Michael Tells Us Mo(o)re Than We Need To Know

I try to limit my personal attacks on individuals, public or otherwise, to those whom I have a good deal of high quality, well documented information about. Other than the occasional emotional outburst, given time to compose myself, I have adhered to this policy in my writing. I don’t care “what I’ve heard” or “what other’s say” about you, I generally wait until I have some direct contact or experience before I form my final opinion.

Public officials and celebrities, both real and self-proclaimed, are an exception, since I don’t spend much time in Hollywood or roaming the storied halls of the government buildings in Washington DC.

The best form of information available on a person is usually obtained by either hearing them speak in person or by reading something written by them. The old axiom, “do as I say, not as I do” is exceeded by “read what I write and forget what I say. Until the last 100 years or so, the spoken word tended to evaporate into the infinite ether of the universe while the written word has been destined to survive through the ages.

Having said all of that, I come to the subject of Michael Moore. I haven’t seen any of Mr. Moore’s films. I have seen a little too much of Mike’s unshaven, slovenly looking, fairly rotund persona as he has sauntered around the Democratic campaign for the office of President of the United States of America.

Other than a few appearances in a rented tuxedo, the guys’ closet must contain a wardrobe consisting of 500 pairs of sneakers, dozens of brown leather and denim jackets, mountains of baggy, faded blue jeans, complemented by an assortment of baseball caps adorned with the sports team “logo de jour.”

I congratulate Mr. Moore in his success in parlaying his image and position into a fairly nice living, but I have wondered about his motives and intellectual ability on a core basis. Beyond riding the wave of liberal outrage, what does he know, what does he think, and what can he really do in life besides stir up controversy?

Well, we can all stop wondering. After three days of silence, Senior Moore, the rocket scientist, has come out of hiding to post his latest thesis about the results of the election, 17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists.

I usually do a bunch of background research in order to support my posts, but I refuse to waste my time reading any more about this obvious genius. I am fairly certain that he is in his mid- thirties, but his writing must be aimed at teens and early twenty-somethings and it reads like it was written by a high school sophomore.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Moore…Grow up and get a life!!
(God knows you have the cash to pay for it…)

Here's Hannibal...

Testing adding photo's to the Blog, here's me playing my other alter-ego...Hannibal in the play "The Curious Savage"

Yasser Arafat Is Dead (And I don't Feel So Good Myself)

I was taking a few minutes off from writing “The Fair Tax Plan is Really Fair” in order to watch President Bush’s first press conference since the election. In the middle of the press conference, one of the reporters prefaced his question with an announcement that Yasser Arafat had died this morning.

I would normally react with muted applause while being deferential to the grief of the Arafat family, but somehow I’m not exactly sure if I can celebrate the passing of this proven, documented terrorist.

Like the fall of the Soviet Union, what fractionalization are we now facing in the leadership effort to establish a Palestinian state? What new towel head radical will take the reigns of the PLO?

Perhaps this is a good omen for the new Bush administration. Perhaps the new PLO leadership will be rational and reasonable and we can truly forge a framework for Middle Eastern peace.

We can only hope for the best.

UPDATE: November 8, 2004

Ok, ok, ok...I was wrong, technically. They are still pounding on poor old Yasser's chest and have tubing stuck in every bodily orifice (and several extra tubes pushed into new, manmade holes) and they claim that he is still alive. For all intents and purposes, he's "bought the farm," or at least his own personal piece of arid, rocky, middle eastern desert.

So the title to my Post should have read "Yasser Arafat Is A Gonner..." His old lady and his lieutennants are predictably fighting over his money and his position as the leader of the PLO and the poor bastard isn't even cold and burried in his own little section of the Gaza Strip. Israel is refusing to inter him in Jereusalem and based on his history, I believe they have that right.

I'm working on a new series of posts on Yasser and the PLO that will cover some issues you need to hear in detail.

For now, RIP Mr. Arafat.

UPDATE: November 11, 2004

Well, like I said last Thursday, Yasser was a gonner, and he is now finally. Thanks to our useless French friends for leading the charge to elevate this petty criminal/terrorist to the rank of statesman. Let's all step out of the way to let the news anchors from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN all come by to kiss his ring finger.

And of course Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, and each and every other member of the United Nations "Love Your Local Dictator and Socalist Club" will come out to mourn the loss of his miserable carcass. At the risk of sounding crass, crude, and socially unacceptable....

Good riddence...

You Reap What You Sew

I have an acquaintance, Charles, who used to be a next-door neighbor at my first house I purchased back in the mid 1980’s. Charles was attending law school at night at the time and was working all day to support his wife and young son. He looked like a nice fellow on paper, based on the information he presented to us about his self.

Charles and I lost contact with each other after a few years when his family moved to a new home a few miles away. The distance between us wasn’t the reason for the alienation, however. It was, rather (but not Dan Rather,) his treatment of my ex-wife and I after his departure. You see, he stiffed us of the $1000 finders fee he promised to pay anyone that could bring him a buyer for the house he owned next door. We did find him a buyer the very next day, one of my ex’s co-workers, and he didn’t pay us the finder’s fee. Not a word, not an apology, not even drinks or a dinner out. We let him get away with it gracefully

Fast forward to 2003-2004 and I learn that my old friend Charles has not only graduated from law school and been admitted to the State Bar of Georgia, but Charles has been elected to be Chief Magistrate Judge of Cherokee County, Georgia. Hurray for Charles!

As the title to this post says, there is a certain truth to the Biblical saying “you reap what you sew.” You see, Charles had had a few problems in his past that recently came to the surface. Some really bad problems in his past. I think they refer to his problems as issues dealing with "moral turpitude."

It seems that Charles name wasn’t originally Charles—he changed it—and his past convictions for theft of government property, possession of methamphetamine, and his resulting dishonorable discharge from the US Army in the late 1970’s was a problem as to his suitability to be an elected judge. He failed to reveal these little "hicups" when he made application for election to the judiciary.

The revelations of these indiscressions by a political foe recently caused the Georgia Supreme Court to recall him from the Magistrate’s bench. Adding to his humiliation, the local press was all over the events, in real time, as they occurred, which is how I found out about his troubles long distance, through the Internet. I think they are after his law license now. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy…

Which brings me to my current concern—Senator John F. Kerry’s war record. He beat us to death with self aggrandizing war stories for six months of the campaign while the press was breaking their collective necks looking the other way (for 30 years, for that matter.) The Swift Vets were partisan liars, Kerry was a War Hero.

I suggest that if Kerry wants to continue to represent Massachusetts as a US Senator, it is time for him to sign form 180 and let the nation see his true war records, not just “all of the records that the Navy has sent to me” as he has said in his web site.

I’m not going to dignify the rumors that I have heard with validity by repeating them here. They are still simply rumors, but I will point out that they are spreading on the internet if you wish to see them. IF they are true, Masseur Kerry needs to not only not be president, he needs to resign his position as Senator and "move-on.org" back to France.

Can you say recall vote???

Unite on 'Common Ground'

USA Today’s online editorial this morning is titled “Unite on ‘Common Ground.’ It is written by, of all people, California ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi. Well isn’t that special, coming from someone who could be defined by Webster’s as “an expert in partisan divisiveness.” I’m sure she can teach us a great deal—NOT!

After Republicans and conservatives have had a chance to politely celebrate our recent victories in the election for the office of the President, the House, the Senate, and various local and regional races, we will innately turn to the task of healing wounds and attempting to bring a coalition of Americans from both sides together to go about the business of running our country. And we will do this as a matter of instinct and human nature, not at the request of the venomous Ms. Pelosi and newspapers like USA Today that have covered the election in a shamefully partisan manner.

I find it curious that Nancy and the USA Today editors waste no time offering an olive branch of peace to the 2004 Republican politicians and their supporters when they in reality should be waving a white flag of surrender. They want to shake hands, get a big ‘ole hug, maybe a sloppy kiss on the mouth, and let bygones be bygones. I have a little problem being so friendly so soon after declaring the “end of major military operations.”

In a country other the USA, like Iran or Korea, the whole liberal crowd and their media co-conspirators could be facing a firing squad as a result of their actions. And the sad thing is that I am afraid, while the liberals seem to be calling for a good working relationship—“a climate of give and take”—that in reality it will be business as usual with conservatives doing all of the giving and the liberals doing all of the taking. “We gotta do this” and “we gotta do that.” That’s liberal speak for “you have to give me this concession” and “you must give me that concession,” lest I hold my breath or lie down in the floor and have a screaming kicking fit.

To quote Ms. Pelosi:

“The new administration should also address, at once, our domestic priorities: creating good jobs, better access to health care and the best possible education for our children. Even on these complicated issues, there is broad bipartisan consensus on certain concrete steps we could take immediately.

To create jobs, we can begin by passing a robust transportation bill that will create 1.7 million new jobs nationwide, while modernizing our infrastructure.”

OK Nancy, show me in the Constitution where it says that it is the government’s responsibility to create jobs? Show me where the Federal Government should be involved in Education (you can thank Jimmy Carter for the Department of Education and the current debacle.)

“We must also reform the tax code to end incentives for outsourcing. As a matter of basic fairness, no taxpayer should have to subsidize the outsourcing of his or her own job.”

Outsourcing of jobs? Where I come from its is called subcontracting, and it is very effective. If it is my company, they are MY jobs, not the employees’ jobs, and I’ll by God hire whoever I want to, where ever I want to--male, female, purple skin, or green.

It’s my company and the bottom line costs are my responsibility. I am a business working to make me and the other owners of the company a profit. We are not a job creating charity, and further, if the government isn't in the business of creating jobs or subsidizing jobs, the taxpayer won't have "to subsidize the outsourcing of his or her own job.

“To expand access to quality, affordable health care, Congress should take up legislation on the first day of the new session to provide health insurance to every child. We must also revisit the widely unpopular prescription drug bill to lower the cost of prescription drugs by allowing the safe reimportation of drugs from Canada and elsewhere. And we must unlock the miraculous promise of stem cell research.”

Health insurance for every child? Health care for children is already available virtually across the board. The crack head parents just need to take the child to the free clinic.

And another thing. The Prescription Drug Bill was a perfect example of the Republicans trying to work with the Democrats in a bi-partisan effort. You are right that in it’s current form it is bad, but it’s the concept in general, not the implementation that is the problem. More government involvement in our national healthcare system will only serve to cause more waste and further increase costs. The FDA regulation of the hated “big pharmaceutical companies” is the cause of high drug costs, not the solution. Canada’s drugs cost less because their bureaucrats have less hurdles for the drug makers to jump through to get medicine on the shelves for consumers. And we don’t have enough flue shots this year as a direct result of lawyers like John Edwards and government's vaccine purchasing programs.

Get this through your expensively coiffed head: there is no government ban on stem cell research. There is a ban on funding new lines of embryonic stems cells, but all the existing lines are not being used currently. There is increased government funding on adult stem cell work. The only existing therapies using stem cells involve the use of adult stem cells. There are no existing treatment’s that have developed using embryonic stem cells. Further, private businesses are free to spend their entire piggy bank on existing embryonic stem cell lines and all the adult stem cell lines they can finance. The election is over, stop lying about “bans on stem cell research.”

“To improve education, we must keep the promise of No Child Left Behind, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. And we must make college education more affordable, so that every student who has the motivation will also have the means.”

No Child Left Behind is an under funded Federal government mandate on the states that is doomed to failure as long as students and parents don’t make an equal commitment to academic success. College education is a function of supply and demand, not government regulation. Student motivation will produce the means, massive government funding of unqualified students will simply lower educational quality. Look at Georgia’s Hope Scholarship Program if you want a perfect example of the outcome

Finally, Ms Pelosi ends her piece with this gem:

“As the rhetoric of the campaign recedes, the business of governing—and leading—begins anew. As elected officials, our commitment must be to build a future worthy of the vision of our Founding Fathers, worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and worthy of the aspirations of our children.”

I trust that Nancy Pelosi will take a large, double dose of her own advice. And in the words of Forrest Gump…”and that’s all I have to say about that…”

UPDATE: November 4, 2004

I just knew that Nancy didn't sound in the USA Today OpEd piece like the old Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader that we love to hate. On the same day her flowery text was published, her mouth was busy telling us what she really thought and felt in response to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's offer "to work with those Democrats who want to work with me to get good things done for the American people..."

Miss Pelosi says "(t)he Republicans did not have an election about jobs, health care, education, environment, national security. They had an election about wedge issues in our country, and you know what they are," she said.

"They exploited the loveliness of the American people, the devoutness of people of faith for a political end."

So which is it Nancy?

Are you, or aren't you going to listen to your own words and 'unite on common ground'?

The Fat lady Has Sung, But it's not over

With the dust settling around the free-for-all that we called the 2004 presidential election, Kerry conceded by telephone at 11:05 AM this morning and Bush is expected to talk to us in a little while.

Kerry has been hiding all morning in his palatial townhome in Boston’s Beacon Hill district and appears to be as arrogant in addressing his resounding loss as he has been over the past six months of the campaign. President Bush has waited patently for Kerry to go first. Many people see the only remaining tasks to be a little “housekeeping” regarding the provisional ballots in Ohio and swatting a few lawyers on the nose that are sniffing around other states looking for signs of “disenfranchisement” and “intimidation.”

Not me.

With the conclusion of the election follies, I am ready to demand some answers from the mainstream media regarding what, if anything, they intend to do about policing their ungodly, unmitigated, unrestrained, brazen liberal bias that was exposed during this election cycle. Specifically, where are the results of the “independent” investigation regarding Dan Rather’s forged documents? What is CBS going to do to prevent such obvious, calculated, malicious behavior from occurring in the future? Can you say N-O-T-H-I-N-G?

Then there is this matter of election day coverage and the newly revised, so called independent, “exit polls.” Polls that were used as the exclusive basis of the early proclamations of a large Kerry lead. Just like the early calling of a Florida victory for Al Gore in 2000, the large leads shown by all TV broadcast and cable outlets, supported by the exit polls, were bound to have adversely affected voter attitudes and could have caused mid-American and west coast voters to not vote at all because of the huge Kerry lead. (It might have actually helped Bush) Further, if you stopped watching and went to bed at 10:00 PM, you awoke this morning to the surprise news that it was in fact Bush, not Kerry that was going to lead our country for the next four years.

At the core of the new and improved exit poll consortium is one of “the usual suspects”--the Associated Press. In my opinion the whole thing was designed and implemented as a last minute media assault on the election outcome. If that was in fact not the pure intent, in light of the other indiscressions committed through the campaign, it was certainly the result and it needs adressing.

Need I say more? Beam me up, Scotty…

Update: November 12, 2004

If I'm not accurate, I hope to be the first to admit it--and I was wrong.

I was premature with my declaration of Kerry being arrogant in making us wait for his concession speach. I don't blame him for waiting for the facts, and he was in fact quite humble in conceeding the election to President Bush and not filing an endless chain of lawsuits.

Damn good try Mr. Kerry, you almost won the most powerful position in the world, something I will certainally never have the opportunity to aspire to. For that, you deserve a salute. Here it is ....S-A-L-U-T-E!

Kerry Concedes

Record voter turnout, 3.5 million advantage in the popular vote. Any questions?

Partisan Predictions

I promise that I am going to shift gears in the next few weeks, if not days, and go back to less overtly political commentary, but I feel compelled to come out now and divulge a prediction that I have been making privately to my family and close friends for several months.

It is based on gut instict and a wishfulness not just for my political "team" to win, but rather (but not Dan Rather) my sincere desire to get President Bush another term in office so he can continue to prosecute the war on terrorism.

I don't want poor people to starve, I don't want middle class families to pay excessive taxes or not have medical care, I am not going to shove abortion rights or gay marrage issues down anyone's throats...I just want the Islamo-Muslim-towel-head-weird-beards and the little Korean troll dictator to get their come-uppance and I believe that George W. Bush is the man to do it.

I predict Bush by 300+ electorial votes, and a 53% chunk of the popular vote.

Lets wait and see what happens.

Get out and...

VOTE!!!!

We're Not in Kansas Anymore, Toto

Since the collapse of the twin towers in 2001, I have often speculated as to the form and the location of the next terrorist attack. This debate also has usually included a discussion of the potential effectiveness (or lack thereof) of our Homeland Security measures.

My point has been that while the attack on the World Trade Center brought a startling reality to the entire spectrum of American society, in practice, for most Americans, it still happened “up there” in New York City, not “out here” in Topeka, Kansas or even on St. Simons Island, Georgia.

We have implemented many well conceived, effective measures to combat potential terrorism and the citizens of the US have done a good job of adapting to the post 9/11 security realities. We have also conceived of some strangely convoluted security measures like screening the walkers and orthopedic shoes of 90 year old Kansas City grandmothers in airports while at the same time allowing young, turban clad men of obvious middle-eastern descent to stroll unfettered through the screening area—fearful of being guilty of politically incorrect “profiling.”

My contention has been that the next terrorist attack does not in fact have to occur on a high profile target in a major city like New York, Washington DC, or Chicago. It could happen anywhere and it wouldn’t have to kill thousands to be effective. Imagine the psychological impact of the detonation of a series of five 2000 pound car bombs, each placed in a different US city adjacent to a movie theater or suburban football stadium packed with people on a Friday night.

Maybe only a few hundred people would be killed in each incident, but an attack like this would shut this country down. Everyone would run to the bank and the grocery store and go home to batten down the hatches for weeks if not months. The aftermath would include no parking zones, reminiscent of the setbacks at airports, for tens of dozens of yards adjacent to all public places of assembly like theaters, malls, stadiums, etc. Forget parking the old Suburban on the curb to wait while the old lady runs into the local “Stash & Cash” to pick up a gallon of milk--unless you want to risk being ripped from your vehicle and strip searched as a result.

Having said this, I wish to point out a major error in the transcript of last Friday’s Osama bin Laden video message to the American people. The Middle East Media Research Institute points out an error in the translation of what Osama “Weird Beard” bin Laden had to say, and it is substantial:

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state")(2) to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."(3)

So there it is folks, a direct threat to the security of each and every state--INDIVIDUALLY-- based on the outcome of the Electoral College vote. The inference is that if we re-elect “the white thug Bush,” then the states that didn’t vote Bush are safe and those that did vote Bush are at risk of further attacks. So we are really supposed to believe this crappolla?

As I stated in my previous post, Weird Beard Calls Time Out, what ever happened to Osama’s call for the restoration of Islam to the historical Eastern regions and converting the infidel countries of the West? What happened to world-wide Jihad? Did he change his mind after nearly having his ass shot off in Tora Bora?

What bin Laden apparently doesn’t understand is that we are the United States of America, not simply 50 independent states, one district, and some international possessions operating under a fancy flag/corporate logo in order to get retirement benefits and cheep group insurance rates. If you attack one state, you attack all Americans, and because we are a mobile society--even if I don’t live in a given city, chances are that I have a friend, relative, or business associate that does. You hit Kansas, you piss Alabama and Georgia off—real bad (and we have more guns per capita than practically any other part of the country.)

The new video tape can be translated, diallated, mastigated, and debated until we are all blue in the face, but it should be allowed to serve only two distinct purposes.

The first is to prove that Osama bin laden is still out there leading the Islamic war against
the free world.

The second, and most important, is to affirm the need to reelect president George Bush so
that he can finish his competent prosecution of the war on terror.

We, as a nation, cannot, like the Spanish, allow ourselves to cave in to overt threats from outside movements designed to influence OUR national elections.

As my title says, “We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.”

GET OUT AND VOTE FOR GEORGE W BUSH.

"Weird Beard" Calls Time Out?

Much has been made over the new videotape released Friday on Al Jarezaa by our least favorite Islamic Jihadist, Osama bin Laden. Only part of the video has been translated and broadcast on the American TV networks, but the media outlets have worked themselves into a lather asking “What does it mean?” or endlessly pontificating on “How will it affect the outcome of the Presidential election?” The answers to these two questions obviously are as varied as the political spectrum in which we live.

The liberal leaning New York Times had this to say:

"This is going to be the last nail in George Bush's campaign,'' said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist working for America Coming Together, a group working to unseat Mr. Bush. "Bin Laden on the loose is arguably Bush's greatest failure as commander in chief."

Richard N. Bond, a former Republican national chairman, said the tape was a "reminder for all Americans that America is under attack - and who can be the best commander in chief in the war on terror is the central issue of this campaign."

So the tape hurts Bush, or it helps Bush, depending on if you are a liberal or a conservative.

I still ask, beyond the possibility of actually influencing the election, beyond proving that Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 has been translated into Arabic, what does the tape mean? What was Osama “weird beard” bin Laden actually saying?

My mentors over at Powerline make some interesting points that I totally agree with. Based on a transcript of the video, I too can’t help but wonder: Is Generalissimo Osama trying to call “time out?” Osama is quoted as saying:

"Your security is not in the hands of [Senator John] Kerry, Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any [presidential] mandate which does not play havoc with our security would automatically ensure its own security."

What was most interesting about the tape was not what bin Laden said, but rather (but not Dan Rather) what he did not say. He did not specifically warn of additional attacks. Not that I believe that more attacks are not coming our way, but the omission is glaring.

I can’t help but wonder about the apparent less than defiant tone of the parts of the video that have been broadcast and translated/transcribed. For one thing, any sign of weakness or compromise is seen an invitation for attack and/or overthrow in the Arab world. This latest message seems to extend an offer of a truce to America that was offered to the nations of Europe earlier this year. Fox News reported that the “last audiotape purportedly from bin Laden came in April. The speaker on the tape, which CIA analysts said likely was the Al Qaeda leader, offered a truce to European nations if they pull troops out of Muslim countries. The tape referred to the March 22 assassination by Israel of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin."

So the total demise of the infidels and the spread of Islam over all of the past historical Muslim regions of the East, as well as the takeover of the West by Islam is no longer the goal here?

I’m more than just a bit leery of this sudden change of rhetoric. Knowing the value of the word of a terrorist is exactly less than zero, I predict another major world shaking terror event, not necessarily on our turf, before the end of 2004. My patriotic side makes me want to believe that we have been effective enough to date in eliminating terrorism at its source (manpower & money) to prevent it from occurring on our soil—but I could be wrong.

If Bush wins, whatever happens will be blamed by the terrorists on his re-election. If Bush looses, any terrorist attack will still be blamed by the liberals and the main stream media on Bush’s prior actions (failures.)

Walter Cronkite Needs Some New Stem Cells

Back in “the good old days”—you know, the days when my whole future was in front of me, my body was trim and healthy, my mind was pure, and Bear Bryant was still alive and coaching the University of Alabama to the Sugar Bowl almost every year—any way, back then there was CBS news and "our" most beloved news anchor, Sir Walter Cronkite.

I didn’t know much back then, but I knew that if Walter Cronkite said it, IT MUST BE TRUE. Walter narrated the news for me and my family, beginning in the days of black and white news footage. Things like John Glenn’s first earth orbits, JFK’s assassination, the Apollo moon landings, and the attempted assassination of George Wallace--we could count on Walter to tell us what we needed to know in south Alabama.

The concepts of right and wrong were, like night and day, a given in network TV news back then...we thought. The idea of the highly respected national media taking sides on a given issue, let alone partisan sides, was a totally alien concept.

How things have changed today, relative to the public’s (and especially my own) perception of the media, in general, and the height of the pedestal that 87 year old Walter Cronkite sets on today, specifically.

In an interview with Larry King on CNN last evening. Larry played the latest Osama Bin Laden tape. Then he asked Mr. Cronkite for comments. Walter had this to say:

“So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. (bold emphasis mine-VRRIII) The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.”

To his credit, Larry King completely ignored the reference to Karl Rove planting the Bin laden tape. Yet one has to wonder why, since this revelation was a major part of the first few dozen words out of Cronkite’s mouth. Then, not suprisingly, King gives “old man Concrete” a pass--not only on the insinuation of potential foul play, but also on the follow-up blithering where he indicates that his rationale for this statement was the mean old Republicans who were trying to get rid of the Al Qaqaa missing explosive story; a story, by the way, that just so happens to be highly suspect and to have been trumped up by the New York Times and Masseur Cronkite’s beloved CBS News show "60 Minutes" against Mr. Rove’s candidate, President Bush.

I’m sorry, but I'm distraught. There is nothing left to believe in any more. No Santa Clause, no Easter Bunny, no Great Pumpkin, and now we find that Walter Cronkite has signed on with the naked, unabashed, run around in your stocking feet, roll your eyes back in your head,wear-a- funny-hat-with-Dan Rather's Bush-bashing-campaign as a card carrying, publicly outspoken, bleeding heart liberal.

Even worse, maybe Walter started it all decades ago and I just didn’t know about it until now.

Oh waiter, check please....

Liars Figure and Figures Lie

I took a bunch of math in school – three years of algebra, a year of trigonometry, a year of geometry, and a year of calculus. Then came college--five quarters of calculus, a quarter of differential equations, and then practically every other class was calculus based. Would anyone care to watch me solve a second order differential equation with nothing but a #2 pencil and a very large eraser today? You might be waiting a while as those brain cells have been reprogrammed over the past 20 or so years.

In the middle of studying vectors, differentials and integrals came a math class called “Statistics.” Some people spend an entire four years of college learning statistics. A class lasting one quarter was enough to tell me that I didn’t want to be a statistician. There was a positive side to taking statistics, however. Statistics is what keeps me from being a gambler. I don’t play poker, I don’t like to roll the dice, and I don’t, except on rare occasions, buy lottery tickets. I guess that you could say that that one statistics class has saved me a lot of money over the years.

The American public could benefit from a small dose of statistical education. If they understood statistics, I believe that most newspapers and TV stations would go out of business or at least be forced to make substantial changes in their reporting. They could make some attempt to put things they write about into perspective with supporting data that gives their readers more information than “someone died” or “someone screwed up.”

For instance, if you followed the news back in the late 1990’s, you could be convinced that air bags were the biggest threat to the lives of children and small adults since the Bubonic Plague. Every single time someone was killed by an air bag, the local press and the national news blared the story in their headlines and the public demanded reform. In this CNN article they state that:

“From 1996-2000, 191 people died from air bag-related injuries, including 116 children, according to government statistics. The children were either not wearing a seat belt or were improperly restrained in the front seat.”

So what was actually doing the killing, the air bag--or bouncing off of the first hard surface encountered by the kid’s body during impact? And did the article bother to mention that there were 41,945 total people killed (710 under the age of 5) in the year 2000 alone? I don’t want even one mothers’ precious child or grandfathers’ grandchild to meet an untimely fate in an automobile, but let’s get a grip on the sensationalism.

Or how about shark attacks? Every spring, commencing with the first documented shark bite, the smiling talking TV heads and the bold news headlines convince the citizens of middle America that those of us living here on the coast are literally walking on a sea of shark fins every time we hazard to wade into our local waters. In reality, you have a greater chance of being one of the 90 people struck and killed by lightening than being bitten by a shark. Notice I said bit, not killed.

And how many people do you know whom refuse to fly on a commercial airliner? I have had endless conversations about how so-and-so refuses to ever get on “one of ‘em thangs.” Gimme a break, pluu-ease! Between 1982 and March 2001, only an average of only 120 persons per year were killed in commercial aviation accidents. You have an infinitely better chance of dieing on the way to the airport in your car than you do once you get on the great silver bird.

So, I’ll cut to the chase now.

All of the above rantings bring me to my real point in writing this post. This New York Times article makes an ominous political issue for President Bush out of the apparent “loss” of 380 tons (760,000 pounds) of HMX and RDX explosives in Iraq. The article actually mentions some numbers that could add to the reader’s perspective but, as usual, they bury the information well past the first three paragraphs the average reader scans through.

You see, a total of 243,000 tons (486,000,000 pounds) of munitions have already been destroyed by coalition forces and an additional 163,000 tons (326,000,000 pounds) have been secured and are scheduled for destruction.

Cracking out my extensive mathematical education, this means that 0.0935% of the total munitions discovered in Iraq have been misplaced. Less than one tenth of one percent. I did this calculation with math I learned in the first 6 years of my education. I didn’t need calculus, but I did need to calculate a statistical percentage--sixth graders call it a ratio.

Forgetting, for a moment, that there is a high probability that the explosives were removed from the Al Qaqaa complex months before US forces arrived, why is it that a whole building full of college graduates at The New York Times, not to mention a whole country full of people who are at least in theory the products of 12 years of free government education-- are not able to see the insignificance of this non-event?

I've got to go outside and scream now...

UPDATE October 26, 2004

Just as I suspected, the odor I smelled earlier was that of Dan Rather's stinky stocking feet as he tiptoed around behind the scenes of this story. It has been reported that the NY Times beat CBS's 60 minutes to the draw with the repackaging of a story first reported in April 2003.

CBS wanted to wait until Sunday night. Good thing for the free world that it came out early so the Bush campaign, Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh, and the Blogosphere can do some fact finding and get the truth out. The initial contradiction came from an surprising source, NBC News, that actually had a reporter imbeded with the Army unit that went into the Al Qaqaa compound on April 10, 2003.

The reporter, Lia Ling Jew, has started a bit of soft backpeddling in an interview on MSNBC. She stated "that the 24-hour visit by elements of the 101st Airborne Division was "more of a pit stop." U.S. troops did not conduct a detailed search of the compound nor did they try to prevent looting, she said." So I guess she is now implying that our troups were sitting around scratching their privates while the local thugs ran willy-nilly through the compound?

CNN reports that the October 10th Iraqi letter to the IAEA "identified the vanished explosives as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or "high melting point explosive," 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or 'pentaerythritol tetranitrate.' " One question I have personally is what the context of the Iraqi provisional governments' letter to the IAEA was, and why was the letter written 18 months after the fact? Was it simply a formality or were they reporting something that they thought was new?

Regarding Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general (why does every leader outside the US have to have the word "general" in their title?) of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, he is "very concerned." Mr. El Baradei, who was born in Egypt, is in fact a lawyer, not a nuclear scientist. Like Hans Blix, he has a long history of foot dragging on behalf of the Iraqi's and Iranians and holding opinions contrary to those of US anministrators.

Watch this story spin and spin and the Kerry Campaign keep on yelling. They already have a new campaign ad out and Kerry mysteriously mentioned "missing explosives" in the second debate.

Was he in on this story before hand? Could be...

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Suppose that I go into the fish bait business. Not too smart of an idea, some of you might say, but suppose I don’t listen to unsolicited advice and as of tomorrow afternoon I am the proud owner of “Ronnie Redneck’s Bait and Tackle Emporium.” I’m so excited…

The business consists of a small building on a parcel of land adjacent to a county road within a quarter mile of the local marina and public boat ramp. What a great location--I'm gonna be rich. In addition to the building and land, I also purchased the complete store inventory from the prior owner; including a large cage full of chirping crickets, boxes and boxes of night crawlers (worms—for those of you not from the southern US), and an aerated tank full of Shad Minnows. There is also the obligatory assortment of beer coolers, assorted snack displays, artificial lures, bamboo poles, and other fishing paraphernalia.

After spending half a day at the bank and in the lawyer’s offices filling out forms for the real estate closing and eating a celebratory lunch, I finally get back to my new business and begin the task of contacting my suppliers in anticipation of opening for business.

The first thing I am hit with is bad news. The recent bout of cold weather has resulted in a shortage of both crickets and night crawlers. To make matters worse, the local supplier of shad minnows has legal troubles and has had his commercial fishing license revoked for a few weeks. After making several frantic phone calls to the previous owner and some additional suppliers, I finally locate crickets, worms, and minnows. The cost, including extra shipping, is nearly double what I had paid previously. I reluctantly place an order for next week. What do I do now?

The first thing I do is raise my prices. My present inventory consists of over one thousand crickets that sold previously for $1 a dozen. The new price will have to be $1.75. The hundreds of pounds of night crawlers that used to sell for $2 a tub will now cost $3.50, and the hundreds of dozens of minnows will go up from $1.50 a dozen to $3.25. I change my signs accordingly.

When I arrive to open up for business at 5:30 AM the next morning, three pickup trucks full of my first customers are already waiting in my parking lot. I introduce myself, explaining that I purchased the shop from “Ronnie Redneck,” and excitedly unlock and open the front door to the stampede of fishermen.

What ensues is nothing short of a riot. “Price gouging” cry my prospective customers. “We won’t stand for it,” they protest. “Ronnie didn’t charge us these prices” the say as they stomp out of the front door into the parking lot. What a rude awakening to the retail bait business.

As the trucks bearing the angry fishermen spin their tires out of my gravel lot, I pause to reconsider my pricing policies. Let’s see, I only have about three thousand dollars in the purchase of the live bait that was included with the “Bait Emporium.” But, when I sell what I have, I am looking at paying nearly six thousand dollars to restock my store. And I’m already short on cash after putting $25,000 into the down payment. What do I do now?

Am I guilty of price gouging because I want to sell my existing inventory at prices based on the replacement cost rather than the cost I originally paid for the crickets, worms, and minnows?

OF COURSE NOT. What kind of moron would sell their inventory knowing that at the end of the day they wouldn’t have enough funds to replace it in order to stay in business? It is, after all, a business, not a CHARITY, isn’t it?

Now I will get to my point (with my apologies for making you read my bait shop story.) What is the difference between fish bait, hurricane supplies, gasoline, or flue vaccine?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G, that’s what.

This whole concept of the government stepping into the free market and arresting lawfully licensed, reputable businesspersons for adjusting the pricing of any given commodity (regardless of whether it floats, f**ks, farts, or flys) based on market conditions, is insane.

Just because people “NEED” flue vaccine during our current government produced vaccine shortage or “NEED” plywood after the roof of their house decided to obey the laws of physics and disassemble itself into a pile of kindling in their neighbor’s yard doesn’t mean that anyone has to sell you anything at any price.

I needed 42 gallons of gasoline to fill up the tank on my Chevy Suburban this afternoon, but I settled for $25 worth (about 13 gallons) and I didn't blame the station owner.

I hear that people in Hell want ice water, too. Quick, call the government!

"The Fundamental Test of Leadership..."

This morning’s edition of The Washington Times has a story by Joel Mowbray nailing John Kerry in another exaggeration regarding his foreign policy abilities.

In December 2003 and again in the second debate Kerry stated that, before voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq, he had met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

The problem for Senator Kerry is that the investigations can only find three members of the security council—Cameroon, Singapore, and….drum roll please…FRANCE—that say they talked to Kerry. There is also an unconfirmed rumor that he also met with the British Ambassador.

The other newspapers and the TV news shows haven’t picked up on this story yet, but just watch the press give Pinocchio…er…um, Mr. sKerry another pass on this one just like they did the famous Christmas in Cambodia story (you want that memory lightly “seared” or well done—Mr. Kerry?) and numerous other self aggrandizing exaggerations he has uttered in this campaign.

Kerry has been hanging his hat on “truthfulness” and continuously making assertions that President Bush hasn’t been “truthful with the American People.” He has also called truthfulness “the fundamental test of leadership.” I believe that this story is yet additional proof of how willing he is to bend (or break) the truth to suit his needs.

Senator Bob Dole had the class to resign his seat in the Senate so he could focus on running for President. John Kerry has been absent from the senate for most of twenty years—missing almost the entire session of this past year during his own campaign.

Let’s hope that the voters in Massachusetts have enough sense to add the word “former” in front of the word “Senator” next year…once we get through kicking his ass off of the national stage on November 2nd.

Hillarycare Preview

A quick scan of recent news stories relating to this season’s supply of Flu Vaccine indicates that the mainstream media believes that Americans should know a) that there is a vaccine shortage and b) that the CDC has changed their recommendations regarding who should take the available doses of the vaccine. Based on the stories I have read, those two tidbits of information comprise basically the entire story. The balance of the stories' contents seem to focus on recounts of verbal hand wringing by medical professionals and polite interviews with potential vaccine users who are affected by the shortage.

This past Thursday my ears perked up when I heard Rush Limbaugh make brief mention of how we got into this situation in the first place. Since then, I’ve done a little research and now I’m here to tell you what you should really know about the vaccine shortage--and why you should be angry. More importantly, I believe that the realities of the flue vaccine shortage could give us all an ominous preview of “coming attractions” with regard to the unintended results of increased meddling by the imperial Federal Government in our nation’s healthcare business.

Remember shortly after Bill Clinton’s presidential inauguration in 1993 when he turned his lovely bride Hillary Rodham-Clinton loose on the task of reforming our national healthcare system? Remember how quickly the Newt Gingrich led US Congress and the American citizens tore the document from Hillary’s manicured fingertips and stomped it flat?

Well, what you might not remember is that Hillary and the Democrats didn’t take “no” as a final answer. They just had to find some way to ensure that this countries’ “beloved children” (not your children or my children—but “our” children) received adequate healthcare. “I know what we need,” she must have said, “from now on I’ll make the government give all of the kids free vaccines….that’s the ticket.”

And she did…with the “Vaccines for Children Program.” Here is how it works. The Federal government challenged the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to calculate how much of each vaccine (including vaccines for other childhood illnesses like mumps and measles) the US population would need each year, then the government would go on our behalf to the drug companies and purchase the necessary quantities of each medication in bulk--at a reduced price. The vaccines would then be made available to the public at a reduced price and in many cases, for free. Sounds good on paper, right? Well, it turned out to be a disaster in the making.

Since the government in general and the Democrats specifically refuse to understand the concept of supply and demand and how the free market affects product pricing, the politicians came stomping into the vaccine market like a five hundred pound gorilla and demanded to purchase major portions of vaccine inventory each year from the dozen or so existing vendors (in 1994) at bargain basement prices. In order to stay in business and in an effort to keep their drug licenses, the manufacturers were strong armed into going along with the deal. As the years went by, one by one the vendors of the flu vaccine (and many other vaccines) dropped out of the production business, citing the rising costs of product liability lawsuits and the reduced profits resulting from the government’s bulk purchasing program.

As a result, the number of Flu vaccine vendors has dropped over the past thirty years from over TWENTY down to only TWO! Aventis Pasteur manufactures vaccines here in the United States and expects to deliver over 48 million doses of flu vaccine later this fall. The only other US FDA approved supplier, Chiron Corporation which operates their manufacturing operation in Liverpool England, had its production license pulled last week by British regulators as the result of an error in the manufacturing process. Quality control issues in a few lots of vaccine expanded to the entire supply manufactured by the company for this flu season. We've been dealing with shortages on a regional and local basis for a number of years now. With only two suppliers, it was just a matter of time until a disaster of this kind struck.

Now that it is obvious that the government’s meddling in the free market system of supply and demand has caused the shortages, rather than admitting fault and getting the heck out of the way of the process, local and national officials are out running around trying to sue vaccine suppliers for the hated crime of “Price Gouging.” Individual states have set up 1-800 hotlines for consumers and healthcare providers to report offers of suspected…shush…..don’t tell anyone…overpriced vaccine….Gasp!! My attitude is that if you want and need a given product, get out your wallet and pay the asking price (see my earlier posting--Hurricane Recovery Price Gouging.) Can you get me two front row tickets to Cirque du Soleil for $10 each...quick call the cops...they're price gouging?!?!

There has been some discussion of looking at obtaining supplies of the Flu Vaccine from Canadian approved manufacturers but the US Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, indicated that “it was unlikely a drug maker without a license in the United States could supply that market.” Bureaucracy at it’s finest, ladies and gentlemen. I guess that if you don’t end every other sentence with a rhetorical “eh,” own four snowmobiles, and know the words of the Canadian National Anthem, the government believes that you might be somehow maimed or otherwise injured by a vaccine designed for Canadians. Worse yet, they might fear that if you actually took the Canadian vaccine you would give up on the Braves and Yankees in favor of watching and actually understanding the rules to hockey; or quit your bowling league in favor of curling (you know, the team sport using a broom and a big smooth stone that slides on ice.)

Since only about 50% of the normal US vaccine supply is available, officials are now making it a crime to inoculate someone who is not on the CDC’s hastily modified listing of “high risk” consumers. They are actually threatening to fine and jail medical providers who commit the heinous crime of inoculating non-high risk individuals. Penalties include:

* In Washington, the fine for such a violation is $1,000
* In Wisconsin, penalties include 30 days in jail and a $500 fine
* In Massachusetts, the penalty is a $200 fine per infraction and six months in jail

An article in the Charlotte Observer offered the following statement and quotation:

A new survey of more than 2,800 hospital pharmacy directors, by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, found that 55 percent of respondents had been contacted by vendors offering vaccine at inflated prices. Of those, more than 80 percent reported prices of more than four times the original market value.

"Shame on the people who are price gouging," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at a news conference this week. "This is a reprehensible thing to be doing, and I think an immoral thing. We need to pull together as a country to protect our vulnerable populations."

Can you believe this? After screwing around with the process and causing the shortage, the government know-it-alls have the unmitigated gall to refuse to look at alternate supply sources and actually threaten to jail a doctor for giving someone an unapproved shot?

I ask the question, why not jail and fine the government idiots that caused this situation in the first place?

You mark my words; this is just a preview of things to come in regard to government provided healthcare services. The veterans are already filling out reams of paperwork and standing in ridiculous lines at government operated VA hospitals to get their healthcare. I suggest that the government is not going to be satisfied until we are all paying through the nose and standing in one giant line, regardless of “class” or “income level,” trembling under the fear of fines or prison if we dare to take matters into our own greedy little hands and dare go somewhere "unapproved" or pay "extra" to get our health services.

I feel like Chicken Little…the sky is falling…the sky is falling...except I’M RIGHT.

Update: October 30,2004

The presidential race is currently trumping all other news, but I'm still paying attention.

Here are some links that further my case: Vaccine manufacturing process needs updating and the trial lawyers aren't through screwing up things yet...

Living Wages--Part II

The Working Poor Families Project just released a series of reports on the condition of “working families” in America. The report is funded by the Anne E. Casey Foundation (AECF), the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation—all well financed “do-gooder” organizations.

Jim Casey, one of the founders of United Parcel Service, started the Anne E Casey Foundation in memory of his wife in 1948. A good example of a liberal putting his money where his mouth is. In their opening statement of the Executive Summary, they offer the following passage:

“The United States of America is often called the “Land of Opportunity,” a place where hard work and sacrifice lead to economic success. Across generations, countless families have been able to live out that promise.

However, more than one out of four American working families now earn wages so low that they have difficulty surviving financially. These are families with responsible, hard-working breadwinners who want to get ahead but hold down low-paying jobs with inadequate benefits and little hope for advancement. Many lack the skills and education they need to move into jobs that pay better, even while the economy demands more highly trained employees. And while our economy relies on the service jobs these low-paid workers fill—such as cashiers, janitors, security guards and home health aids—our society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet and build a future for their families, no matter how determined they are to be self-sufficient.”

What lovely, sensitive words—on the surface. Only when you look deeper to do you see the true meaning that lies (no pun intended) within.

Once again, here we find a reference to “working families.” I demand to know what the term “working family” means. Can any one tell me? (See Living Wages—Part I.) I believe that the term is intended to refer to a person with a spouse and kids to support who is trying to live on the wages earned working every day for most of their lifetime in a near minimum wage (what I call entry level) job.

What are they thinking? Sure they may be “responsible and hard-working” but the best paid sanitation engineer (garbage man) still earns garbage man’s pay. At least the report seems to acknowledge that the economy has good jobs available, but unfortunately there aren’t many employment want-ads for buggy whip makers and blacksmiths in The Atlanta Journal/Constitution newspaper. Times are a changin’, and we have to change also.

Where I come from, the incentive of “hav(ing) difficulty surviving financially" was both an everyday reality and acted as a powerful incentive to get off of your ass and make some serious changes. I think that you would agree that most Americans have considered themselves to be squeezed financially for part of their working career, so what is so evil with this situation that government intervention should be mandated?

“Many lack,” they say, “the skills and education they need to move into jobs that pay better…” Well boo hoo hoo, did they have to quit school before graduation to go to work to support themselves and their family like both of my Grandfathers did in pre-depression era America? Probably not. Most likely they slept through and played hooky through twelve years of free government education because they either didn’t care or didn't know any better. The girls likely were certain that they were going to get married to a rich man and the boys were sure that they were going “Pro” in the NFL or the NBA. Once they hit the big time they figured that they could pay someone else to do their ‘ritin, readin’, and ‘rithmatic. “Let me ax you, do you know a good accountant? “

And then we are admonished that our “society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet.” Upon utterance of this statement, my head starts spinning around uncontrollably. How about asking these workers to take some steps on their own to ensure that they can make ends meet? What else should we be required to continue to pay for without seeing some tangible improvement and/or actual results?

I mean, after providing twelve years of free education and handing out additional financial support in the form of welfare and public housing, haven’t we done about enough? No, they say. We need to somehow do whatever it takes to ensure these miserable, underprivileged souls move out of the ghetto and enjoy a lifetime of success.

And God forbid that we attempt to tell our benefactors how to lead their lives in areas that are highly predictive of future outcome. We can’t, for instance, criticize their lifestyle decisions like the company they keep, the way they speak, the way they dress, or their propensity to adopt expensive, self-destructive habits like alcohol and drug abuse. No way, Jose. And we can’t intervene in areas of intimate personal behavioral like sex which inevitably result in the expensive side affects like producing unwanted/un-afforded children or the acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS. We are, as a society, supposed to close our eyes, toss our money at the problem, and hope for the best outcome. Ab-rah Kadab-rah, poof.....success!

In looking into the AEC Foundation, I found this statement from the current president, Doug Nelson:

“Applying Lessons Learned. The generation of American children born in the last two decades of the 20th century has been blessed by a period of unprecedented national prosperity. For most of these children and their families, this has been among the best of times.
Yet for fully one-fifth of this nation's kids, the economic boom has quite simply passed them by. In small towns, many suburbs, and especially in large cities, millions of children remain largely untouched by the good times, with little prospect for connecting with the benefits of a soaring economy. Our most recent KIDS COUNT data report a significant increase since 1990 in the number of children—5.6 million—in families of the working poor. In all, more than 14 million, or 21 percent of all kids under 18, still live in poverty-a higher proportion than in 1975.“

IF the data supporting these statistics are accurate, we are as a society guilty of a great failure. But I say that the government hasn’t failed; the recipiants have—in spite of a large amount of public financial support. Remember that President Johnson’s series of economic initiatives announced in his 1964 Presidential campaign, called “The Great Society,” was largely implemented by the “Fabulous Eight-Ninth” congress. Among their mandates were:

1. Achieved the goals of the Fair Deal.
2. Achieved the goals of the New Frontier.
3. Introduced Medicare programs.
4. Passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
5. Legislated a Housing and Urban Development program.
6. Ratified the highway beautification act, a pet project of Lady Bird Johnson, the First Lady.
7. Installed clean air and water regulations.
8. Ended the immigration quota system of the 1920s.
9. Set forth new city planning programs.

"New Deal," "Fair Frontier," Education, housing, environment, healthcare—do these topics sound familiar? Same old same old. Just throw some more money at the perceived problems and implement government mandated solutions and everything will be ok, right? That’s what they say.

“To do that (improve the chances for all to advance,) we must effectively invest our public resources so that low-income working families have far better access to education, training, healthcare, parental leave, and other benefits. People earning higher salaries typically have access to those things; those who are paid less need the same…In the long run we will maintain stable communities and keep our businesses competitive.”

Let me dissect this paragraph for you. “We must invest our public resources”…that’s government terminology for spending other people’s tax money. Our “investment” will give low-income “working families” all the things (education, training, healthcare, parental leave, and other benefits) that my parents and I have already paid dearly for in time and money in order for me to be able to work somewhere other than the McDonalds’ drive through window. And this parental leave thing—where do they get off telling a business owner that when he hires a walking set of ovaries or testicles with no restraint that he has to hand out unlimited (or at least ridiculous) amounts of “parental leave” in order to take care of five or six children that were neither planned for nor can be afforded financially?

Then they actually have the guts to come out and say that, regardless of your personal effort or commitment to your education and employment efforts, you “need” (and by default and government mandate you deserve) the same compensation rewards provided to better educated and more productive employees. Well, I NEED a vacation home on a Caribbean island and a 100 foot yacht and Lear Jet to get there—can someone in Washington help me please?

“In the long run we will maintain stable communities and keep our businesses competitive.” Is this a threat that if we don’t hand over funding, anarchy will result and the stock market will crash? Me and my Smith and Wesson don't think so...

I have every compassion for the children identified to be in these situations living in poverty. It’s not their fault, but the problem I have is that the government doesn’t cut checks to minor children. They do cut checks to adults who consciously make crappy life decisions, reproduce without conscience and V-O-T-E. For forty years “Great Society” politics has yielded little improvement and constant demands for increased funding. Enough is Enough...just call me insensitive.


UPDATE October 14, 2004 5:30AM

The implied solution to the problems of the "working poor" is to raise the minimum wage. You might ask, who is actually paid minimum wage? This link gives the answer better than I ever could.

No Child Left Behind?

I’ve had a love hate relationship with formal education—both the mandatory 12 years of primary/secondary school and my dual experiences as an undergraduate Mechanical Engineering student.

You see, I consider myself to be smart, and I was a good student in school. I just disliked many of my (government) school teachers and many of my (government) school teachers barely tolerated me. I say many because there were actually a few instructors that liked my work and I liked them, but these were the exceptions rather than the rule.

I had a problem with the educational process in that I found it to be tedious and overly bureaucratic. I guess that my mind didn’t fit the model of the student that they were trained to teach. My primary failure was my belief that I was actually there to learn something and that there was too much crap and politics that had to be dealt with in order to get your daily dose of readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic.

In post World War II America, the government has bought (or possibly sold ) the general public’s simplistic belief that a high school diploma automatically guarantees quality employment and economic success.

To this end, the public (government) school system has made every effort to hand a high school diploma to every person (read that so-called student) that can show up in a classroom for some minimum number of days over a twelve year period. Rather (but not Dan Rather) than supporting and maintaining the quality while increasing access to a primary and secondary education, the end result has been the degradation of standards and the output of basically the same number of qualified graduates as were produced before government intervention. The key word is qualified. You heard me right, everyone is required to go, but the number of successful high school students is quantitatively the same. It’s a matter of supply and demand.

In spite of this increased availability of educational programs, here in Georgia over 40% of high school students drop out before graduation. Do you get this? They are virtually giving away high school diplomas based on attendance and nearly half of the students don’t have enough sense and discipline to hang around long enough to get one. And the sad reality is that the diploma has no real market value in its current form. It’s become basically a certificate of (non)attendance

The imperial federal government of the United States made their first foray into higher education with the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (all 499 pages in PDF format,) and the next target of the Federal Government’s newly formed Department of Education was a college diploma. Since the high school diplomas weren’t getting enough people a country club membership and a new Caddy Seville every three years, the belief was that adding four more years of education with the obligatory government meddling would certainly do the trick. Of course the Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale wouldn’t in theory have to participate, but the state colleges and Universities were in for an onslaught of ill prepared “High School” graduates with government backing.

Lewis Grizzard, a famous southern humorist, newspaper columnist, and staunch University of Georgia fan and alumni was quoted as saying (paraphrasing): “they say if you drive through the UGA campus, they will throw a diploma through your open car window…taint true…you got to stop your car.” How true that has become, Lewis.

The State of Georgia went as far as to use education as a basis for implementing a state lottery, the result being the HOPE Scholarship program and state funded pre-K and Kindergarten programs that were heralded as the end-all save-all solution for Georgia students.

The jury is still officially out, but after ten years the initial results are that the HOPE program has done very little to improve education in Georgia. The few good high school teachers that were out there have suffered under pressure to inflate grades to make students have the necessary “B” average to qualify for a Hope scholarship. The few good college professors are now pressured to hand out A’s and B’s in order to allow students to maintain HOPE Scholarship eligibility. And the reality is that a large percentage of the students entering college with Hope Scholarships are not really qualified and as a result, many have to take remedial classes in English (their native language) and math before they can even enter the normal curriculum.

As is usual with found money, the state government has had a spending spree of using HOPE funds to pay for non-scholarship expenses like computer technology that no one on the educational staff can fathom and for building new facilities all over the state that either aren't needed or are under-utilized.

In the ensuing financial crunch caused by low qualification standards, the state legislature has had to wrestle every year with potential changes to program requirements. The problems are not unique to HOPE, they are just amplified by the availability of public money. Racial leaders and activists claim that “rich people’s” kids get a disproportionate share of HOPE money—they want income limits on recipients. Inner city school proponents refuse to acknowledge the academic deficiencies of the current standards and oppose the use of SAT scores as part of the qualification process. The college remedial programs continue to bulge at seams.

Again, at the heart of the issue is the concept of supply and demand. Here is my simple (but accurate) redneck analysis for your enjoyment (and liberal disdain.) Suppose that by some miracle we actually managed to make the following changes in our society:

1. Every child was a willing and able student.

2. Every household provided a nourishing academic environment.

3.Every school has perfect teachers, perfect facilities, and adequate funding.

Given these improvements and assuming that the academic standards were ethically maintained, I guarantee you that the socialists and utopians would still be unhappy. Why?

Because there would still be students with B, C, and even failing grade averages. All students are not in fact created equal. Everyone can't be Valedictorian. Further, even if you could get every high school student up to a B performance level and handed them a HOPE scholarship, there are not enough seats in college classrooms to park their butts in every day for two to four years.

If you were to somehow carry this concept through to the college level and actually get every student a college sheepskin, then you will find that there are not enough jobs that require a college degree (even a degree in underwater basket weaving or god forbid—education) to use all of the applicants.

Only the top students would get the best jobs and attain the highest levels of success in the workplace. As I like to say, “everyone can’t be a rocket scientist.” Well, actually, you can be a “rocket scientist,” but you might be an unemployed rocket scientist unless you want to start your own company and work for yourself. (Kudos to Dick Rutan.)

“No Child left Behind?” Baah, Humbug...I say kick them (and their parents) in their behinds until the child has no behind left.

The Devil's in the Details--Part II

One-Billion-three-hundred million Chinese versus two-hundred-ninety-three million Americans. A ratio of slightly over four to one. That’s what it really comes down to when you look at crude oil prices.

In spite of what the mainstream media and the Democratic National Committee may write in fine print news editorials, exclaim in 72 point newspaper headlines, or say in their prime time TV news programming, the fact is that current crude oil pricing is only partially driven by a short term deficiency in crude oil production. A major contributor to high crude prices is long term increases in Chinese and third world energy consumption, and the pricing of gasoline is further complicated by the static nature of US domestic oil refinery capacity.

That’s right, the current oil price increase causing pain in the nation’s pocketbooks is not caused by the political ineptitude of the Bush administration, but rather (not Dan Rather) by international influences like the 100% increase in Chinese crude oil consumption over the past 10 years as their population increased by only 8%. While the US population grew at approximately the same percentage rate, our crude oil usage only increased by 10.9% over the same period. And here’s a really scary fact--if China’s oil consumption grew to match the US rate of consumption on a per capita basis, they would consume over 80 million barrels per day! That’s more than the current WORLD WIDE production capacity! God help us all if that situation ever actually developed.

It’s just an unfortunate coincidence that the economic piper has to be paid here in the US this year before a presidential election. But here is a disturbing consequence that I believe to be intentionally promoted by the self proclaimed independent national media. Bush seems to loose politically no matter what direction crude oil prices take.

Case in point, the media uproar last April over assertions in journalist Bob Woodward’s book, “Plan of Attack”, that President Bush’s ties to the Saudi Royal Family had allowed him to “secretly” negotiate Saudi assistance in lowering oil and gas prices in the fall in order to help his re-election campaign. CBS’s 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace anchored a segment giving Woodward extensive prime time space to publicize the book. You do remember that both CBS News and “Plan of Attack” publisher Simon and Schuster are both owned by Viacom?

“Woodward says that Bandar (the reigning Saudi Prince) understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: ‘They’re [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.’ “

John Kerry wasted no time jumping all over that revelation:

“If ... it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, tied to a secret White House deal, that is outrageous and unacceptable to the American people,” Kerry said during a campaign stop in Florida. “If this sounds wrong to you, that’s because it is fundamentally wrong.”

“Kerry said he had his own plan for lowering gas prices. ‘And you know what the Number One priority of that plan was? Put pressure on the Saudis to increase production and lower the prices to America,’ he said.”

Notice that Kerry did qualify his statement with the words “if it is true,” but managed to get the mantra of “secret White House deal” and the attack words “outrageous and unacceptable” sprinkled in for good measure. Would it be ok for President Bush to negotiate with the Saudi prince regarding pre-election oil prices if he conducted the negotiations in public? Or if there wasn’t an election for a few years, would it be ok to secretly negotiate oil pricing simply for the economic good of the American people?

By his statements it would appear that Kerry does at least recognize that of all of the world’s petroleum producers, Saudi Arabia--with proven reserves in excess of 250 billion barrels of crude and an average daily production of nearly 9 million barrels--is definitely the country with which the US needs to maintain close political and economic ties. Saudi Arabia is also the only OPEC member with substantial unused output capacity. All of the other members of OPEC essentially operate at their maximum capacity all of the time. The Saudis could actually pump an additional one and one half to two million barrels of crude oil per day--on “demand.”

I use the word “demand” because that is what Kerry says that he would do, he’d: “put pressure on the Saudis to increase production.” How many tanks and F-15’s is the silken tongued Kerry going to transfer to the Saudi Arabian border from Iraq and Afghanistan? Or perhaps he is planning on getting down on one knee and proposing to another wealthy heiress, this one wearing a hijab?

Fast forward with me now through this past summer as crude oil prices continued to rise, recently breaking the $50 per barrel mark. On October 5th , The New York Times carried a story about the Kerry campaign and the 527 group “The Media Fund” releasing new ads hammering on the Bush Administration “as giving the (Saudi Royal) family ‘special favors’ and as having an over-reliance on Saudi Arabia for oil.”

Now it’s Bush’s fault and the Bush-Saudi connection is the reason that crude oil has toped $50 per barrel. Can they really be serious? They can’t have it both ways. Didn’t Kerry previously state that his “Number One Priority” in his energy plan included reliance on the Saudis? This makes complete sense since the Saudis have the greatest known oil reserves in the entire world-- more than the rest of OPEC put together. And what about their ability to easily increase daily production by nearly 15%?

So NOW what would Kerry do in lieu of relying on the Saudis—drill in the Alaskan ANWR preserve?

And once again, as in the past, when faced with inaccurate reporting, inconsistencies, or outright lies, the media gives itself and the Kerry campaign a pass by conveniently forgetting to mention their prior statements about the existence of “secret plans” to artificially lower crude oil prices in the months prior to the election. If the price of crude had actually dropped through the summer, I guess that the headlines would read: “Gas Prices Tumble, Bush in cahoots with the Arabs…”

In spite of all of the uproar over Crude oil prices, here is the bottom line. The American people could care less about the price of a barrel of crude oil. Most of them wouldn’t know a barrel of crude oil if it landed next to them on the sofa in their living room during a broadcast of 60 minutes. Its the high gasoline prices that has their panties in a wad. And here is a fact that the TV news won’t tell you and I keep screaming at the top of my lungs in public when discussing this issue —US gasoline prices today are still not as high as they were in 1980 at the end of Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s term when they rose to a level equivalent to $2.85 per gallon in 2004 dollars.

Gas prices will not see a substantial reduction until the US reduces their reliance on imported oil and increases their domestic refinery capacity. Most of the media and virtually all of the politicians are either misinformed on this issue or are outright liars.

By the way, if you can’t afford to drive that gas hog Chevy Suburban that you bought two years ago, you better sell it now while it is still worth something and go buy yourself a compact car. Sorry folks, but dollar-twenty-five a gallon gasoline is ancient history.

UPDATED on 10/08/04 3:00 PM

I corrected an error in the growth rate of the US and Chinese populations in the third paragraph (I was off by 50%--and me with an engineering education...go figure.)

Also, I failed to mention the absurdity of the campaign by the Democrats and the media to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to reduce gasoline prices.

The bottom line is that if we dumped the entire 700 million barrel contents of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the refineries here in the US we would gain less than 40 days of gasoline inventory. This is because the SPR, stored underground in various gulf coast salt domes, contains both “sweet” low sulfur (< 0.5% sulfur) crude oil suitable to be easily refined into gasoline and “sour” high sulfur (<2.0% sulfur) crude oil best suited for refining into heating oil, boiler fuel oil, and diesel fuel.

Not a real solution, just a political band-aid.

Channeling Mr. Haney

I hate to admit this, but I can do a pretty good vocal impression of Mr. Haney, the loveable--but somewhat shady--salesman supreme on the 1960’s TV show "Green Acres". The character of Mr. Haney was played by a since deceased actor named Pat Buttram—what a character he was.

Mr. Haney’s vocal enunciation is immediately recognizable and usually elicits a strong crowd reaction. I learned this years ago when I first started breaking into my Mr. Haney voice to add a bit of levity to informal business meetings or in an attempt to amuse (or offend) a captive audience in local bars and restaurants. My girlfriend absolutely hates it when I break into a few lines of my best Mr. Haney impression in the middle of a James Taylor or Willie Nelson song at the local pub while singing Karaoke.

Mr. Haney, the quintessential salesman, was always quick to show up in the story line of most Green Acres episodes with his truck loaded with items he thought necessary to sate the consumer appetites of Mr. And Mrs. Douglas’ latest situation. Things like the telephone at the top of the telephone pole, the tractor that never worked, genuine imitation sheepskin house slippers, or elaborate preplanned/prepaid wedding accoutrements for Eb or Miss Ralph Monroe (one of the Monroe Brothers) were always in his extensive inventory of products & services.

I’ve also learned that Mr. Haney, like the evil Cheney/Halliburton Empire, is either loved or hated, and it usually doesn’t take very long to find out the disposition of your audience once your make first mention of either name. The reaction to the name Halliburton, constantly vilified by democrats and their abettors in the mainstream media, usually occurs on a knee-jerk basis—not on the basis of detailed facts and knowledge of the business conducted on their behalf.

I am willing to make a substantial bet that 95% of the voting population knows nothing about this issue except that there is some implied “suspicion of wrongdoing” in Halliburton's business dealings with the taxpayers and that there is some (in my opinion-unwarranted) “measure of contempt” for Dick Cheney because he comes to the office of Vice President from a short, successful stint in the private business sector rather than an entire lifetime of being on the public payroll as a career politician. What is so wrong with being a successful businessman? Everything, say the liberals…you can’t be rich without being evil, unless you inherited the money or are an ambulance chasing trial lawyer like Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards.

So grab a bottle of overpriced chilled water, sit back, and read, as I intend to give everyone a short primer in the details of the business of Haliburton (as apposed to that of my idol, Mister Haney.)

In spite of what the media says, Halliburton has in fact not been handed giant, overpriced government contracts by the evil President Bush and Vice-President Cheaney without competitive bidding. In fact, Halliburton is, like other giant multi-national contractors Bechtel, ABB, Dyncorp, etc., is a veteran supplier of everything from basic necessities like toilet paper, gasoline delivery, and manpower; to complicated turn-key construction projects like pipelines, hydroelectric dams, and roads.

The bidding process involves looking at a very wide ranging list of materials and services and providing a material, labor, and delivery cost for large quantities, delivered in very far flung, dangerous, world wide locations, under variable and sometimes adverse conditions. The government every two to four years usually issues the fixed price request for quotations and resulting contracts. The contracts are issued on a sliding scale of pricing that depends largely on world events and the quantities of product that is actually delivered. The purpose of issuing request for bids and negotiating contracts up front is the idea that it saves time and money in the day-to-day operational situations or more recently in the “heat of battle.” The contracts aren’t NO-BID, they’re PRIOR BID.

In fact, Halliburton bid on and won essentially the same type contracts for the provision of material and services during the Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations. Yes, you heard right, President Clinton contracted with Halliburton for services. Call the NY Times! Call the National Enquirer! Call someone that really is informed and really cares. This isn’t a scandal…this isn’t cronyism; this is normal, day-to-day, government material contracting in action. It might not be perfect, it might not be the most efficient way, and it might not yield the absolute cheapest results, but Halliburton didn’t invent it and hasn’t done anything different than every other large contractor in a position to fill the shoes the military has asked them to fill.

Case in point, the uproar over “excessive billing for gasoline delivery in Iraq.”

How much would you charge for you or your loved one to drive your tanker truck with 1000 gallons of gasoline (1 gallon = approx. 1 stick of dynamite) into the war zone of Iraq? How much would you charge if you could cut the length of the delivery route by 75%. It would certainly cost more in Iraq than it does in South Georgia or central Indiana and it sure costs more to drive 500 miles than to drive 100. Well, the so-called over-priced gasoline that Halliburton was accused of delivering came from our ally, Kuwait, via the resulting short delivery distance between Kuwait and Baghdad.

Yes, the Kuwaitis wanted more per gallon for the gasoline (and probably should have cut us a better deal in return for saving their bacon 13 years ago), but the actual price, in delivery miles and further, the likelihood of a successful delivery, most definitely offset the increased cost of gasoline. The gas has no value to the war effort if the truck is blown up, killing the driver and never arriving at the intended destination. The option, by the way, was to drive the Iraqi’s own cheep domestic gasoline from their northern oilfields/refineries, across a torturous, dangerous route of unimproved roads that was three or four times longer than the path from Kuwait. The mainstream media has constantly omitted this little itty bitty logistical detail to this day.

Mean old Halliburton.

Not that I condone waste of taxpayer dollars or fraud, but the “issues” and “scandals” attributed to Halliburton are not unique to this one company, but are representative of systemic problems inherent in government purchasing in this country at all levels from the smallest town councils to the largest of NASA suppliers. The only thing that makes these stories newsworthy is the past connection of Bush and Cheney with oil companies in general and the prior connection of Cheney and Halliburton specifically. Get over it, people…

UPDATE October 10,2004 3:00PM

An article published in the National Review Online addresses another of what I call “itty bitty details” that never make it onto the 6:30 PM evening news or the front page Newspaper stories.

Halliburton’s stock price is down over 10% since Bush’s inauguration in January 2001, while the oil industry stock price in general is up nearly 35%. What a great manipulator of wealth Bush and Cheney have proven to be. I should have bought Haliburton rather than Home Depot (down over 20% since that same time period.)