to the United States as an excuse for doing nothing, so too do politicians in the United States look on illegal immigration as a reason to do nothing. Even if the illegal immigrants don’t get amnesty and eventual citizenship, the politicians that support them will get the votes of the rapidly growing by high birthrate Hispanic population. In Mexico a politician stays in power, in the United States Democratic politicians see a route to regain power.

So who suffers? We all do. The towns and villages of Mexico are stripped of young workers and fathers. Businesses are not started, businesses are not grown, children rarely see their fathers, and their only male role models are old men, the disabled, and the losers left behind. The only economic activity is generated through the consumption of the remittance checks.

In the United States, the illegal immigrants live a life of desperation and poverty. Many young men share room in squalid shacks, with barely enough money left each month after the remittance check is sent to pay for rent, food, and the relief offered by tired prostitutes. Employers take advantage of them, landlords take advantage of them, and their crime rate is several times higher than for the general population.

Their host communities take advantage of the low wages they pay the illegal immigrants, but that depresses the pay of legal low-income workers. The legal low-income workers and the illegal immigrants both place enormous burdens on social welfare systems, and flood hospital emergency rooms.

Roughly half of the money paid to illegal immigrants leaves the community. Instead of being spent in local stores, instead of taxes going towards local needs for schools and police protection, instead of being invested to grow businesses, the remittances go to villages where a substantial portion is spent on consumer goods. Roads don’t get built, schools aren’t improved, and in the final analysis, illegal immigration and resulting remittances create lose-lose situations at both ends of the illegal immigrant chain.

Only the politicians win.

For more on the problems of remittances:
Pati Poblete, on Remittance problems in the Philippines
San Francisco Chronicle readers react to Pati
More from PatiAre Remittances As Bad As Oil? by Victor Davis Hanson (You have to register to read this article - it is well worth the effort)

Conscience Of The Democrats

(Brought forward from the archives. Why? Because I love pointing out that Democrats are idiots to follow leaders like Teddy.)

Tim Russert read the following to Teddy Kennedy: "We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents ... all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them. ...In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater -- a nuclear weapon."

Russert: Are those the statements you're concerned about?

Kennedy: Well, I am concerned about it, and that's why I believe that the actions that were taken by Harry Ried in the Senate last week, when effectively he said that we are going to get to the bottom of this investigation -- this has been kicked along by the Intelligence Committee, by Pat Roberts, for over two years, and Harry Ried did more in two hours than that Intelligence Committee has done in two years. And the American people are going to get this information and it is important that they get this information about how intelligence was misused because of the current situation. It's important to know where we've been but its important to know where we are today because we are facing serious challenges over in Iran, we're facing serious challenges in North Korea, and we cannot have a government that is going to manipulate intelligence information. We've got to get to the bottom of it. And that is what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the United States Senate last week. That was a bold stroke, one that has the overwhelming support of the American people. It is about time that they got the facts on it, they haven't got them to date, they deserve them and they'll get them.

Russert: But Senator, what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the Senate in 2002, let me show you who said what I just read: John Kerry, your candidate for president. He was talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry. Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein. You yourself said quote "Saddam is dangerous, he's got dangerous weapons." It wasn't just the Bush White House.

Kennedy (with a stricken look): The fact is -- and I voted against the war -- because every military leader, highly decorated military leader, said it was foolish to have a military intervention. General Hoar, with the Marines, General Hoar who has more silver stars than you could possibly count, said that if we go into Baghdad, it will look like the last five minutes of Private Ryan. So, we know we had enough information to vote against it, I believe.

(End of transcript)

How could the Democrats say they were misled into voting for war in 2002, when Teddy says they "had enough information to vote against it"?

Like a pregnant guppy, Teddy went for the bait, gulped it all down, and cut the legs totally out from under all the Democrats whining that President Bush cooked the intel books and fooled them into supporting "his" war. I have heard some Republicans say that fat, foolish, cheating, flunking, boozy, philandering Teddy is not as dumb as he looks.

Yes he is.

P.S. Highly decorated General Hoar was obviously quite wrong in his prediction that the occupation of Baghdad would look anything like any part of "Saving Private Ryan." The total Coalition casualties in all of Iraq in over three years of war barely exceed the Allied casualties on June 6, 1944, the single opening day of the Normandy invasion.

Cargo Cults, Reparations, and Casinos

On some South Pacific islands, Melanesian natives had developed “cargo cults” starting over a hundred years ago. The Cargo Cults believed that manufactured western goods ('cargo') were created by ancestral spirits and intended for Melanesian people. White people, however, had unfairly gained control of these objects. Cargo Cult followers believed that if they simulated the activities of the whites they observed ( here and here), the gods would restore what was properly owed the true believers. To that end, Cargo cultists crudely copied white dress, and built aircraft landing strips with control towers, complete with coconut radios and bamboo antennas.

During and after World War II it looked like their prayers and simulations had worked. The US military flooded islands like Espiritu Santu and Efate in Vanuatu (formerly The New Hebrides) with western goods.

“At the war's end all of the military cargo disappeared along with the servicemen and on some of the islands a cargo cult developed to use customary magic to lure back the great cargo-carrying airplanes. Mock military drills were conducted with the men dressed in carefully preserved military uniforms hoping to convince the gods to restore the manna.”

The war ended over half a century ago, yet reports still come in of true believers waiting for their cargo ships to come and make all their wishes come true.

Before we laugh at their simple faith, we should look about us. For at least as long as the Cargo Cultists have believed their Big Kahunas could convince the gods to provide the material equality with whites which they are due, Blacks have been waiting for the Good Ship Reparations to come in, courtesy of Guilt-Stricken Liberals in Washington, DC, to deliver them equality with whites through reparations for slavery. Various reparations advocates have produced a variety of demands – yes, demands – to give them the wages their ancestors never received.

The practical Blacks want money for everyone, probably on the theory that any other system for divvying up the booty would leave them out, or shortchange them. “Man, I’ve been suffering all my life, and you want me to give it up, so a bunch of college kids can live it up?” (This is a made up-quote, meant to get a point across knowing it will probably be considered highly offensive by anyone who does get the point.)

The idealistic Blacks don’t want filthy money – they’re not greedy – they just want free college educations for all Blacks for a very long time. Many young Blacks will probably say about this idea, “What the f--- have you been smoking? Show me the money! I’ve been working hard since I started school to not get the education that Whitey trys to shove down my throat, and now I have to fight against getting an education for four more years?” (Made-up quote, a forgery that tells the truth, like the CBS President Bush, Texas Air National Guard papers.)

White supporters of reparations are equally the most sincere and most idiotic. They want reparations to give Blacks every government program -- job training, housing projects, government subsidies, etc. -- that have already failed miserably every time they have been tried. The liberals are still pursuing making poor people the equivalent of their lab rats to test their Socialist dreams. “Someday, something will work. All our concepts are 'can’t miss,' at least on TV and The Sims™. Too bad we have to deal with people and human nature, and not Sims™. Maybe we can fix that” (This is another made-up quote.)

Not to be outdone, with the help of the Great White Fathers in Washington, DC (again), our Native Americans have come up with the Casino Cult. According to true believers, once the money starts rolling in from the casino, all will be well. First, education will be a priority, and many will go to college that don’t now because …because …well, just because.

Tourists come here now, but not in large numbers, even though we have a rugged coastline that rivals Big Sur, have miles of pristine sandy beaches, fishing in the ocean and rivers, diving for abalone, hiking among the redwoods, deer hunting, camping and canoeing -- did I mention I’m in real estate? -- large numbers of tourists don’t come here because we’re a two-hour drive over narrow, twisting roads, from the nearest big city. To get here, gamblers have to drive by other larger and handier casinos. Not many gamblers are nature lovers; they are gambling lovers, and the sooner at the tables and slots, the better.

When you talk to some Native American leaders here, the casino will take care of all problems. The chronic alcoholism – I guess just about everyone will go into rehab. The unemployment rate of 50% or higher – everyone will have a job at the casino. The long criminal records of the many who returned to the reservation to escape the law and be there when the casino opens – when a lot of the students become lawyers, they can clean those records up. The chronic health problems because of alcoholism and bad life styles – when the rest of the students become doctors, they can take care of those problems too. Compulsive gambling – just won’t be tolerated; every gambler will have to sign a form that they are not going to gamble irresponsibly.

Of course. Casinos reduce crime, compulsive gambling, and prevent unhealthy lifestyles.

The casino that will take care of all problems will be here in -- pick a number, but I’ll bet it will be a lot longer than 10 years.

“And it will make a lot of money because – because we believe in it. It just wouldn’t be fair if it didn’t. Those gamblers are tough. They’ll come.” (You guessed it. Another made-up quote)

Spoken like true believers. Cargos. Reparations. Casinos. The dreams are alive.

Haditha Marines Are Innocent

Editor, Arizona Republic

"Reference your Steve Benson editorial cartoon. Marines are Americans. Americans are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. All American citizens have Constitutional rights, non-citizens don't, and the Left always gets these simple truths backwards. I know they always blame America first, but can't they read? They can't all be public school students."

I sent the above letter to the Arizona Republic Editor. Apparently, over 160 Arizona Republic readers beat me to it, since I only found out about it this morning in Michelle Malkin's blog.

I know that not all the Left is ignorant of our constitutional presumption of ignorance. They claim repeatedly that it applies to terrorists caught in the act of attacking U. S. military forces. If the Left had its way, every unlawful combatant would be entitled to a presumption of innocence, a lawyer and jury trial, and the military would have to bring the combat troops that made the capture into court to testify, or the "accused" would walk. "How do you know the accused wasn't picking flowers? (Or looking for a lost camel? Or thought he heard someone popping popcorn?) How do you know he didn't just stumble over the AK-47, and just picked it up out of curiosity, like he said?"

The very Left-leaning editor of our local newspaper, The Independent Coast Observer, always ends each column of weekly police reports with the admonition that "all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." So he, and his mostly far-Left readers, also know about presumption of innocence.

Still, I'm not shocked that the Left thinks the presumption of innocence is suspended for conservatives and the military. It's ironic that the Left thinks that the sworn defenders of the Constitution don't deserve a full deck of contitutional rights.

Fight To Get Your Virginity Back!

Bombs away!

The latest bumper sticker to catch my eye philosophizes, “Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.” I laughed. I like a little salacious humor, and it’s fun to point out this sort of thing to see the reactions of the young ladies. It’s been a while since any of them blushed.

But remembering Socrates, "A life not analyzed is not worth living!" So too the bumper sticker not analyzed is not worth reading.

So to begin the analysis. The obvious first point that begs comment is that the author is unclear on the concept of virginity. I recall a story told many years ago of a young man’s first trip to Tijuana. He was approached by a young boy who said: “Hey, Meester, you want me seester? She a virgin.” When the young man indicated he didn’t want the sister, the boy persisted, “You want me madre? She a virgin too.”

Obviously, the Mexican boy and the bumper sticker author share the concept that virginity is a renewable resource. My late first wife Marilynn was also a member of the renewable virginity club. For years she told our three sons that she was still a virgin. Then one day, Bruce our oldest, said “Mom, they taught us in Sunday School that there was only one Immaculate Conception, but you had me and Scott and Jeffrey. You’ve been fooling us, right?”

Now the analysis of “fighting for peace.” When you are attacked by someone, if you don’t fight back you don’t get peace. You get involuntary servitude. If you're lucky. The only time after being conquered that you will have peace is at the whim of your conqueror, who may let you live in peace, but never in freedom.

So if you don’t fight back, you may have peace, but even that isn’t guaranteed. All you can be sure of is that you’ll lose your freedom. Of course, if you do fight back, you may still lose, in which case you could be as bad or worse off than by surrendering. However, you may win, or fight to a standstill and gain a truce. At either rate, fighting back is the only chance you have of keeping your freedom, and more to the point, of perhaps in the process eliminating your adversary as a future threat to peace.

As John Lennon said: "You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die." It's funny to be on the same side of an issue as John Lennon.

Relax. I know he didn't mean it that way.

There is one method which, if followed, will maintain peace without ever having to fight. If you demonstrate both the will and the ability to decisively crush any attacker, you will never be attacked by a nation-state. However, you are still open to attack by ideologues, such as Islamofascists, acting independently or supported surreptitiously by states such as Iran and Syria. The only way to regain peace when dealing with fanatics is to retaliate and pursue them relentlessly. To do anything else is just to set the stage for their next attack.

Once you lose your virginity, abstinence won’t get it back. But the only way to keep or regain peace is to be ready and willing to fight and win.

Same Time Next Year

During the last half of the 1950’s, I went on many Point Arena High School trips to other schools in our northern California area – Mendocino, Fort Bragg, Laytonville, Anderson Valley (Booneville), Leggett Valley, Hopland, Willits, and others – and we often went up Highway 1 past the Heritage House south of Mendocino. For some reason, I started noticing the Heritage House each time we drove by. I noticed the guests there seemed to dress very nicely. Their cars looked expensive. In fact, they looked, and I imagined, talked and acted differently than my family, friends, and the people I knew. This cognition of things I knew nothing about was probably a result of movie watching. Anything and everything I knew about rich people I learned at the movies. I never met any of them, or at least never knew it if I did.

One thing I was sure of, and ignorance can lead a person to be sure of many things, is that they lived and acted differently than we ordinary folk. As our bus passed, and passed, and passed the Heritage House many times over my four-year high school adventure, I tried to imagine myself staying at the Heritage House. My first reaction was fear – what does it cost? And where am I going to get that kind of money? My next reaction was also of fear. How do I act, what do I say, to people who are so different? I bet they would know I’m a phony before I even open my mouth and prove it. But then after the waves of fear passed, I would think – “I bet I would really enjoy it. What an adventure! To find so much new almost right in my back yard. It’s like living next to a foreign country!” My curiosity and sense of adventure would overcome my fear of penury and social awkwardness.

Years later, after Alice and I met and married, I started to be more relaxed around wealthy people, because I slowly came to the realization that Alice and I were actually able to live very comfortably on our combined incomes. We were kind of, sort of, well off ourselves. That still didn’t make me feel “to the manor born,” but I became relaxed about confronting dinner checks for over $100 for just the two of us, and hotel bills for a one-night stay that I used to think would buy a full week.

However, I confessed my latent uneasiness to Alice, and as an example, how I used to feel like the kid at the candy store window when I passed the Heritage House and wondered how the other half lived. Actually, how the other five percent lived.

Alice’s gift for my 57th birthday, July 18, 1999, was a two-night stay at the Heritage House in the room named “Same Time.” It shared a cabin with another room named “Next Year.” In 1978 the cabin had been featured in “Same Time Next Year,” a movie starring Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn.

Of all the wonderful (and expensive) cabins at the Heritage House, “Same Time” and “Next Year” were the closest to the ocean in the most beautiful setting. Alice had heard the longing from my youth, and had arranged for me not only to see how the other half lived, but to experience it in the premier spot on the premises.

Almost as an afterthought, an anticlimax, I realized that I still didn’t feel like I belonged, but I did feel comfortable and did feel a true sense of adventure and enjoyment. And then I also realized that I was probably enjoying the Heritage House more than any other guests, because I was the one feeling the strongest emotions just by being there. The kid who never thought he would be inside the Heritage House was inside and experiencing a special feeling that possibly no other visitor felt; a feeling of happiness, maybe of accomplishment, but still experiencing the strangeness of it. I knew then that I would never feel like I belonged in the Heritage Houses of the world, but I knew Alice and I would be going to many of them and that I would enjoy being a “stranger in a strange land.” I would never be one of the jaded and blasé, never asking: “Is that all there is?”

I Just Won $1,843,210.00 (£1,000,000.00)!!!!!!!

I just got this. It is part of a new scam (to me, anyway) I sniffed out by Googling : "UNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL LOTTERY," where the legitimate lottery explains that there are a number of scams using their good name. This one is easy to spot. As you can see, when you click on the "From" address to check it or forward it, it is "hotmail.com". No real, legitimate agency would be conducting their business on hotmail! Or have typos like “asignned Fudiciray,” and bad grammar. Only the Nigerians get away with that!

(Friend Roz also wonders, if I respond to this, what I will put as my "Marital Statue?" For that, I have posted Alice gazing admiringly at Michelangelo's David, hopefully because it reminds her so much of her man.)

Another reason I was suspicious is that I never buy lottery tickets. They anticipated that, and explained that I was chosen at random, no ticket sales were made.

Right! They just have to give approximately $1,843,210.00 (£1,000,000.00) to someone who never buys one of their tickets. Their warmest desire is to reward me for never giving them my business. On that basis, I can think of a lot of other activities I don't participate in, like purchasing yachts, private airplanes, expensive autos, diamonds and gold bullion, & etc. – the list is very long - where are my nonparticipant rewards from all those businesses? Since there are many builders of luxury yachts, shouldn’t I get several rewards for not participating in each category? It would be presumptuous of one yacht builder to decide that his was the yacht I chose not to buy, and reward me for that, when I am sure I chose not to buy from all of them.

I know it's hard to pass up $1,843,210.00 just there for the asking. I think that is what whoever put this together intended. This is just a straight appeal to greed. You don’t get to participate in international intrigues, like the Nigerian emails. I remember my Mother telling me that I would never get something for nothing, and she hadn't even heard about Nigerians at that time. And, "If something sounds too good to be true, guess what?"

Here is the temptation:----- Original Message ----- From: "Mrs. Rebecca Jenkins" <fuduciary_johnwilliams@hotmail.comTo: <mcombs@pacific.netSent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:21 PMSubject: FROM: UNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL LOTTERY.
FROM: UNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL LOTTERY.
UK NATIONAL LOTTERY HEADQUARTERS:
3b Olympic Way, Sefton Business Park, Aintree, Liverpool L30 1RD, UNITED KINGDOM
(Customer Services) WINNING NOTICE FOR CATEGORY "A" WINNER BONUS LOTTERY PROMOTION PRIZE AWARDS WINNING NOTIFICATION

Dear Lucky Winner, We are pleased to inform you of the result of the just concluded annual final draws of UNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL LOTTERY International Lottery Programs. The online cyber-lotto draws was conducted from an exclusive list of 21,000 e-mail addresses of individual and corporate bodies picked by an advanced automated random computer search from the internet, no tickets were sold. After this automated computer ballot, your e-mail address emerged as one of the two winners in the category "A" with the following winning information: REF No: UKNL-L/200-26937 BATCH No: 2005MJL-01 TICKET No: 20511465463-7644 SERIAL No: S/N-00168 LUCKY No: 887-13-865-37-10-83

You as well as the other winner are therefore to receive a cash prize of £1,000,000.00 (One Million Pounds Sterling) each from the total payout. Your prize award has been insured with your e-mail address and will be transferred to you upon meeting our requirements, statutory obligations, verifications, validations and satisfactory report. To begin the claims processing of your prize winnings you are advised to contact our licensed and accredited oversea claims agent for category "A" winners with the information below:

To file for your claim, please contact the processing agent; Overseas Claims Unit United Kingdom Lottery Fiduciary Contact Person: Mr. John Williams Email: fiduciary_johnwilliam@hotmail.com

Remember to quote your reference information in all correspondence. You are to keep all lotto information away from the general public especially your reference and ticket numbers. (This is important as a case of double claims will not be entertained). Please note; you are hereby advice to send the asignned Fudiciray Agent details below for Processing of your Claims;
(1). FULL NAME
(2). FULL ADDRESS
(3). NATIONALITY
(4). DATE OF BIRTH
(5). OCCUPATION
(6). ANNUAL INCOME
(7). WINNING EMAIL
(8). TELEPHONE NUMBER
(9). DATE OF WINNING NOTIFICATION
(10). SEX (11). TOTAL AMOUNT WON
(12). MARITAL STATUE
Send reply to the processing agent:- Congratulations once more from our members of staff and thank you for being part of our promotional program. CONGRATULATIONS!!!
Sincerely Yours, Mrs. Rebecca Jenkins (Lottery Co-ordinator) United Kingdom National Lottery
All right reserved 2006®

NOTE: Anybody under the age of 17 and members of the affiliate agencies are automatically not allowed to participate in this program.

John Kerry Running Again For President

John Kerry, who often exhibited the animation of a French cadaver without its Gallic charm while campaigning for the presidency in 2004, has disinterred himself from the political graveyard and is running again for - the presidency in 2004! – with the help of The New York Times, of course. Only this time around, Kerry is taking on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, instead of ignoring them and hoping they’ll just go away.

Interestingly, Kerry and the New York Times reporter both look at truth as having the qualities of malleable plastic, capable of being bent and shaped to fit their current “truth.” This is most clearly shown in their treatment of Kerry’s memories of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, a memory that was “seared - seared” in him. According to the Times reporter, the Cambodian incursion is now reflected in Kerry’s logbook as occurring on 12 February 1969.

For those among us with very short, very selective memories, also known as Democrats, the following succinct recapitulation of the salient facts is in order. John Kerry said he spent Christmas Eve of 1968 in Cambodia, listening to South Vietnamese allies whooping it up and firing off guns in celebration. He remembers being worried that he might be shot accidentally by a celebrating ally, and having the realization that his government was lying, that President Nixon was denying we had any combat troops in Cambodia.

Are we all together so far? All of this is in John Kerry’s book, Tour of Duty, and in the Congressional Record, if you need to refresh your memories.

Now for the fun part. Nixon wasn’t President in December 1968. Nixon made no pronouncements about combat troops in Cambodia until two years later.

Although the Times reporter keeps referring to the testimony of Swift Boat veterans as “unsubstantiated,” in truth it is Kerry’s statements that are unsubstantiated. Kerry’s superior officers are all on record that there were no Swift Boat missions to Cambodia at that time, and many of Kerry’s shipmates say they never were in Cambodia, and only Kerry has stated that he and any of his shipmates were ever in Cambodia. Even shipmates who worked in his campaign would not say they were in Cambodia.

For many reasons, Swift Boats did not run missions into Cambodia. One reason is that there is no record, testimony, or other statements that the Swift Boats were ever assigned to do such missions for the CIA, Navy SEALS, Special Forces, or etc. Except of course by then Navy Lieutenant Kerry. A review of the Mekong Delta geography shows that the Mekong River flows directly from Cambodia into Viet Nam. At that time, descriptions indicated that there were physical barriers, armed patrol boats, and guard stations at the point where the Mekong left Cambodia and entered Viet Nam.

Besides the facts they weren’t assigned the jobs, and that it would have been physically impossible for Swift Boats to cross the armed border into Cambodia by going up the Mekong, are there any other reasons why this could not happen?

Well yes, and I’m glad you asked. The Swift Boats were extremely noisy, and because of that, were totally unsuited to performing clandestine missions. WHAT! YOU CAN’T HEAR ME? I SAID THE ENGINE IS TOO LOUD!

There. That’s better. Blessed silence. Damned things would wake up the dead. Speaking of the dead, look, Kerry’s saying something!

“I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me.”

John, since you label any veteran who disagrees with you a liar, and your supporters label whatever they say as “unsubstantiated,” it’s time to get personal. Just stop whining, John, and show us your hat. The one you got from the CIA, or was it the SEALS, or was it Special Forces? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. While you’re at it, how about showing us your logbook, and all your military records, including medical? Especially the military record that shows you were awarded a Silver Star with a “V” for Valor device. The Navy says they never award a “V” for Valor device with the Silver Star. How did you get yours?

Meanwhile, back on the Mekong, you got a Purple Heart in an incident that was undocumented (you know, like unsubstantiated). When you applied to your commander for the Purple Heart, he turned you down because (1) there was no hostile report, and (2) your “wound” was only a scratch. The servicing physician concurred that it was very minor and did not appear to be the result of hostile fire. After your commander was reassigned, you reapplied, and like magic, got your Purple Heart.

By the way, John, since we’re hung up on this bit about unsubstantiated charges, you yourself in your book substantiated that, at the time of the Purple Heart action, you and your boat had not yet come under hostile fire. Did you lie in your book, or on your Purple Heart application? You can’t have it both ways. Even you can’t say: “I told the truth in my diary before I told it on my Purple Heart application.” You can’t change a story to fit the circumstances like you do with your votes in the Senate.

This is just a start, John, but I have to rest my fingers. “Unsubstantiated” is a big word to type over and over, and you’ve said and written so many other unsubstantiated things about your four months in Viet Nam that I need to pace myself.

Funny. You spent even less time in Viet Nam than Al Gore. I’ll bet that after you tried to ride those four months into the presidency, it seems like a lifetime.

Joining The Blue Star Blogroll

A couple of weeks ago I went through a period of low posting activity. I had posted Making the Army of Reconquista, and visitor traffic increased dramatically. I decided to take advantage of my so-far most popular post, and put in a lot of time and effort dropping comments and trackbacks to it on blogs where illegal immigration was a hot topic. During this period of navel gazing, I frequently checked my hit counter statistics to check on where recent visitors were coming from (referrers).

Many were fellow 101st Fighting Keyboardists, the Chicken Hawks. I had joined the Chicken Hawks, even though I am a retired Air Force officer who served from 1962 to 1984, through the Vietnam War and the Cold War years. I joined for two reasons. The first is that in twenty one and a half years of military service, I was never in a combat zone. The second reason was I thought it was chicken shit that the Left was calling supporters of the Iraq war Chicken Hawks if they had not served in the military. Can only lawyers have an opinion on the law? Can only doctors have an opinion on healthcare? And by the criteria established by the Left, how come they get to say a damn thing about national defense?

As I examined “referrers,” sometimes it seemed on a minute by minute basis, I started noticing that a lot of the strongest supporters of the military had Blue Star banners. When I investigated what the Blue Star was all about, I found it existed for two purposes: to show support for our military; and to indicate a child in the military. I qualify on both counts. I support a strong, active military, and my oldest son served 16 years in the Army, and has been on continuous active duty in the Nevada Army National Guard since 9/11. Within a couple of weeks following the fall of Iraq, he was stationed as a military police prisoner guard at Abu Ghraib for eight months. Since then he has been on continuous call-up, and may deploy again to Iraq.

My middle son is drawing disability pay for an aircraft accident which required him to leave the Air Force at the end of his enlistment.

For these, and many other reasons, I will with pride join the Blue Star Blogroll.

And I'll post the banner as soon as I can get it done without befouling the left column and completely screwing up my home page layout.

Major Michael B. Combs, U S Air Force, Retired
Gualala, California

Greatest Baseball Player Of All

 

You can’t pick a greatest football player of all time. In football your body has to fit your very specialized position. That is why Joe Montana is the greatest quarterback of all time, but he wouldn’t last one snap as a defensive tackle. Similarly, Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver, and Ronnie Lott is the greatest (fill in defensive back position). Bill Walsh is the greatest coach. 

 Now that we’ve got those out of the way…In football you play offense, or you play defense. The only baseball positions that are remotely similar to football's specialization are the twin American League abominations, pitchers who don’t bat, and hitters who don't field. Now if I could figure out a way to gripe about professional basketball stars not being called for traveling with the ball, I think I will have covered most of my major sports soapbox items. 

Which brings me to the greatest baseball player of all time. I’m going to go way out on a limb and declare – it’s a tie! A tie between Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. Babe Ruth is by far the dominant baseball player of all time. Until Barry Bonds hit home run number 715, the Babe had been either first or second in total home runs for 85 years. The only reason the Babe is not still the greatest home run hitter of all time is that he had five very good years pitching for the Red Sox before his powerful hitting forced the issue, and he was made an outfielder to have his bat in the lineup every day. During Babe Ruth’s first five years with the Red Sox, he had roughly 1500 fewer at bats than he would have had as an every day player. For his career, the Babe hit a home run every 11.8 times at bat. In an extra 1500 at bats, at that rate he would have hit another 127 home runs, for a career total of 841, or 86 more that Hank Aaron. Cut his production rate in half, and he still would have hit another 63 for a career total of 777, still 22 more than Aaron. Babe Ruth was not only a home run hitter, he also hit for a career .342 batting average, the 7th best of all time. The man barely ahead of him, in 6th place, is Ted Williams. For another comparison, singles hitter Pete Rose had a .303 lifetime average, just ahead of power hitter Willie Mays .302. 

How good a pitcher was the Babe? Lifetime he had 94 wins against 46 losses, a 0.671 win/loss record which is the 12th best for all time. His lifetime earned run average (ERA) was 2.28, the 15th best of all time. He was undefeated in three pitching starts in two World Series for the Red Sox. The Babe was a workhorse pitcher. In two seasons, 1916 and 1917, he was at the top in the American League for games started and innings pitched. In 1918 and 1919, he led the league in home runs each year while still pitching. 

I picked Willie Mays for the lowest position possible on the best ever list, tied for first with the Babe. There is no way Willie could ever be second to anyone. When I evaluated the Babe, I had to go to the statistics pages, and old news reports. But I didn’t have to do that to size up Willie. I saw him play. 

The first time was on television, the World Series of 1954 against the Cleveland Indians. Brother Ron and I were home from Point Arena Elementary School for lunch. The school grounds started only twenty-five yards across School Street (Highway 1) from our house, so it was not a challenge to be home for lunch every day. 

We had just bought our first television set, a Packard-Bell black and white set. We got one channel, the NBC station channel 4 (KRON) from San Francisco. It was rumored there were two other television stations, CBS channel 5 (KPIX) and ABC channel 7 (KGO). We sometimes could see just enough on Channel 5 to get interested in a show, but we couldn’t see it well enough to understand what happened. My late first wife Marilynn, who lived eight miles south of Point Arena, told me that they got all three channels crystal clear. I confirmed that, beginning in 1958, when we started going steady, and I spent many hours watching shows on her family’s TV sets – for the New Year's Day bowl games we would set three TV sets side by side, so we could watch all the games – that no one in Point Arena (except Dutch Schrock, whose rhombic antenna was strung between four sixteen-foot poles on an acre of pasture land) ever saw. 

Please excuse the historical digression. Mom, Ron and I sat down on the couch in the living room to eat our lunches and watch the World Series. Almost immediately we saw a prodigious smash to center field off the bat of Vic Wertz, and Willie Mays racing back after it. We saw the catch, the spinning stop and throw back to the infield, and agreed among ourselves that Willie had made a pretty good play. It wasn’t until we heard and read the commentary of experienced sports reporters that we realized just how great Willie’s play had been. 

Later, when the Giants moved to San Francisco in 1958, we finally got Mom to go with us for our first trip to San Francisco. Since we moved to Point Arena in 1949, Mom had never gone south on Highway 1 past Stewarts Point, a distance of about 25 miles. We saw the Giants lose 4-3 to the Chicago Cubs in Seals Stadium on a late home run by Lee Walls. 

During the next four years, I saw Willie play several times at Seals Stadium, and later in Candlestick Park, and I spent many happy hours “watching” the games on my transistor radio. I never saw Willie playing more clearly than when I listened to the games on the radio. I guess when I say Willie tied the Babe for the greatest ever, I should add a few statistics. One is that Willie spent most of his career playing half of his games each season in Candlestick Park, one of the most unfriendly parks in the majors to right handed power hitters, and yet his home runs to at-bats ratio of 16.5 is only 0.1 behind Hank Aaron’s 16.4, and Aaron played in two of the most homer friendly parks in the majors, County Stadium, Milwaukee, and Fulton County Stadium, Atlanta. Willie also lost almost two full seasons in 1952 and 1953, during the prime of his athletic abilities, when he was drafted into the Army. 

Of course, even if Willie hadn’t been one of the greatest hitters in baseball, he would still have been on the field because of his outstanding defensive skills. He was awarded twelve Golden Gloves, but even the Golden Gloves don’t tell the story of how good he was. Almost every year that he patrolled center field, the Giants flanked him with hard-hitting defensive liabilities: Leon Wagner, Willie Kirkland, Orlando Cepeda or Willie McCovey. Depending on whether Orlando or Willie played first base, the other got left field. So Willie covered his territory, and most of theirs. Sometimes Willie played so shallow that he might have been mistaken for an infielder. During pre-game warm ups Willie would often play around at shortstop, and he looked better taking the grounders and making the throws than most of the Giant’s real shortstops. With his cannon arm, and encyclopedic knowledge of opposing batters, he probably would have been a great pitcher, too. 

Willie’s head for baseball reminds me of Joe Montana’s head for football. I have no idea what either of their IQ’s are, and it makes no difference, because when they were on the field, they had more “game smarts” by far than any other player out there with them. Willie was really fast, too. He stole 338 bases, and could have doubled or tripled his total if he wanted. But almost every steal he made was a brilliant strategic move. Willie batted third most of his career, and if he had stolen bases indiscriminately, he would have taken the bats out of the hands of good power hitters like the aforementioned Cepeda, McCovey, and others. So to me it seemed that Willie stole bases when it was the most exciting and daring thing to do, and when it could turn a game upside down in the Giant’s favor. He would drive infielders and pitchers to distraction with his antics on the basepaths, and then when he was making a play in the outfield he could fake a runner to stop before he should, or keep running when he should have stopped. 

So there you have it. You can take it to the bank. One of the fundamental truths of this and of preceding and subsequent generations has been established. Willie and the Babe, forever number one.

Local Government Used To Persecute

(This blog post is strictly about a local issue in Gualala, California, where I have lived and worked for many years. To me, it is an abuse of the power of a local government agency, in this case an almost ad hoc municipal advisory council. It will have some interest to some of you across the Fruited Plain, since it illustrates how government not done well can trample on our freedoms by intruding in matters that really are not in its jurisdiction. Unless you take the point of view that everything your neighbor does is your business. I hope you don't.)

I went to a meeting of the Gualala Municipal Advisory Council (GMAC), hoping to see local government in action. What I saw filled me with despair.

GMAC is an advisory function. It does not appear to be chartered to make or enforce regulations, but to inquire into matters and make recommendations to Mendocino County agencies. How exactly that is done was made very mysterious to me as the meeting progressed.

I must admit that I knew very little about GMAC actions and activities prior to this meeting. I have lived in Gualala for over seven years, have worked in real estate here for the past five years, and have followed the activities of GMAC only through the reports I read in our local weekly newspaper, The Independent Coast Observer. I never attended a meeting, although my impression of GMAC through the news articles I read was that it was primarily concerned with issues associated with the real estate of this area. In particular, GMAC played a very active role in reviewing requests to build homes and other structures in the greater Gualala area. A lot of what they did in this process of review seemed to duplicate the work of the Mendocino County Planning and Building Department, but I assumed that the county department must have delegated certain functions to GMAC. My assumption was wrong.

The GMAC meeting began in a state of confusion, as the agenda for the meeting was reviewed in a lengthy process reminiscent of a Chinese fire drill. One council member wondered where his item was on the agenda, apparently an item he had told the secretary would not be on this agenda. Another couple of agenda items had fallen through an email crack. The numbering and renumbering of agenda items in the process of creating and approving the agenda for the evening confused everyone, particularly the council members.

Finally, the meeting began with “Public input on Non-agenda items.” Of course, several people got up to speak on an issue that was an agenda item, the very agenda item that had caused me to come to this meeting in the first place. The GMAC chairman didn’t seem to recognize that she was receiving presentations that a bit later in the meeting would be presented again when their topic on the agenda came up. I felt cheated, because my reason for attending this meeting was to point out that the GMAC did not have jurisdiction over the issue which had been placed on the agenda, and here it was already being addressed totally inappropriately.

Not long ago Alice and I concluded four years on the Point Arena School Board. Each meeting our chairman explained that “Public input on Non-agenda items” was confined to items which were not already on the agenda. I remember only one instance when the chairman had to remind an individual that they were jumping the gun on an agenda item, and that their comments would have to wait their proper time.

The council then took up the first agenda item, a request to recommend approval of a building plan for a single-family home. The chairman and another council member recused themselves from this review, and the chairman passed the gavel on to another council member. Later the chairman realized that she had passed the gavel to the wrong council member.

At this point I should mention that the building permit being reviewed had already been reviewed and approved by the Mendocino County Planning and Building Department. In the course of their review, they had sent one of their planners down to walk the site and its environs. What the GMAC did next can only be categorized as incompetent. First the chairman asked the council members who had been assigned to do an on-site review for their input. The council members assigned the review did not know they had been assigned, and had nothing to say. Another member who lived near the proposed building site then took over doing the review, and it was obvious that neither he nor any other member of the council had reviewed any of the application paperwork. Also apparent was that the council members didn’t understand the regulations concerning height limitations, whether a property was adjacent to a government park, whether it was in an exceptionally scenic area, and what paperwork had been provided by the county to assist their revue.

Fortunately for the poor applicants, they had done a very diligent job of putting their permit package together for county review, had brought all their papers and plans with them, and could show the council what had already been approved by the county. In fact, the applicants demonstrated greater knowledge of the permit requirements than the council members, particularly on such matters as determining how to compute the maximum building height allowed on the east side of Highway One. Finally, a call was made by the erroneously acting chairman for a motion to recommend approval. After all that had transpired, making a simple motion to recommend approval should have been very simple. That was not to be the case. The council member we expected was making the motion we soon found out was stating a long rambling rehash of the review which had just been so laboriously conducted and concluded. There was nothing in his remarks that had the slightest resemblance to a motion. After a period of prolonged confusion, another council member attempted to state a motion. She got off to a good start, but then she too started to wander off creating a motion to recapping what had been reviewed. The motion was passed unanimously, I think. I feel sure that whatever the secretary writes as the motion that was passed will have only a passing resemblance to the motion that was made.

The next application was much simpler and straightforward, and apparently had been a long time in review anyway. The council member who made the GMAC review basically just confirmed that the applicants had done what the county required, and accepted their verbal assurances that that was the case. What I now saw was what appeared to be the usual strange process of making a GMAC motion. This time the motion was stated as a recommendation. “I recommend that..” instead of “I move that we recommend approval…” Whatever. Motion made and passed.

My mind was beginning to think of this meeting in terms of such yardsticks as elephant gestation periods.

Finally we arrived at the agenda item that had brought me from my comfortable evening in Buddy’s Apartment, where I can blog and pet Buddy at the same time. It was the “July Forum with Mendocino County Animal Control,” on which several members of the public had already made full presentations. So now the chairman called on them again, and they repeated themselves. Although the ground rules for presentations stated that they should only be addressing the need for a forum next month, no one, including myself, honored that rule. The reason was pretty obvious. The GMAC had already voted at a previous meeting, 4-2, to have the forum. Since having the forum was a foregone conclusion, both sides were already stating their cases. And my case was that the forum GMAC had decided to have should not occur. First, GMAC has no charter or jurisdiction over singling out individuals on animal control issues. Secondly, the parties they have singled out cannot speak in their own behalf, because they are under and honoring a court-imposed gag rule. Two of the individuals in attendance at this meeting were also under the same court restraining order, but one of them made a presentation, and then later repeated it. So much for honoring the restraining order. Third, the forum should address the entire issue of pets roaming freely on owners’ property, not just one family’s pets.

The GMAC members then took some time to extemporize on the need for the animal control forum. Apparently they recognized that there was nothing in their duties and responsibilities that required them to host the forum, so they decided that it would be a good opportunity to allow people to vent, in this case, against their neighbors who have already gone through a lot of pain and suffering the past eight months. The two pups escaped and efforts to recapture them have been very expensive and emotionally draining. One of their two mature wolf-dogs became sick and, after a very expensive operation and medical treatment, died. Then the wife found she had breast cancer, and for lack of medical insurance, the mastectomy was performed in India. Just on their return from India, the husband had an automobile accident that required an operation to repair spinal cord and ligament damage.

And now this almost incoherent advisory council had taken it on itself to sponsor a forum to further vex and bedevil two people who deserve better, particularly in their hours of greatest need and suffering.

Why? What is the need? What will be accomplished? Why is it important to do it now? Since Fish & Game have already determined that the pups are not wild animals, since when does an advisory council with no animal control duties or responsibilities get involved in listening to one neighbor gripe about another neighbor’s pets?

If GMAC is going to have a forum about gripes about neighbor’s pets, they had better include all of us who let their pets roam free on their property. I let Buddy roam freely on our property, and so do most of the other dog owners in this area let their dogs roam freely on their properties too. If the GMAC is going to have a gripe forum for one family’s pets, they better have it for all.

Ann Coulter Gives Good Column

How can you be forgiven taxes you haven’t paid for two years? And qualify for the earned income tax credit at the same time? Plus be part of an affirmative action program for admittance to U.S. colleges with lower grades and scores than American citizens? In addition, get to pay the in-state tuition rate, while American service members stationed on orders by their government outside of their home state have to pay the out-of-state rate? How can you be forgiven the commission of the felony identity theft for stealing a Social Security number? And, of course, become instantly qualified for all sorts of government benefits?

If you haven’t already figured out the answers to the above questions, Ann Coulter has written extensively on this matter. Look in back columns in Human Events Online.