I have been on vacation for the last 2 weeks and not reading politics.  It has given me more time to distill my thoughts on this.

It is a given that almost every one of us has done the wrong thing in the past.  We have lied, cheated, and stolen.  It may have been hearing about an answer on a test before hand or taking a pen from work from home, but humans are sinners as a race and we are told that only through Jesus Christ can we be forgiven for those sins.  In Christian teaching only Jesus was without any sin.

My problem with this Larry Craig thing is one of proportion.  Do we demand that our leaders be without any sin?  If they lie to their wife about other plans to avoid going to a boring play, are they unqualified for office?  If they cheat at solitaire, should they be fired?  Both of these show character flaws so, based on your arguments, yes.  These people should be banned.  But based on this, we cannot advance any candidates for all are flawed.

Much has been said about what Craig did or didn't do.  Much about what he is or is not.  What he pled guilty to was disorderly conduct.  Begging, drunk in public, mooning, talking loudly when asked to be quiet, and soliciting sex are all things that fall under disorderly conduct.  He did not plead guilty to soliciting gay sex....  Just for being disorderly.  And this is a catchall charge used by police to effect public behavior.  It is wonderful, because it is very subjective.  I did not think it was disorderly but the judge or jury did, so it is.

If he had been convicted for public lewdness, bribery, grand theft, etc. I would not complain about getting him out of office.  But honestly, disorderly conduct is the least offensive of any crimes, due to it's weak nature.  You can even be convicted of disorderly conduct for jaywalking!  As to why he pled guilty, think about it.  If he was charged with soliciting sex, that would be one thing, but I have pled guilty to speeding tickets because I was told it would cost me more to contest the ticket than it would cost.

Seeing as how we do need candidates who can support our desires and those candidates will be human, where do you folks set the bar on our candidates behavior?  And is that bar so high that only saints can cross? 

Senator Larry Craig is under fire for a horrible crime.  It seems that while in the bathroom, he tapped his foot and moved it sideways.  He also reached down.  This means he is gay.  Errrr, sorry, but I guess I am gay because I am sure I have done all of those things at one time or another.  I just didn’t know it.  I think that this is a true crock.  Unless someone touches another person or propositions them, I see no issue and no truth of any rumor.

 

But he may be gay.  That is true.  Can a person be gay and a Republican?  I personally see no reason why not.  In my perspective, there are 3 general areas of conservative thought.  These are primarily fiscal responsibility, second libertarian freedom, and third Christian morality.  There tends to be strong overlap in the conservative base, but you can easily be an atheist conservative.  We can see from George Bush and much of the republican Congress that you don’t have to be fiscally responsible and in many cases not libertarian to call yourselves Republicans, though I tend to say those are the RINOs and certainly not conservatives.  I would say that a gay person who believes in fiscal responsibility and freedom is more valued as a conservative as a strong Christian who spends like a drunken sailor.

 

Lets take the most conservative person.  One with strong Christian beliefs as well as the other two sets.  Can this person be gay?  I have a surprise to many of you, conservative people, gay people, black people, white people…. are people.  G*d did not tell man that if he believed in him that they would be without sin or unable to sin.  He simply said that he would be forgiven his sins if he asked for forgiveness.  If a conservative becomes an alcoholic, a drug abuser, or a gambler, is he now a hypocrite because he speaks against those things?  No, he is simply a human being who has failed the test of his beliefs.  Similarly if a person believes that the gay lifestyle is wrong finds that they are gay, is this a contradiction?  No, once again it is a failure to obey their beliefs, but also an understandably human failure.

 

In conclusion, I would urge my fellow Republicans and conservatives to fire Larry Craig if he is a big spending, big government activist.  However, if his only sin is being gay, get over it and move on with your life and let him live his.  That is, unless you have never sinned and know you will never sin again.

I am amused with the power and skill of Barak Obama.  So I thought I would parse some comments and see what is being said.

First his loving wife said this week:
"One of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values?"  ... HE?  You mean that being a woman makes you unqualified?
"Is he somebody that respects family?"...So, it is not a slip.
Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first.."... so you were ignoring your girls for the last months and only decided to change it as a campaign stunt?

Barak said:
..."that his wife, Michelle, is smarter than he is, stronger than he is, and gives better speeches than he does."
So, she is a better candidate than he is, but he is running because he is the man?

So, the message here is that Barak thinks that women should stand behind their men and stay in their place, focusing on their children and let the men run the world.  Hmmm.  Sounds like one of those slope browed, knuckle dragging conservatives, doesn't he?

I am sick to death of hearing how Iraq has broken our military.  How we are crumbling under the load.

Lets look some simple facts. As of 2005, we have:

• Army 412,400
• Navy 365,900
• Marines 178,000
• Air Force 359,000

This lends us a total active duty force of 1,315,300 total soldiers.  In addition to that, we have 456,800 National Guard and 404,100 Reserves, for a grand total of 2,176,200 total force strength. 

Now, compare that with our “War on Terror” commitments.  Including Iraq, Afghanistan, and support forces in Saudi, Kuwait, and in the Red Sea, we have a total of approximately 200,000 soldiers in theatre.  In other words, we have 1/6^th of our total regular military engaged in this war.  Including the Guard and Reserves we have less than 10% of our forces engaged.

If this amount of stress can break our forces, we need new generals.

No, the real problem is one of focus and of Generalship.  Our military has been set for decades as a line combat army focused on massed tank battles and continent wide lines of battle.  It has not been focused on small group engagements, insurgency control, and special operations.  And this is the skill set needed.

Yes, many of our soldiers are getting tired.  These are special ops and police units; the ones who specialize in pacification and small unit combat.  Our bomber, fighter, navy, and line tankers are not tired and in fact are barely used.  Donald Rumsfeld tried to change the focus and has been fought by the senior military staff tooth and nail.  They are still prepared to fight the last war, not this one.

At this point, the probability of a land war with any opponent other than China is nearly nil.  Reorganization is critical with changes to the MOS of many of our soldiers.

No, we are not broken, though the General Staff is showing signs of that.

 

I have had several blog posts about Immigration, and as most of you who read them can tell, I don’t trust the government and want them to prove enforcement before I will move any further in the process. No amnesty or guest worker programs until AFTER the wall is built and AFTER we fine companies who hire illegals.

The other day though, I was listening to an economic issues show on TV and I heard something that made me reconsider my position.

The speaker noted that problem is that due to government action and inaction, we are where we are. We have 15-20 million illegals employed in the country harvesting crops, cutting meat, and doing other important work and unimportant work. I will not accept as others say that these jobs are ones Americans won’t do. Currently though, these are jobs that they are not doing.

The problem lies in the answer to the question “What would happen if all of the illegals were forced to leave?” The gardeners and pool cleaners would not have much impact and the drug dealers and gang members would be a net positive. But what happens when there are suddenly 8-12 million entry level jobs in the food and manufacturing industries? I know that many of you say “who cares”, but lets walk into it a bit.

The first impact would be a lot of harvesting that would not get done. For at least a year or two (until mechanization and other labor sources came in to play), crops would rot in the fields and products would not be made. This would result in immediate massive inflation in food (mainly) but also in some manufactured goods. At the same time, many farmers and small businesses would fail while they try to replace their labor. To hire new people, wages would soar, pulling labor from other industries and raising prices. Finally, as the prices rise and the supply shrinks, it will become more effective to purchase the products off shore. And once the markets have gone off shore, it will become harder to get them to come home again. This will result in permanently shuttered plants and shrinking domestic farms. In short, a national recession (at least) would be the immediate result.

I still don’t trust the politicos. I think they will lie to me and con me in so many ways. I still want them to prove to me that they really mean it this time. But…. I am no longer sure I have the right answer to this problem.

Anyone care to help me?

In several blog posts, I have read issues and ideas about national health care. Some people prefer a single payer system while some suggest that we require medical insurance for all and provide it for the poor. HillaryCare was planning to make doctors employees. While this seems fine, all of these have holes in them large enough to drive a truck through.

We do have a wonderful example of doctors as employees in our own country. If you have ever belonged to the military, you have had this type of “free health care”. I had it for 8 years and enjoyed the use of uninterested, overworked, and arrogant doctors. Much work was pushed off to technicians. The results were that I had a friend who was told she needed a hysterectomy due to pain in her abdomen. She went to a private doctor who gave her the medicine to clear up her yeast infection. A dentist was given a court martial when it was discovered that he was prescribing root canals to all of his patients to get practice. I went in to a doctor and showed positive to the TB test. I explained that I had shown positive since I was 13 and other tests showed no TB. She insisted that I be given the entire 9 month treatment (with it’s risk of severe liver damage) just in case. I am sure that anyone can add to these horror stories. For one more, consider the scandal at Walter Reid Hospital.

There are a couple of economic facts that are always ignored in these discussions. These are: The motivation of the doctor, the economics of insurance, and the law of supply and demand.

It is an accepted fact that each person acts to maximize his income. Under the current private payer system, a doctor can increase his fees if he is expert. This reduces his work load so that he can spend more time with his patients and provide better care. When an HMO or rate control plan such as National Health is in place, the only strategy that the doctor has is to maximize the number of patients seen. This results in cursory examinations and poor treatment. Finally, under a plan where the doctor is an employee, the strategy is to fill out the paperwork properly in order to be promoted to management and the health of the patient can be ignored. The final strategy in all of these cases is to leave the country for one with open care or to change professions to one with better payout.

A fallacy exists that insurance somehow generates money. The concept of insurance is one of spreading the cost over a large group assuming that only part of the group will incur the injury. No money is added, but since not everyone has a car wreck every month, the premiums for the thousands who do not wreck pay for the ones who do. The insurance plans discussed cover routine care and maintenance medicines. In this case, each insured is likely to use that portion of the benefit. This means that we take our money, give it to the insurance company from which they take their profit and expenses. They then turn around and give it to the doctors. It would be better to simply give it to the doctors directly and remove the profit and expense of the insurance company.

Simply, supply and demand says that if you have a limited resource and a limited amount of money available, there will become an equilibrium at a price where those two constraints meet. If you add demand or money to the system, the price will rise. If you add resources, the price will drop. Therefore, if the government adds cash to medical services, more service does not magically appear. Instead, the price charged rises. All of these plans are driven by adding money to the health system. And people wonder why medical costs soar? In addition, by giving free medical services to all, the demand will rise as well, once again pushing up prices.

Health care is important, there is no doubt. However, nothing that exists can be free. As the saying goes, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. Someone pays and then the market system goes into action. We may think it is not fair that some people die earlier than others. But that is life. And please don’t think that will change ever. Some people will die by accident, by early disease, or other causes. And medical insurance cannot help that. Of course, we will also all die some day. At least everyone has so far.

One last point. Currently, the nationalized systems are cracking around the world and they are beginning to get private options on top of the public ones. The economic rule there will indicate that the good doctors will move to private care where they can spend more time and more resources on those patients. The end result will be that the poor get worse care and die younger than the rich. Is this surprising to anyone?

In my previous discussions, I have spoken about the decay and dissolution of the things that have made our nation grow to it’s current prominence in world affairs, in science, and in the arts. In this post, I will attempt to explore the whys and wherefores of national growth or decay.

It seems to me that the first impulse of men and governments is toward stability and control. Instability makes power tenuous and generates fear in the corridors of power as well as in the homes of men. Bureaucracy was invented to allow an organization to minimize the instability and unpredictability of people. When people act out of their personal desires and needs rather than following the orders of government, who knows what the result will be? This is totally against the interest of your rulers.

The natural force that opposes the bureaucratic impulse can be called self-reliance, individualism, or many other things. It is mainly driven by an outward directed cause, a religion, family prosperity, or other objectives. It cannot be a simple desire, but rather needs to be a burning need to go and do. Growing nations, growing companies, and growing religions have this kind of fire. In failing, decaying organizations, this faith is either lost, soft, or directed inward. An example of this force is evangelicalism versus Zen. An evangelical will push outward to spread the news and gain new adherents. He believes it is the commandment of g*d to bring in others. A Zen master would rather look inward to his soul. Neither are necessarily good or bad, but the first drives expansion while the second, being self centered, gradually will die along with its believers.

America has had 2 examples of this force that have generated our rise. First has been the egalitarian philosophy that says the garbage man is as good as the President. How many times have you heard “anyone could grow up to be President”? This drives the ambitious to take risks to rise in society, to accumulate power and money, in other words, to succeed. It also drove our settlers out to conquer the wilderness and to build lives for themselves free of the constraints of the settled lands. They knew that if left alone they could create a good home, and in many cases, become wealthy and powerful.

A second driver is that of religion. As a strongly religious Christian nation, we have felt the evangelical responsibility to fight evil, to spread the “truth”, and to tame the barbarians. This last was the same force that drove the Roman Empire and the British Empires to their heights.

Unfortunately, as indicated before, both of these oppose the bureaucracy. How can I control the nation (for it’s own good) if you demand to think for yourself? How can I stabilize things when you insist on inventing new things, opening new frontiers, or refusing my totally reasonable (to me) rules?

In the early years, communications were not sufficient for the political powers to control the outward forces. When a message from Washington got to Nevada in weeks and could easily been ignored, people made their own rules. Now, with instant communication and few available frontiers to escape to (even if we want), the political forces have the ability to work their will. And boy, have they done just that.

Lets look at the major initiatives occurring in our nation? The first is the creation of the political and social elites. Consider Bush 1, Bush 2 and now the possibility of Clinton 1 and 2. Consider JFK, RFK, and the Kennedy clan. Consider the power families of Hollywood. Yes, you can gain power and join them, but it is becoming less and less easy. There are a number of studies about the growing gap between the millionaires and the normal Americans and the loss of a true middle class. And, as an example of what to expect, consider the recent Immigration bill. Rejected by a vast majority of common people but supported by most of the elite.

One of the only remaining frontiers is the internet, and what is happening there? Consideration of “fairness” doctrines, talk of taxing, law suits on what is said, attempts at control, complaints about us bloggers not being “fair” or “accurate” when we report stories that the elite does not want told. Consider McCain Feingold. Enough said.

Invention too is being stifled. Laws and lawsuits about new inventions causing harm. Huge barriers exist to creation of new drugs and new products unless those products are seen as harmless. Existing companies are protecting their turf rather than feeding the growth of new ideas. Even Global Warming falls here as we attempt to put controls on manufacture, use of tools, and growth of industry. Stability requires no growth, control requires fewer but larger organizations or incorporation into the government (Hillary Care anyone?) Also, look at corporate consolidation. A few big companies are easier to control than millions of tiny ones.

The causes too are being attacked. Much has been written of the war on Christianity. But there is also a war on patriotism, and the other outward driving causes. Who are we to tell the world… America is the biggest danger to the world… Come home and let the other nations be… Military people are evil, who needs them (they will only go out to fight after all).

The causes that are supported are inward looking. Let ME abort my child. Let ME marry a person of my own sex. This leads to a shrinking population (which we are told is good) as well as again a focus on me and not the community. Ecology is all about stopping us from using resources (wasting them or using them up) and is an inherently limiting philosophy. Even immigration is here. If people are balkanized into small, powerless groups, they do not have the power to reject the bureaucracy.

The final method of control and stabilization is to replace self reliance with reliance on government. If I give you your retirement, your medical care, your incomes, your homes, your … You have no reason to go out and strive. Yes, you may not become elite, but you will be comfortable. Families are not needed because we support single people. After all, families are a cause that generates desires for growth.

Currently, we are losing this battle. The elites (in all parties) are winning. Each speaks to their own body politic, but each governs in the same way. Primaries and elections are structured so that only elites can win with speech controls, high cost (only rich can make enough to win), and complicit media.

What can be done? Only a cause that awakens the sleeping vox populi will change these things. And that cause will generate a second American Revolution. It may be one of ballots and an attentive electorate. It may be one driven by a charismatic leader who commits to break the cycle. Or, it may be one of bullets and bombs and death.

If this does not happen, we will have a peaceful, stagnant, declining nation with the reigns of power in the hands of the elite and the great unwashed masses happy as sheep in their lot.

God Save the USA.

I have just watched "The Dirty Dozen" for the gazillionth time.  They were doing the 40th anniversary of the original release on AMC.  Thinking about it, and thinking about my previous post On My Honor For God And My Country, I once again saw the change in our society in the past 40 years.

The whole premise of the movie is that you would have people who were totally amoral criminals who would prefer to die as men than to live in jail.  They came together as a team, risked their lives and lost them as a matter of pride and self worth.  But how could that be the case then an so much not the case now?

I feel that this question is a key one that will determine our future as a nation and a people.  That is because if all you care about is now and your life and comfort, you will never take risks to be great.  You will never risk your life for others or for an impersonal ideal.  And if no one will risk themselves or their comfort for their families, their communities, or their nation, the first committed group that comes along will utterly defeat and destroy us.

On my last post, Mgraves noted that it was childishness that causes the issues.  As he wrote, "The individualism of today is self-centered and blind to honor and the larger picture."  And I think that this is right as far as it goes, but it does not go to the core of the matter.  To me, the main issue is larger and different from that.  To me, there are two interlocking issues that drive this loss.  First is the loss of belief in something spiritual that is larger than us.  It could be simply the trope of manhood and what a man should do.  It could be G*d and the belief in an afterlife.  It could even be Noblesse Oblige.  But regardless, it is a belief system that transcends the temporal and the personal and extends to the public.

And what are we being taught in school, in society, on TV, in movies?  First that religion is a sop to the masses.  Only fools believe in the mythology of religion.  After all, science is god and G*d is dead.

Another thing we are being taught is that everyone is "special" and your life is the only thing you have.  Because of our "special" nature, we must not compete because we might lose.  We must not risk because failure would disprove that we are special.  And since there is no life after death, we certainly must not risk or sacrifice for others, because loss or death would end everything of value.

This is the reason that I fear the invasion from the south and the attack of the Muslim nations much more than I do Russia, China, or other similar threats.  The Hispanics prove every day that they are willing to sacrifice their lives and comfort for the comfort of those at home.  The Muslims kill themselves to bring about the victory of their religion.  While we run from any challenge, worry that if we kicked the hispanics out, we would lose some comfort (since we would have to mow our own lawns" or pay more for a hamburger or lettuce.

We do have many in our nation that do not ascribe to these beliefs.  They are called conservatives and they populate the police, the military, and vote based on national interest rather than self interest.  But every time they do, the press calls them fools and points at how stupid they are to do the things they do when there is no benefit in it to them.  Our soldiers are "wasted" in Iraq when they could be home with their wives and children.  Border control is a waste because the immigrants "do jobs Americans won't".

To me, there is only one way that we will ever succeed in turning the tide.  We conservatives must take back the media.  We must take back the schools.  We must teach the value of sacrifice and honor and duty to the next generation, and the one after that.  I think this is possible and doable.  We have money, position, and voting power.  People cry for a reason to belong and for something outside themselves.  This is why gangs flourish in inner cities as do cults.  People want something more than the hollow future of self.  If we give it, they will come as long as we don't chase them away with public scorn and "education" that rejects such values.

"On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the scout law;  to help other people at all times and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." - Boy Scout Oath

He has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so.”  Walter Lippmann

"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.  The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same. There is no more hollow feeling than to stand with your honor shattered at your feet while soaring public reputation wraps you in rewards. That’s soul-destroying. The other way around is merely very, very irritating.” - Lois Bujold

When our nation was founded, no one would have found the words above to be unusual or even worthy of comment.  We were founded on the Puritan ethic where a failure of honor was a failure before God.  In the Christian religion, God is the synonymous of truth.  The sins of lying, cheating, and stealing are 3 of the 10 commandments.  In addition, the base religion that founded this nation spoke of duty to God as well as duty to man.  This tradition and these teachings led directly to the words of the scout oath.  It enjoins scouts to do their duty to God and to their nation.  In that tradition, personal wants are not only not emphasized, but they are even called the Cardinal sins of lust, gluttony, greed, envy, sloth, pride, and wrath.  Each of these is a sin because it is giving in to the base animal instincts and rejecting those duties set upon us by God.
 
As time has passed, our society has changed.  The national elites reject religion and mock the virtues that founded our nation.  In place of those, we are told "be true to yourself" and "if it feels good, do it."  This simply exalts the Cardinal sins of the past into the secular virtues of the present.

And this is where we are today.  On the right, we have those who see duty to God and country.  This is the reason that charitable civic organizations, the military, and fundamentalist religious groups are overwhelmingly conservative.  It is the reason that the intelligentsia, atheists, "feel good" churches, and people with non-standard sexuality are overwhelmingly on the left.

In his most recent blog, Brian R discusses how our politicians lie to us, and betray the will of the people.  This is what prompted this essay, but it is part and parcel of the same subject.  Politicians do this because they gain, with their power, the belief that what they want and need supersedes their duty to God and Country.  They fight important programs that would help the country to stop opponents from gaining an advantage.  They take bribes and abuse their offices.  They ignore the will of the people and substitute the good of themselves and their party.  And this is not exclusive to the left.  The ones on the right are corrupted by the power as well.

Lippmann wrote that honor demands us to act even when it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous.  Ask yourself the last time that any major politician has acted in one of these cases.  The only one that had major position and took major risk is Joe Lieberman.  Others try and are destroyed or cave before the destruction happens.  As a class, the political elite duck and cover and try to spin their way around such problems..  I voted for it before I voted against it...  It depends on what the definition of is is...  And so many many more.

Again, we have to look at the difference between the left and right here.  What happens on the right when there is a scandal?  The politician is hounded out of town.  There is no sanctuary for a Republican sinner.  And the left?  They are defended with "who does it hurt", and "everyone does it", and "look at him, he is just as bad."

But let us not simply point at the politicians.  Cheating is rampant.  There are whole web sites dedicated to providing term papers and theses for people to lazy to do the work themselves.  Our military academies have cheating and sex scandals.  The media glorifies those who act for their own aggrandizement and ignores those who sacrifice for others.  See our brave soldiers as opposed to Paris Hilton and her ilk.

Even the Lord Of The Rings, a set of books that focused on duty and honor had to have the characters act out of self interest.  I have heard that it was because the powers that be thought that acting out of honor would be unrealistic.  Thus Theoden acted out of fear rather than his duty to fulfil oaths made.  Faramir took Frodo almost home to gain the ring instead of recognizing the evil of the ring and forswearing it and it's dark power.  Even Arwen Evenstar (Thanks Scottie) almost forswore her oath to Aaragorn and left for the West until she saw what she would lose (her child).

Our nation can go one of three ways.  It can continue it's decline in lock step with Europe and be replaced by the emerging peoples of Asia and the Middle East.  Conversely, we could have a massive catastrophe that overshadows anything from 9-11 with millions and tens of millions dead.  This could rally those who take the easy way and ignore duty.

The final choice would be bloody revolution followed by a dictatorship of the right or the left.  In this case, duty will be congruent with self interest.  If the dictator says do it, I will or I will die....

Regardless, change is coming.  The world does not stay stable for anyone.  Nations change over the year as Rome did from a Republic to a theocratic dictatorship, to finally a decadent decayed nation.  Britain ruled the world and is now a second or third class power.  China was the splendor of the orient, then a colonial empire, and now resurgent.  What possible reason is there to believe that we are immune?

God save the USA.

I have been considering a number of issues over the past year.  Who will run, who will win, and why have been high on my radar.  I have come to the conclusion that policies, positions, and political parties are close to meaningless.

Sure, they matter to the 70% of the population who are staunch Republicans or Democrats, but those folks matter very little in the general election.  After all, most of us would rather be boiled in oil than vote for Hillabeast or Osama Obama.  And most Move On types feel the same about all of our candidates.  It is that 30% in the middle who are not paying any attention to politics till shortly before the election who really matter.

So, what buys them?  Everyone has good sound bytes.  Everyone has their attack ads.  Everyone has their talking heads pumping them up.  So that is kind of a wash.  So what is it?  My contention is that it is personal charisma and the ability of the candidate to make the public trust and like them.

Of the candidates this year, I see only two that have that type of Hollywood personality, and those are Obama and Thompson.

Lets take a look at the elections since Nixon left in disgrace and see what we find.

Jerry Ford pardoned Nixon and was an uninspiring speaker.  He was easy to stick with the label of being clumsy (even though he was an athlete) because of his quiet, almost goofy personality.  Fortunately for him, the race was close because Jimma was pretty dull too.  That one turned on the simple factor of the pardon.

The next race was Ronaldus Maximus against a second term for Jimma.  Reagan was considered by the pundits to be a lightweight with no gravatus.  A second class thinker and not able to match Jimma in the brains department.  But what did the people see?  They saw a self assured, capable communicator.  So much that he got the nickname of "the great communicator".  People heard him and when he went over the heads of the congress and asked the people to support him, he got it.  This against the (once again) dull Carter.  Who won?  If you can't answer that, get off this site NOW!  Reagan by 20% of the popular vote and 90% to 10% in the electorial college.

Once again Reagan ran.  This time against Walter (the tank) Mondale.  Such an inspiring candidate.  Such charisma.  Such..... snore......  And the result?  A bigger landslide than before.

Now we come to Pappa Bush vs. little Duckie Dukakis.  Bush had been the VP and promised a 3rd term for Reagan policies.   Again, both pretty dry and boring candidates, but with the love of Reagan, Pappa got in with a respectable margin.  But his communications skills destroyed him and dropped his 90% approval ratings into the cellar.

An anomaly happened the next year.  Billy ran against Pappa with Ross (black helicopter) Perot.  Pappa stayed boring while Billy the Music Man smoozed the people and took the Democrats and a lot of the independents.  Those independents who were looking for straight talk and no lies could not pick Billy, but those went to the wild and crazy H. Ross dooming Pappa to failure.

Now we get close to today.  Billy the snake charmer against a man who needed viagra to give him enough oomph to make us believe he was not comatose.  Again, Billy won, even picking up most of the independents who had gone for Perot.

Finally, we get to our current glorious leader.  He has had to face two towers of mush in Albert (wooden man) Gore and + John (I am not a coward, or a traitor) Kerry.   In both cases, it was razor close.  None of the three candidates set the world on fire, and against Gore, it truly was a toss up.  Against Kerry, the events of 9/11 and the war were still fresh and he got that boost.

As I said earlier, I see the two candidates who have the charisma needed to win being Thompson and Obama.  So, why will Thompson win?  Simply because he will not be facing Obama.  He will be facing the Hillabeast.  Remember, I am talking about the uninterested masses.  They move, but the base does not.  And Hillary has the machine and the ability to destroy her competition.  She also has the will and dishonesty to use whatever means are necessary to win.  That coupled with Obama's lack of experience means that this is Hillary's nomination to lose.

If the election is Thompson vs. Obama, all bets are off.  But if it is a very wooden and scripted Hillary against a great speaker and actor who exudes trust, I call it a landslide for Thompson.

There is a cliche about in the world that is applied to everything from staffing your business, to programming your computers, to military operations.  That cliche is "Stop the Bleeding".  It comes from the emergency room and from first responders where the first duty when reacting to a medical crisis is to stabilize the patient so they don't die and don't continue to get into worse shape than they already were.  This is an important concept.

As I said, it applies to many different things.  In running a business, if you are losing customers, the first priority is NOT to build a new product or to come up with a comprehensive plan to make your company double in revenues.  No, the first priority is to find out why the customers are leaving and to come up with a plan to stop their departure.  Other things can follow, but if you don't take the first step, all other steps are meaningless because you are out of business.

This applies to the immigration debate as well.  Our border is bleeding illegals to the tune of tens and hundreds of thousands a week.  And Congress wants that comprehensive plan to solve all problems and give sunshine and light to the world.  Never mind stopping the bleeding, lets figure out a long term strategy.

My proposal is simple.  First, with the money already allocated and the permission already granted, we need to close off the southern border.  I know that it will not be perfect and that some will get through, but we don't enforce laws against rape, robbery, and murder because they will be perfect and no one will ever again be the victim of a crime, we do it because it is the law.  This is the first step of stopping the bleeding.

At the same time, I believe that we should pass a law that says by January 1, 2008 we must have a photograph of each person holding a social security number on file and that anyone who hires a worker or independent contractor is responsible for looking at the name, age, and photo of each employee in their employ to confirm their identity.  After January 1, 2008 the head of any company that hires an illegal shall be subject to 1 day in jail per illegal employee.  Thus, if you are the CEO of a lawn firm who hires 20 illegals, you will be subject to 20 days in jail.  If you are the CEO of Armor Meat and have 10,000 employees, you are subject to 10,000 days (27+ years) in jail.

We have seen what happened when Sarbanes-Oxley came into law.  CEOs suddenly had focus on knowing details of the accounting operations and millions of man hours were spent.  The same would happen with this.

With these two occurrences, we would see the desire to cross the border be reduced and we would see the ability to cross the border decreased.  The only people crossing would be criminals running drugs or people trying to get to family in the US.  This is a much smaller and more workable number than what we have now.  In addition, many of those in the US would go home as the jobs dry up, further eliminating the folks who are not here to become citizens but just for the money.

Once the patient is stabilized, we can consider all of the things that the Immigration bill contains.  Guest worker provisions, increased ability to become citizens, etc.  I know... I know that my legislators tell me that the border security is in the bill.  But it has been there before and it has all been lies.  HEY WASHINGTON!  WE DON'T TRUST YOU!  Prove that the border is secure and we will entertain other ideas and plans.  But your promises get no traction any more.

Thank you, my friends, for asking where I have been. I hate to say it, but I have become somewhat of a political recluse for the reasons above. In case after case, I am disgusted by our leaders. They fail to act when action is required, fail to explain themselves, and fail to fight. They fight the wrong fights for bad reasons. Our nation is in decline and I despair for whatever it will be that will right our ship of state.

The disgust comes in the total lack of problem solving. It seems that political debate in this nation is now a matter of identifying a problem and saying "something must be done". No real programs other than building commissions or spending money on peripherals, but lots of flummery. If it is proposed by a liberal, all of the liberals go on the offense to defend it and accuse any attackers of being mean spirited and not caring about the issue. Unfortunately, the same happens if the proposal is from a conservative. Lets not talk about the problem, lets talk about the political process.

The dismay comes in when our leaders have a decent position but won't fight for it. Bush has been a total waste with the Iraq funding bill as his first veto that I can remember. Darn it, fight! Defend Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheney, and the others. Prosecute that thieving b*st*rd who stole the 9/11 documents from the archives. The Democrats act partisan without shame, but the Republican leadership apparently wants to be loved and so shows the spine of a jellyfish.

The despair comes in the fact that neither party has any solutions to the problems that really face us and both parties (for their own reasons) refuse to do the hard lifting needed.

Lets look at the REAL problems we face and what both sides want to do:

Illegal Immigration - Well, the Republican leadership wants to pretend to defend the border while creating defacto legalization. The Democrats don't want to pretend.

Iraq - The Republican leadership wants to stay the course without offending "moderates" and without telling America that this is a war for decades, not years. The Democrats want to run away and hide under the sheets, hoping that the Jihadis won't follow them home. They also want to make sure not to offend these fanatics by saying nasty things about them, again to secure the home front.

Energy - The Republican leadership wants to do nothing. We have bigger fish to fry. Lets make a big show and pretend. The Democrats agree, but they want to spend more money to make a bigger show and pay their people back.

Social policy - The Republican leadership is afraid to offend the media by picking on their darlings. As such, they make speeches but no policy. The Democrats move steadily at dismantling our national character and replacing our society with a European style Secular Progressive one.

Iraq is so misunderstood by the people of this nation. The media refuses to portray what is going on. It is a culture war. In a culture war, the aggressors do not back off until they win or until they get a massive bloody nose. Islam fought the West for hundreds of years until they lost in Spain and Poland and then were conquered throughout the middle east by the European powers. They are now resurgent and there is no power willing to face them in another hundred years of fighting. And what is the result when one side of the conflict fights and the other does not? Darn it! This is history folks! How long did the Indians fight the British? How long did the fight against Stalinist Communism last (it has not ended yet btw). How long did Christianity fight paganism? How long did Rome fight to expand? We are talking multiple hundreds of years!! A few blogs back, I wrote War - A History, A Warning, and A Prayer. Read it and consider if we have the will to fight? My only hope is that when President Hillary is in power, and they hit us again and again that the Democrats realize that the fight will continue, will we or nil we.

Illegal immigration is another piece that we don't understand. We are often told that we are anti-immigrant or pro-immigrant or ... Many people suggest that we “make them citizens and let them pay taxes”, but surveys show that many of them do not want to be citizens. At least not of the USA. They want our money and our jobs, but do not want to change themselves. Well, so what? Who does that hurt? The Balkans in the last century and Iraq now shows what happens in a country where “Mexican-Americans”, “Irish-Americans”, “Afro-Americans”, “Republican–Americans”, or “****-Americans” are their nationality or group first and Americans second. Once you take the needs of your subculture over the needs of the overall culture, you no longer have a functioning nation. Many of my friends who came from Mexico (or other nations ) embrace the US culture and its’ values. They bring wonderful parts of their lives to the overall culture but also participate in those pieces from other lands that are shared. Unfortunately, the La Raza groups and other nationalistic groups do not want to be part of that. They want to come to these lands but ignore the overall culture and substitute the one they remember from their homeland. Ultimately, they want to recreate their homeland and force the USA out of “their” lands. Other groups, simply are coming for the money to send home. Once again, they have no real interest in the culture of the USA. They will not learn the language, the customs, or the foods. They simply create their own little Mexicos across the nation. This is a recipe for the destruction of this nation and the creation of hundreds ethnic enclaves, each hating and fearing the other. And it is false to suggest that this could not happen. It did happen in the Balkans with ethnic cleansing, in Lebanon, and is still happening in Iraq. And the Balkans and Lebanon were advanced and stable cultures (at one time).

Energy - Yes, I know that this is a Democratic plank, but it is real. We cannot just forget that everything is limited. But we cannot simply go ahead and go to alternative fuels. They just don't have the energy density to do things that we do at the costs that apply today. Energy is the life blood of any economy. We must get solutions before they crash down on us as critical problems.

Social Policy underlies all of this. The United States was a unique experiment where the little guy was as important as the big guy. This was underpinned by the belief that we are all equal before G*d and instructed by his commandments. It was not "if it feels good" but rather "if it is right". It was not "what my leaders tell me", but "what I understand for myself." Europe with all of it's wars is the home of the elite and their "better knowledge" and is the body that is taking us to a land that is underpinned by nothing.

I want to push on with the discussions. I find it so hard to do. I hear no hope from our leaders and despair that our nation will soon fall into the dust of the ages. Unfortunately, if it does, it will be replaced by the fundamentalist Islam and the Imperial China, left alone to play out their time on the stage.

 Crime and Punishment go together in our society like ham and eggs, Martin and Lewis, or Bush and Cheney.  But I think it is incomplete and causes us no end of problems.  Is it right to "punish" this person with death?  Will this "punishment" help the person to reform?  We should not "punish" this person, we should get them treatment.  And on and on it goes with much heat and little light.  In fact, in the 60's we were forced to close the mental institutions because the insane inmates were being "punished" with a life sentence due to their illness.  These people were pushed out on the street to become much of today's homeless problem.

I think the problem goes back to the nature of the crimes and the nature of our behavior in response.  I see there being 4 kinds of crime.  The first is the careless crime.  Negligent manslaughter, speeding, reckless driving, child endangerment.  These people are just not being careful and cause problems from minor to horrific.  The second kind of crime is one of passion.  Assault, murder, (some) rape, and other crimes occur when anger, lust, or other strong emotions get the best of one.  A third crime is one of greed.  Most theft (other than kleptomania) fall in here as do blackmail, extortion, and most property crimes.  The fourth one is crimes caused by mental illness.  Pedophilia, some murders and rapes, and other crimes fall in here.

So, what we have is a single treatment for all four kinds of crime.  But how will "punishment" deter crimes of passion or crimes caused by mental illness?  It can help with careless crime and crimes of greed, but it has no effect on the other two.  And, is jail the best way to handle crimes of greed?

No, my choice is to look at each type of crime and reevaluate the consequences of the crime.  For careless crimes, I agree that jail time is appropriate.  If you just don't care enough to watch where you are driving, a few years in the big house will make you think the next time you get behind the wheel.

Crimes of passion really don't get an effect by incarceration, but those are not crimes that you can deter or eliminate.  As long as humans have emotions and as long as we act on them, we will always have these.  Incarceration is good, but there needs also to be restitution.  Help in care facilities, work as garbage men with the money going to the victims and other forms of restitution seem appropriate here.

Crimes of greed cry out for payment.  I would even say some form of involuntary servitude would be appropriate.  You house the person and feed them and force them to work.  They stay in jail, working on the dirty jobs selected by the state until they repay all of the people who have been robbed or hurt by their actions.  If that is 5 minutes because they stole a candy bar, fine.  If it is life because they were the CEO of Enron, that is fine too.  All assets should be confiscated and used to pay the victims.

The final type is mental illness.  Today, once the lunatic who raped the 5 year old has spent his time, goes home to re-offend.  The drunk who killed 20 people gets out to get drunk again.  No punishment will deter these people and repayment is not possible.  So what to do.  I would first ask the court to determine if a cure is likely to the condition.  I am told that pedophilia is not curable.  Regardless of therapy and other tools, once they are a pedophile, they will always be one and recidivism is huge.  If a cure is possible, I would suggest that they be incarcerated in a mental institution and forced to undergo therapy for a minimum sentence (based on the severity of the crime).  At the end of the sentence, they would not be released.  Instead, they would be evaluated by a board of psychologists similar to a parole board.  If the person cannot be reasonably identified as cured, they will be retained in treatment under the same condition as normal parole.  No release under any circumstances until they are declared by the panel as not dangerous to the public.

If the condition is considered incurable, the sentence is death.  This person does not need punishment.  No deterrence is possible, and no cure is possible.  In this case it is cruel to the person and unacceptable for society for the person to ever be free.  And it is cruel to keep the person in jail till death as well as unacceptably costly to the nation.  The person, whether he is to "blame" or not is a continuing threat to society and cannot be allowed to implement their threat.  This does not demand that the offender has committed a truly heinous crime.  It simply has to do with whether they are a continuing and incurable threat to society.  Do we really need to have people raped, murdered, and cannibalized just to justify a sentence of death.  Not in my world view, no. 

I read something today that made me laugh out loud.  That was the idea of Clinton/Gore up against Bush/Dole in the '08 elections.  Of course it would be Hillary Clinton with old Al, and Jeb Bush with Elizabeth Dole.  But still.

However, it leads me to consider how we select our candidates and how we SHOULD do it.  As I see it, we consider people as to their political purity, their beauty, their bankroll, and their public name recognition.  But we do not consider the job we are hiring them to do.  If a company were to do that in ti's hiring, it would close soon.  But with government, it cannot close.  All it can do is roll over us in it's inefficiency.

Now, in local elections, I do hear a lot about qualifications.  The auditor is an accountant, the registrar of deeds is an experienced Real Estate person and so on.  But once out of those positions and into legislative or executive positions and specially in cabinet positions, the qualifications seem not to matter.  Only the other issues. "Well, we have to nominate Bob Dole for President because it is his turn and he has a lot of favors owed.?"  But will he be a good President?  Hear the crickets chirp.

There are 6 sets of skills and appropriate positions in a government.  There are the specialist positions such as attorney general or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.  If you are not a lawyer, you have no business as an AG.  If not a military man, no business in the joint chiefs.  The second type is the idea guy.  This person may no know how to do what needs to be done but they are consistently pushing what needs to be done.  While these people are often staff, this type should naturally gravitate to the legislative side of the government.  After all, it really is not the business of the other branches to decide what needs to do.  It is their business to make it happen and to evaluate whether things are going as legislated.  The third type is the executive.  This person may not have a clue about how to craft legislation and compromise, but they must be able to get various subordinates to work together to implement the plan.  People all think their ideas are the best, and a talented executive is required to stop the government from flying apart from force of personality.  The 4th type is the judge.  Not necessarily one with the title of judge, but the person who evaluates the pros and cons of two positions and makes the correct choice based on facts in evidence.  Fifth is a form of the sixth.  This is the person who, in small groups, can convince those around him to compromise and give some to get some.  The diplomat and the used car salesman.  Finally, we have the talker and persuader.   The person who can make great speeches and inspire those around.

OK, so how do we pick our people?  The first thing to consider is the job of the position.  Presidents, governors, and mayors must be executives first and talkers and persuaders second.  There is no business larger than the US government and an incompetent manager can destroy all good that has been done.  Examples abound from Carter to Kennedy.  Both of these men had good ideas and ideals, but their governments basically ran themselves.  Bush 1&2 tried to keep it under control, but  were snowed by their own people to their own detriment.  The best in recent times was Reagan.  No one considered him brilliant on policy, but his organization worked.  The second is the talker and persuader.  Here is the Bush family downfall along with Truman and Johnson.  They know what they want and simply go about doing it, without trying to sell it or explain it.  And it crashes down around them.  Masters of this skill are again Reagan and also Clinton and Kennedy.  As much as they differed in policy, when one of them went to the public, their opponents needed to agree quickly or be destroyed.

The legislative branch has a completely different set of skills.  These people need to generate the ideas and they need to be able to work in small groups (535 people is still a small group) to get things done.  Don't ruffle that feather, don't push on this yet.  Use strategy.  Most of these people make terrible executives because they know what they want to do, but they don't have the passion or the skills to figure out what is necessary to make it work.  I would say, never make a Senator or Representative president unless they have a successful term as governor or have run a successful company.  Never make a governor a Senator or Representative unless they can give you 5 new ideas that they feel need to be implemented to make things better, and are able to convince you, over your objections, that they are right.

Now lets look at our Presidential Sweepstakes and see what we have:

• Barak Obama - Persuasive in the extreme.  However he is young and innocent and will be run by the old guard in any administration.  No executive skills demonstrated.  This man could be elected, but is likely a disastrous president.
• Hillary Clinton - The exact opposite.  She is a skilled organizer, but unlikeable and unpersuasive.  And, her executive talents are purely in organization.  With the health task force, she tried to do it all herself rather than to delegate and guide.  A truly hands on President if she becomes one.  I see her as another Carter with an out of control government and secrets and lies abounding.
• John McCain - Not particularly persuasive and no real experience in executive positions.  A natural legislator who has ideas and who makes friends across the aisle.
• Rudy Giuliani - Of the batch, the best in the skills needed.  His persuasion is too blunt for some, but he has demonstrated that he can get a government to work well.    This is my "most electable" candidate at this time.
• Tom Vilsack - Governor of Iowa was not specially competent, but at least ran it well enough that he is not poisonous.  Could be a surprise dark horse if he is a competent communicator.
• Mike Gravel - Alaskan Senator has not a chance in the universe.  No experience, not a spellbinding speaker.  A non event.
• Evan Bayh - Former Senator, former (successful) governor of Indiana.  He is attractive, young, and has lots of cash.  This is my pick for the Democratic nominee.
• Bill Richards - Former Senator, current governor.  Moderately successful as governor.  Not as attractive or wealthy as Bayh.  My pick for VP to Bayh.  This should bring in Hispanic voters and the SouthWest.
• John Edwards - Pretty and well known, but likely a disaster as President.  A lawyer and a politician only.  Tainted with the last campaign's loss.
• John Cox - Incompetent campaigner.  No chance.
• Michael Smith - A joke candidate
• Sam Brownback - A teacher and a Senator.  No executive experience.  Pretty and well spoken.  Should stay in the Senate.
• Duncan Hunter - A politician forever.  Disaster if he ever gets in to an executive role.  Pretty and well off financially.
• George Allen - Unlikely with his Senate loss.  Will be considered "damaged goods".
• Jim Gilmore -  Not pretty enough or likeable enough to win the office.  Likely would have been competent.
• Newt Gingrich - No, please.  I love the guy, but he is an idea guy.  Put him back in the legislative branch or have him lobby for his causes.  Would be bad as Carter trying to run the whole thing.
• Chuck Hagel - Fair to poor executive.  After discussion with people who worked for him, he seems to be a flag in the wind that will blow where ever his strong subordinates push him.
• Mike Huckabee - Likeable, electable, but not as well known as some.  My dark horse candidate for VP.
• Mitt Romney - Elected as a Republican in a Democrat state.  Likeable, competent.  My pick for President though likely to be made VP on a ticket with Giuliani.

So, there is my slate.   It is Evan Byah and Bill Richards for the Democrats versus Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (or Huckabee) for the Republicans.

A generation ago, many in my generation yelled "He11 no, we won'