Political Carnival

In researching for this article, I found a story that I consider quite well thought out and very well written. I attempted to use it as a guideline for my own article, apparently to closely. It appears that the internet Gestapo is accusing me of plagiarism, something that was never intended. With that, I have re-written the post, with particular attention to what I believe is the offending paragraph, and I’ll tender my sincere apologies to the original author. To the Gestapo however, I’ll mention that I don’t take kindly to threats.

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."Richard Salent, former president, CBS News

The great American political carnival continues, with the next thrilling episode to be played out in Iowa. I am of course speaking about our ongoing presidential campaign, or at least the current primaries. Hillary and Obama are mudslinging it out… or at least there’s a lot of hissing, spitting, and scratching going on. (The democratic contremps reminds me of two cats arguing over dinner.) On the republican side, Rudy and Mitt are running neck and neck, with Mike coming up fast on the inside… Ahh… wait a minute… that looks suspiciously like Ron in third place and coming up fast, with Mike trying to catch him… And so go the tales in the press.

I’ve never really followed the primaries much, because as an Independent I don’t vote in them. This time however, with the ridiculously early start and the quite large field of hopefuls, I’ve been following along with things. I find it interesting that so many pundits are busy comparing the posturing of various Republican candidates, and yet there’s so comparatively little being said about the Democratic candidates. Unless I’ve unknowingly acquired a republican computer and it’s deliberately ignoring the democrats. Even so, for the most part I’m also ignoring the democratic candidates this time around as I haven’t heard any of them say much that I can agree with. Well, I disagree with most republican candidates as well, but their campaign (as reported in the news) is a lot more interesting.

One news source about the republican race for the White House claims that “Rudy Giuliani leads the pack.” Possibly, but the media seems to be all that’s keeping him afloat. But after all, being called “America’s Mayor” for some time does make him newsworthy I guess. As New York’s Mayor I guess he did a good enough job, and he did shine during the 9-11 rescue efforts. But he’s still a New Yorker, which isn’t going to play well in the western states. Mitt Romney is another media sensation who seems to be leading in many eastern state polls. However, his personal wealth, and in good part self financed campaign, is about all that keeps his name in the press. The religion card may or may not be important to his campaign as well.

Ron Paul is seemingly detested by the media because he he’s a “fringe” politician who refuses to roll over and play dead on demand. If he manages to get elected he has a distinct possibility of severely rocking the boat of “business as usual” special interest politics. Results of numerous straw polls normally show Paul in first to third place. Though he’s not a polished orator, Paul is intelligent, disciplined, principled, consistent, and independent of the political system that’s dominated American life for the last 100 years. Paul's nickname of "Dr. No" to his congressional colleagues reflects both his medical degree and his insistence on "never voting for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas, “cute” and "charming", apparently because of his down home “aw, shucks” style. Nevertheless, his debate performance leaves a lot to be desired. The governor's record indicates he’s not taxpayer friendly, and certainly not a civil libertarian. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona, is a certifiable war hero, and a reputation of being a political maverick. In reality he’s hardly done anything that is not part of the Washington Beltway wheeling and dealing. Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado, has a small but rabid following due to his appeal to voters’ anger over continuing illegal immigration and little else. Unfortunately, Rep. Tancredo is reportedly withdrawing from the race, and has already declined to run again for the House.

Every four years relatively unknown presidential hopefuls such as Paul and Tancredo enter the nomination races. The poll numbers of these contenders in the early stages of the nomination process usually indicate they have no chance to win. But then again, they just might. Remember Howard Dean four years ago? Or Ross Perot twelve years ago? Our short-attention-span nation generally wants our politics like we want our sports, fast-paced and hard-hitting, and so far the 2008 presidential contest has been neither. The race for the White House isn’t a horse race, yet. It’s more like the NASCAR circuit where the champion is crowned after months of competing in a series of different races, on different tracks, in different locations all across the country. And unless you’re a die-hard fan, the only thing that seems to get everyone's attention is the big fiery crash. In politics, "the crash" is that political blunder that keeps everyone talking for the next few days.

There are plenty of Americans who are not comfortable with either major political party at present. Millions of us who are fiscal conservatives, and quite skeptical of big government are not at all comfortable with any candidate.

As the call to rescue the GOP resonates with the next generation, you will hear Paul described as "nutty" and anti-Semitic and fringe and marginal and on and on. One classic anti-Paul statement claims that “Republicans should respond to voters who find Ron Paul appealing with a cold shoulder. They don't even want the voters and money that Paul is bringing into the GOP - because their power - and the big spending authoritarianism they favor - is threatened by this revival of grass roots conservatism.” As the mass media seems to be ignoring the facts, perhaps I should point out that of all the candidates, Ron Paul has the most Constitutional view of American policies, he has the most financial support, he has won a vast majority of the straw polls by a wide margin, and yet still only shows as a single-digit candidate in the media polls, if they bother to mention him at all.

Interesting isn’t it?

Space Development

On occasion I’ve commented about global warming and climate change, following which my published opinion has generated an assortment of “conversations” with various acquaintances (some of which get fairly heated in their own right). So… Yes, I do think we’re moving into a period of climate change for whatever cause. And no, I do not think that this climate change is solely caused by the activities of humanity. I do believe that we’re not helping things any at all with our extensive use of fossil fuels, but our total impact is pretty small compared with that of nature. After all, how much CO2 does just one forest fire dump into the atmosphere, or perhaps just one volcanic eruption? There are a lot of really big forest fires every year, all over the world, and not just a few active volcano’s dumping mega-tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I’ve also made comment about our nearly total dependence on fossil fuels, which I’ve never been very happy about either. For one thing they’re not renewable, so we’re going to run out eventually, and at the rate we’re using them probably sooner rather than later. For another, they’re much more valuable as raw materials for industry than they are as fuels for a Sunday afternoon drive. So why do we keep burning them for fuels? Because they’re about the most concentrated form of “portable” energy available to us at present, they’re easy to handle, and they’re cheap, despite the prices we see at the gas pump or the monthly electric bill. Still, with dwindling resources, I’d rather work on solving the problem now, rather than wait until we’re out of gas and have to start a scadzillion dollar government “crash program”.

Consider, we’re running out of domestic oil, and our tar sands and oil shale deposits don’t even rate a distant second place. We can of course continue importing oil from OPEC, but being at the tender mercies of the Islamic world doesn’t strike me as a good idea if national security is a concern. Coal fired power sources “could” take up the slack, but they’re rapidly becoming political suicide due to environmental considerations. Nuclear power would be an ideal interim power source, but we still have the almost superstitious public fear of “radiation” to overcome. All of the bio-fuels share a common drawback, in that they require high class (i.e. food grade) raw materials. With six billion people on this planet, food is getting scarce in many places, a problem that can only get worse if we start turning food into biofuels.

Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power… all are non-starters due to various technical limitations and high costs. Certainly they work to some extent, and make quite interesting demonstrations, but they are not a viable source of power for today’s energy starved hi-tech world. Fusion power and the theoretical “zero point” energy are to far down the pike to even be considered at present. Ground based solar power would pick up part of the load, temporarily. But solar arrays require direct sunlight to operate, leaving us with a major problem during the hours of darkness. What are we supposed to do, shut down the entire country at night?

It would appear that either we develop an effective alternate source of power, or we will soon be forced to turn yet again to the horse and buggy, along with candle lit evenings.

Finally, I’ve commented about the possibility of an electricity dependant economy rather one based on the burning of hydrocarbon fossil fuels. Last week I mentioned electric cars for local use. I’d think we all know that the electrics, and even the hybrids we see occasionally are at present more of a curiosity than a serious means of transportation. They do meet all the requirements for a “run to the store and grab a loaf of bread” car, but I for one wouldn’t want to start for Lewiston in what’s essentially an oversized golf cart that I’ll probably forget to plug-in and recharge the battery! Besides, contrary to some advertising claims, today’s electric vehicles are no more environmentally friendly than the gas burners! We have to “plug them in and recharge the battery” remember, and just where does that electricity come from? For most people it comes from a fossil fuel burning power plant, that’s where! Someplace, coal or oil is being burned (and dumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere), so that I can feel good about my “environmentally friendly” electric car while I go get that loaf of bread. Ahh… what’s wrong with this picture?

So, I guess we need to get our electricity from an environmentally friendly source, which may prove somewhat difficult. One interesting technology is OTEC, or Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. OTEC utilizes the difference in temperature between warm surface water and cold deep sea water to drive an enormous low speed turbine. Unfortunately it’s not a mature technology at present, it’s terribly inefficient, and would cost billions to construct a decent size OTEC power plant.
Then we have my favorite, Solar Power Satellites, or SPS for short. Space based solar power systems appear to possess many significant environmental advantages when compared to alternative approaches to meeting increasing terrestrial demands for energy. The idea of an SPS has been around since the 1960’s when Dr. Gerald O’Neil developed the “High Frontier” concept of colonizing space with really big space stations. An SPS consists of a huge array of solar cells in sun synchronous Earth orbit. The output of the solar array is converted to microwave power, and transmitted (like radar waves) to a ground station, where it’s converted back into electricity and fed into the power grid. Since the idea first surfaced, building an SPS has been pretty well out of the question due to the high cost of launching the heavy equipment into space. Over the last forty years however, we’ve developed efficient thin film solar cells, lightweight microwave systems, and inflatable space structures which would greatly reduce the cost of an SPS to only a portion of what it would have been in the 1960’s, and seriously reduces the required launch efforts as well. It’s technically feasible to build an SPS today, and supply a few giga-watts of power to our economy, per unit on orbit. After all, space operations are no longer an arcane science, but simply a matter of engineering. However, when we consider the $2,500 to nearly $10,000 per pound cost of putting anything into orbit, an SPS is not yet economically feasible.

Personally I consider space development and resource exploitation to be the single most important long term requirement facing not only the United States, but the entire world as well. Certainly I support the Return to the Moon initiative, along with manned Mars exploration. But NASA’s intended function is not and has never been space exploration, but rather NASA was chartered to research and develop safe, efficient, and cost effective methods to advance the technologies of air and space flight, leaving space exploration and development to private concerns. Development of manned space flight is crucial to our species, but with today’s launch costs, it “ain’t gonna happen”, until NASA starts getting serious about doing their intended job, and developing low cost space access. Perhaps we should remind our congressional representatives of that fact.

Military Myths

Dec 23, 2007

Two trends over the past forty years contribute to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory in Iraq. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break a long standing tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced military heroes, but now they’re little more than hotbeds of looney left politics. Yet those same universities still produce most U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead this nation in wartime routinely dismiss military service as a waste of their valuable time and talents. Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our soldiers had to pay for our freedom creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offers flawed or biased analyses the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments. National leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth No. 1 is that war doesn't change anything. This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years war has been the last resort of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree about the manner in which a war is fought, but we can't pretend that if we laid down our arms all others would do the same. One thing we may be certain of, our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they’re not deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth: Victory is impossible today. Victory is always possible, if we’re willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is impossible if our troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target first must be approved by politicians, and if Americans are disheartened by a constant barrage of negative reporting, twisted facts, half-truths, and in some cases downright lies from the media.

Myth: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems. Generally the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria – are convinced they can win, if only we would give up. The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of inarguable strength.

Myth: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies. When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave even more viciously. Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly.

Myth: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs. It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists than they do for the victims. The truth is that when dealing with fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Dead, they're dead. And dead terrorists don't kill anymore.

Myth: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them. Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American as well as Japanese lives turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March? But our obsession with tragic incidents of which there have been remarkably few obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.

Myth: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems. This claim ignores the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. The terrorist problems have been created by the failure of Middle Eastern civilization, and were worsened by the determination of successive U.S. administrations to pretend that Islamic terrorism was an aberration. “Peacefully” refusing to respond to attacks allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly.

Myth: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own. The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their future that there's nothing more we can do. But leaving immediately would guarantee a series of slaughters and a massive victory for terrorism. It's ridiculous to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq, a charge that ignores centuries of Muslim history.

Myth: It's all Israel's fault. Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedom and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women must recognize the difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map. As for the belief that the Saudis are our friends, Saudi money continues to subsidize anti- Western extremism, and hatred between Muslims and all others.

Myth: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault. Muslim extremists want everyone to believe this, but it isn't true. The collapse of the once great Middle Eastern civilizations has continued for more than five centuries, and the region became a cultural backwater before the United States became a country. It’s social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a modern state that served its people guaranteed that as the West progressed, the Middle East fell ever farther behind. The Middle East has only itself to blame for its problems.

The wealth and power of the United States allows us many things denied to human beings throughout history, but we simply cannot afford ignorance of our nations history.

President

For months now I’ve been ranting about political campaigns, politicians, the US government and its assorted programs, international relations, and what-have-you. All to no avail apparently, as our government hasn’t changed its ways one bit, and I still haven’t been invited to become a presidential advisor. So, purely as a thought exercise, what sort of platform would I be standing on if I were dumb enough to run for the office of president?

One of the major problems facing the president today is the war in Iraq, and a sticky problem that is. Just about anything he does is going to be the wrong thing. If it weren’t for mid-east oil we could just pick up our marbles and go home, leaving the local folks to enjoy their feudal governments and medieval religious tyranny. However, with the world wide demand for oil, I don’t think an indiscriminate troop withdrawal as many people favor will really solve any problems, it’ll just dump everything on the Iraqi citizen’s shoulders, leaving them at the tender mercy of the terrorists, and Al-Qaeda would shortly control a large part of the world’s oil reserves. A “How to create WW III in the sandbox” sort of deal. Nor is it feasible to send a few hundred thousand more US troops to Iraq, as we don’t have that many more soldiers available, and our economy certainly couldn’t stand the strain at present. Nor do I think it would be wise to send in a standard UN peacekeeping force as the insurgents/terrorists would quickly eat them alive. So, what to do? One part of the problem is that everyone in the mid-east considers us to be infidel crusaders, thus bringing an insurmountable religious component into the game, and making us out to be the bad guys no matter what. Has anyone considered an American sponsored coalition of Arabic Muslim nations mounting a peacekeeping force? I’m quite sure that the US would have to foot the bill, but we’re doing that anyway, and it would put us in the position of controlling operations.

Tax reform is all over the news nowdays, and I suspect that the system could use some serious repairs. So, appoint a “Blue Ribbon” panel of taxpayers from all walks of life to sort through the current tax code, simplify the daylights out of it, find an equitable tax rate, eliminate the loopholes, and put things in simple English words that don’t require a high dollar tax lawyer to understand. At the same time we could shake up the IRS quite a bit, and remove all the arbitrary authority they use to terrorize American citizens.

National Security is one of my hot button subjects, and would get a lot of personal attention. For one thing, I’d immediately call on Congress to repeal most of the Presidential War Powers act, and all of the Patriot Act, as neither is needed today. The Department of Homeland Security would soon be a footnote in history as well.

The “All Volunteer” military served us well in the post Vietnam era, as long as we didn’t have any wars to fight. However, now that we’re involved in a messy little long term war in the mid-east, we can see many of its shortcomings. The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan have aptly demonstrated that we need to greatly enlarge our conventional armed forces and war fighting capacity, which essentially means a return to the draft, unpopular as that would be. At the same time we need a “lean and mean” Army, well trained and properly equipped to fight anywhere in the world on a moments notice, and survive, rather than an army that’s going to be six months getting “there” with all the luxuries found on today’s TO&E. We need forces that can move fast and hit hard, which means Light Infantry, Rangers, and Special Forces, rather than armor heavy divisions that require an entire fleet to move them across the pond.

Immigration problems have been getting a lot of bad press lately, and I think could be quickly solved with a beefed-up Border Patrol providing tighter border security, along with severe penalties for the folks that hire illegals. I don’t particularly mean slapping them with a ten thousand dollar fine either, but how about an automatic five year sentence at hard labor for the CEO of the company that hired them?

Despite Al Bore… err… Gore and his Oscar winning movie, I don’t see global warming as a man caused problem. Sure, man’s activities isn’t helping the situation any, but it’s not something that we can really blame humanity for. Climate change is something that happens every few centuries, unless we can find a way to control nature and we haven’t been real successful at that over the last few thousand years. So, instead of mandating hundred mile-per-gallon cars, why not push for efficient low cost electric vehicles. After all, how many trips a day do we make to Boise, as opposed to how many trips around town? If it’s a case of “Boise or Bust”, wouldn’t an effective mass transit system be a better way to get there, and then grab an electric powered runabout while you’re shopping? Oil burning heavy trucks are great for moving large cargo’s when nothing else will work, but electric railroads for long distance hauling are a lot more energy efficient.

Where does all that electricity come from? Well, if we’d get serious about hydrogen fusion research, that’s one possibility. Another possibility would be Solar Power Satellites, which is a technology well doable today. Besides, an electric based transportation infrastructure would certainly take the wind out of OPEC’s sails! A hydrogen based economy is great in theory, but making the required sudden and massive change in our vehicle fueling system would probably bankrupt the nation!

If we’d leave the economy alone, it would probably bounce around like a Mexican jumping bean for awhile, and then level out. Historically a free market always does. The problems arise when government or financial gurus start tinkering with the system in an effort to “improve” things, “improvement” usually meaning the rich get richer, and the rest of us foot the bill. I’d also think that a gold (?) based economy would be far superior to a credit based paper economy.

Gay rights seems to be a hot button topic in the media, and most of southern California as well, so what to do about that? Well, nothing really. I see no reason for gays, or any other minority group, to have any special rights, privileges, or legal protection that the rest of us don’t have, just because they’re “different”.

The ever popular schemes to forcibly change our society yet again have always struck me as tantamount to tip-toeing through a political minefield, and besides, social engineering is not our government’s job. But with the technology available to us today, and with a little inspired leadership from on high, we could build a wonderful world for our kids and grandkids, which is a job for the government.

Arrogance

In 1966, Democratic Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, entitled “The Arrogance of Power”, which he defined as “the tendency of great nations to equate power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission.” A description that aptly describes the worldwide activities of the United States over the last few decades. As the Vietnam War raged, the Sen. continued “We are now engaged in a war to "defend freedom" in South Vietnam… The official war aims of the United States Government, as I understand them, are to defeat what is regarded as North Vietnamese aggression, to demonstrate the futility of what the communists call "wars of national liberation," and to create conditions under which the South Vietnamese people will be able freely to determine their own future. I have not the slightest doubt of the sincerity of the President and the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defense in propounding these aims. What I do doubt, and doubt very much, is the ability of the United States to achieve these aims by the means being used. I do not question the power of our weapons and the efficiency of our logistics; I cannot say these things delight me as they seem to delight some of our officials, but they are certainly impressive. What I do question is the ability of the United States, or France or any other Western nation, to go into a small, alien, undeveloped Asian nation and create stability where there is chaos, the will to fight where there is defeatism, democracy where there is no tradition of it and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life.” The Senator went on to say, “The cause of our difficulties in Southeast Asia is not a deficiency of power but an excess of the wrong kind of power which results in a feeling of impotence when it fails to achieve its desired ends. We are still acting like boy scouts dragging reluctant old ladies across streets they do not want to cross. We are trying to remake Vietnamese society, a task which certainly cannot be accomplished by force and which probably cannot be accomplished by any means available to outsiders. The objective may be desirable, but it is not feasible....”

Today, if we were to change the term “Asian nation” to “Islamic nation”, we might well find ourselves describing the situation in Iraq, or nearly anywhere else in the world where the United States has embarked on a self appointed crusade to “improve things”!

Yes, we are (for the moment) the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, as we were in the 1960s. And equally as certain we are just as arrogant, if not even more so. Historically we have set ourselves nearly impossible goals, and achieved them on a regular basis. Who would have believed that a loose confederation of impoverished former colonies could have claimed, tamed, and settled a very large part of North America, in slightly less than a century! In the 1860’s we decided we needed a transcontinental railroad, and promptly built it in record time, and did so in the face of incredible adversity. Who would have believed that we could advance from a large and somewhat clumsy agrigriarian nation in the 1930s, to the worlds premier industrial and military power, in only slightly more time than it took us to fight WW II? In 1960 we didn’t even know if manned spaceflight were possible, yet in less than ten years we watched enthralled as Americans walking on the surface of another planet! We believed then, as we believe now, that there is nothing America can’t do if we once set our minds to it. Except perhaps, build a free-wheeling democracy in a small nation that doesn’t want democracy. Are we really so arrogant as to believe that a people… any people… who have for centuries quite willingly lived under a rather medieval theocratic political system, really have a desire to almost overnight switch to our particular form of democracy, only because our politicians tell them that “our system is better”!? The Soviets told the entire world how much better their political system was, from 1917 until they collapsed in 1990. Not many people believed them either.

If America has a means to lead in the modern world, it is in large part by our own example. In our excessive involvement in the affairs of other countries, we are expending the economic lifeblood of the nation, and denying our own people the proper enjoyment of their resources. We are also denying the world the example of a free society enjoying its freedom to the fullest. Regrettable I think, in a nation that aspires to teach democracy to others, because as Burke said "Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." A lesson America should have learned fifty years ago.

Why can’t we understand that America's true power lies not in our will to threaten, conquer, or intimidate, but in our ability to inspire? There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous men that leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the perceived needs of the moment. Today we see greed, corruption, distain for the law, and an insatiable thirst for power openly displayed in this country, nearly everyplace we might look. That arrogance of power is deeply imbedded in our personal and business relations as well as our political relations, not only among ourselves, but with the rest of the world as well.

There are many respects in which America can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation in our relations with Russia, of reliable partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with developing nations, of avoiding the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of minding our own business in our relations with everybody. We have the opportunity to serve as an example of democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" but "the champion and vindicator only of her own." . . . We can demonstrate to the world that a free people can continue to live free even in the face of severe adversity, it’s certainly not necessary for them, or us, to adopt the ways and means of a totalitarian police state.

If we can bring ourselves to act, we will have overcome the arrogance of power.

Constitution

The United States of America is a rarity among nations in that we do not have rulers who serve at their pleasure. Political office is not inherited, and is not (supposedly) a lifetime sinecure. Instead, our founding fathers gave us a republic in which we are to periodically designate certain people to represent us in the halls of government, people who serve at our pleasure. As Abraham Lincoln so succinctly put it, our government is “Of the People, By the People, For the People”.

Although things often appear otherwise whenever Congress is in session, no authority in our government structure, from our local City Councilmen right on up to the President of the United States, have the legal power to indiscriminately order us do anything we do not wish to do. They can coax, they can cajole, they can suggest, they can lead, but they cannot order us to do anything without our permission! The thirteen colonies denied the divine right of kings, and the derived authority of government figures, in 1776. They proclaimed the authority of “The People”, a hitherto unknown concept that was adopted by the French revolution a few years later. We, in case anyone has forgotten, are the people, and all government authority in this nation devolves from us, the governed. Our authority is intended to be expressed by our elected representatives, whom we select and send to congress to speak in our behalf. The operative phrase here is “to speak in our behalf”, and not on behalf of a particular ideology, or for special interests.

We have a set of laws, our Constitution, that quite clearly specify the powers and the duties of the three branches of our federal government. That constitution (in the Tenth Amendment) also clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the individual states, or to the people. An addendum to the constitution specifically states that we have certain rights that the government may not interfere with. That particular section we call the Bill of Rights… However, it would appear of late that our government, without our permission, has decided that much of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, have no real meaning, and can safely be ignored at will.

A slew of recent books about the current administration's wars at home and abroad might leave you wondering if President Bush and Vice President Cheney are the new Axis of Evil. In excruciating detail, these books tell tales of torture, warrantless wiretaps, of arrest and imprisonment without trial. They show a relentless grab for presidential power and distain for what were thought to be solid constitutional limitations. The picture that emerges is so bleak that even serious journalists and scholars sometimes lean toward conspiracy theories. The administration's defenders, meanwhile, grow strident, claiming that the Bush administration is up against "a domestic insurgency" led by "journalistic devotees of the Vietnam syndrome," isolationists, "liberal internationalists" and (heaven forbid) "realists." The Bush and Cheney who emerge from these pages cherish secrecy, they deplore constraint and they sneer at dissent, so nothing and nobody can dissuade them from their chosen course. Reality checks are not allowed.

The views on presidential power held by the present administration will create many a problem for future presidents. Cheney and Bush will leave presidential powers enhanced at the expense of Congress and the courts, to the detriment of the checks and balances essential to our constitutional system. There's already some concern among Republicans fearful that Hillary Clinton will reap the benefits. After all, no president will want to see his or her imperial authority eroded. The expansive powers presently claimed and exercised by President Bush are now an immutable part of American history, not controversies, but facts. The worldwide war with terrorists that is so important to expanded presidential power will go on as well. What might have seemed farfetched political and military fantasies several years ago are inescapable realities today.

Nobody will argue that many of the domestic actions taken by the federal government since 9/11 are in direct violation of our constitutional rights. For all intents and purposes the so called “Patriot Act” effectively suspends the Constitution of the United States, establishes a police state, and allows the US President to pretty well do whatever he pleases irreguardless of the law. However, unlike many on the left (and more than a few on the right as well), I have a lot of trouble believing that all our problems are the result of a vast “Bush-Cheney Conspiracy”. Rather I submit that what we see happening today is the result of the current administration doing nothing more than taking advantage of several decades of congressional malfeasance! Congress has through the years handed over to the executive much of their constitutional authority, apparently as it interfered with their constant struggle to be reelected. Add to that, the judicial branch has been so busy with social and environmental activism that they have ignored their constitutional duty to see that the federal “balance of power” remained on an even keel.

Jack Goldsmith, who briefly served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, a conservative academic and generally a supporter of a strong executive, argues in his book "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration" that much of what was done in the early days after 9/11 is perfectly understandable. Threats seemed to be everywhere. A second wave of attacks appeared imminent and all but inevitable. "The President had to do what he had to do to protect the country," writes Goldsmith. "And the lawyers had to find some way to make what he did legal." However, unlike previous war presidents (Lincoln and FDR) who severely bent the Constitution in order to save it, and took responsibility for doing so, the Bush administration has hidden behind a wall of secrecy, as if public ignorance were the best way to give the president the powers he needed

In fact, the present situation is far from the civil war some writers would have us believe will soon be here, and certainly not the “shooting war” so popular in fiction. After all, with the steady errosion of our second ammendment rights, just what are we supposed to shoot with? Hunting rifles against tanks? Shotguns against attack helicopters? I don’t think so! But this is a good moment to take stock of the more subtle parts of these books: stories of score-settling at home, a new kind of enemy abroad, war profiteering and corruption, righteous intentions, grand visions, and bad information. If there is a recurrent theme, it's that the present administration set out to create its own reality, whether approaching the Bill of Rights like a little understood document, or readying itself for war in Iraq (and Iran?) with a steady diet of dubious intelligence.

Remember that every totalitarian state in recorded history has required three things to exist. They require extensive government secrecy, they require a foreign enemy to threaten the population, and they require a domestic enemy (usually imaginary) to justify a widespread internal security apparatus.

Ron Paul

I’m not in the habit of plugging any particular political candidate, unless of course I happen to be down at the local watering hole discussing politics with a few friends. I will however, often be heard chipping my teeth about some political idiot or other who has aroused my ire, at which time I have to be careful of loosing my temper and excessively raising my blood pressure. So, to keep my Doctor from getting overly concerned about my well being, I won’t have much to say about the political stance of the current Democratic presidential hopefuls, nor most of the Republican candidates either. It happens that I’m one of that vast multitude of independent voters in this country who generally don’t follow any particular party line. As so many other people claim, I like to think that I’m a political moderate, with fairly strong conservative leanings. Unlike many people in this country, I try to keep current on the issues and the various candidates’ position. When the candidates begin their political speeches you’ll generally find me over in the corner someplace, probably with a woebegone expression on my face, and most likely shaking my head in disgust. If however, the speaker is advocating infringement of my constitutional rights, or yet another scheme to bring on socialism, you’ll generally find me loudly screaming protests from atop my soapbox.

Today however I’m going to make a few comments about 72 year old Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, who, contrary to most mainstream press reports, appears to be highly popular with many voters, and is conducting a rather unusual but highly effective campaign. It’s hard to say just what his political leaning actually is, essentially a mix of libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, and a bit of republicanism mixed in. Essentially a pariah to the GOP caucus, Rep Paul, who was the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, does not hew to the party line, and thus is not a “good” republican worthy of party support. Interestingly enough he has gone from being a “nut” to a “nonentity” to a “fringe” to a “second tier” candidate in an amazingly short time, and he doesn’t appear to be slowing down a bit. During the early presidential debates last spring, leading GOP candidates treated Congressman Paul a bit like a libertarian nut. He was someone to be tolerated or mocked - and even the moderators acted like he was a distraction to endure until they could ask the big guns important questions. The media initially treated him like an interesting oddball, but an oddball nonetheless. Why? Because alone among the Republican candidates, Paul is strongly against the war in Iraq and is highly critical of American military presence anywhere in the Middle East. Of course I might point out that an “ignore him” strategy is not entirely out of fashion either. At least it’s apparently in vogue at MSNBC which wrote their headlines to deny Ron Paul the credit for another straw poll victory. The poll in question was at the recent Nevada Conservative Leadership Conference held in Sparks. In this, Ron Paul didn’t show up in person to shake hands, but he clearly finished first in the poll, while GOP front-runner Mitt Romney did appear, and finished a poor second. The MSNBC article is entitled "ROMNEY LOSES NV STRAW POLL" rather than "Ron Paul Wins NV Straw Poll", and while it mentions Paul’s win exactly once, eighty percent of the article is devoted to Romney. As one Internet commentator put it, "the resulting comments from Ron Paul supporters are priceless."

Attacks on candidate Paul are part of a trend toward belittling him and his constitutionalist message now that ignoring him hasn't worked - as he regularly continues to win straw polls and raise even more funds. The influx of money has helped Paul make his first TV ad in New Hampshire, a luxury several second-tier Republican candidates have yet to indulge in. And he's clearly found a following - if not among Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, then among an apparently widespread and rapidly growing coalition of “old style” conservatives, constitutionalists, disgruntled republicans, the libertarian right, and (perhaps) many of the anti-war left. Like Howard Dean in 2004, Paul has a huge following on the Internet and draws tons of traffic to his websites. He raised $5 million during the third quarter of 2007, giving him more money in the bank than John McCain. Now he's stunned Republican frontrunners by ringing up $4.3 million in donations during a one-day Internet fundraiser. Much like John Kennedy’s revolutionary use of television in 1960, Ron Paul seems to have discovered the political use of the Internet.

But his ideas are definitely catching on with many voters who are totally disgusted with “Republicrat” politics as usual. Here's what Paul said when asked about Republicans and the war: "Republicans have been conservative and anti-war and picked up the pieces when Democrats get us into trouble. It's a constitutional and conservative position. I don't feel out of place ... It discourages me that Republicans aren't open-minded enough to look at their history and look at a traditional Republican conservative position. Because they are going to lose another election if they don't...“ But while Paul's anger over Iraq has generated the headlines, it's his views on other core conservative Republican issues that may be fuelling his success. Paul is, as it happens, also firmly anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-NAFTA. He believes the freedoms and liberties of Americans have been threatened by the White House, and cites the Patriot Act as a particular danger. He favors a return to the gold standard, and a drastically reduced federal government that would be primarily responsible for defending America from outside attack and not a heck of a lot else. In a Ron Paul administration - au revoir Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. No one really expects that a new President can wave a magic wand and change policies that have been existent for years, in some cases even before the New Deal was foisted on the American people. It’s hoped what will happen is that a new congress, supporting a Paul administration, will slowly turn the ship of state back to its Constitutional roots and the Republic will be restored. Hard to believe? What’s even more unbelievable is that the American people should allow “politics as usual” to continue eroding the American way of life, and destroying U.S. sovereignty, by supporting candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties that are, in reality, nothing more than another set of puppet mouthpieces for globalized corporate campaign contributors and special interests.

There's been plenty of tangible evidence to Paul’s appeal. He finished third in a recent straw poll at the "Values Voters" convention in Washington - ahead of Fred Thompson, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. And he's got a strong following among economic conservatives furious with President Bush's big-spending habits over the past seven years. It may be that Paul's supporters are not concentrated enough to help in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3rd. But he's dangerous enough that Republican insiders are worried, for his widespread followers are numerous, very vocal, intensely motivated, and quite easily stirred up.

One comment I recently read from the “Ron Paul Revolution” that I particularly liked is - “Americans have had enough. We're going to reclaim our country. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”

The Law

Americans are justly proud of their nation, it’s history, and it’s people. With a touch of smugness, and a lot of history to back us up, we loudly proclaim ourselves to be “The land of the free, and the home of the brave”. Since the first colonists landed on our shores, we’ve been a people set apart from our European roots, highly independent, self sufficient, innovative, curious, adaptable, and nearly always looking to the future. A meld of all European cultures, and with not a just few folks from other parts of the world mixed in, America became a melting pot that produced a boisterous, hardy, rough and tumble lot, equally willing to shake hands and share a tot of whiskey with a stranger, or engage him in a knock-down drag out fight, as circumstances warranted. We had a strong independent streak, a well overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, and the good sense to keep our noses out of other peoples business, admirable traits that are quite definitely reflected in the wording of our Constitution. We became a people that proudly went when and where we pleased, allowing no interference and submitting to no limitations on our individual rights and freedom.

But in reality, just how free are we today? Well, we can go nearly anywhere and do almost anything we want, as long as we stay within the limitations of a long and constantly growing list of laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and directives, as ordered by a seemingly endless line of local, state, and federal governing bodies that severely restrict our activities. I guess it’s a necessity for bureaucratic purposes, but we start out by requiring a birth certificate, a piece of paper that tells all and sundry that we were born. If someone is standing right there in front of me, I suspect I can safely assume that he was born… for despite my private thoughts about a few people, I rather doubt they actually crawled out from under a rock. We require a social security number as well, ostensibly so the government can keep track of our earnings through the years, and hopefully supply us with an equitable pittance if we live long enough to retire. It’s also a real handy means of tracking our place of employment whenever the authorities decide they want to discuss some infraction of the rules with us. The law requires that we send our kids to school (in some cases a total waste of time and resources I think), thereby creating a paper trail of scholastic records that follow those young people throughout their lives. The law tells us what the kids are expected to study in school, although I do think that the three R’s are probably quite difficult enough in most cases. But have you ever really looked at the list of “subjects” required by law, and offered for scholastic credit these days!? Throughout our lives we’re followed by a paper trail, mandated by law, of school records, legal records, tax records, military records, employment records, financial records, census records, and the Lord only knows what other records the government has hidden away in the files!

If we own property we have to abide with planning and zoning rules, along with numerous building codes, neighborhood association rules, and property restrictions, all limiting what we may or may not do with our property. If we own a car or a truck, the law tells us what we can or can’t do with that vehicle and how it is to be equipped, along with requiring an assortment of permits, a drivers license, vehicle license, and of course insurance (heaven help us if we neglect to get all of them), along with a confusing jumble of regional traffic laws as well. If we want to go hunting or fishing, we have to abide by all sorts of fish and game rules and regulations, requiring licenses, tags, stamps, and permits. We’re supposed to be politically correct and sensitive to the feelings of others, no matter what those feelings might entail. And don’t forget that either, lest you be tried and convicted of bigotry and “hate crimes” as defined under an assortment of rather vague laws. I guess I’m confessing to committing a crime, but I really do hate it when the law orders the symbols of my religion removed from public display because they might disturb the tender sensitivities of someone of a different religion, but their religious symbols can be legally displayed despite my sensitivities. I also hate it when some people can indiscriminately kill Americans in the name of their religion, and we’re required by law to be considerate of their feelings!

The founders of our nation gave us a Constitutional Republic, and not (contrary to popular belief) the mob rule of an open democracy. Essentially we are expected to select the “brightest and best” of our citizens to represent our interests in the ruling of our nation. These elected representatives supposedly serve at our pleasure, and are expected to do what is best for the nation and by that what is best for the American people. In this day and age however, it seems that our “lawmakers” have taken the job title seriously and spend their time producing an endless series of new laws based on nearly every hare-brained scheme and dumb idea that comes along! Admittedly they will, on occasion, come up with something useful, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It wouldn’t be so bad I expect, if every new law had a mandatory “sunset clause” attached, whereby it automatically expired after a given period of time. Such a provision would be particularly useful if we consider the vast number of hundred plus year old “Blue Laws” still on the books nationwide, and never having been repealed are still quite enforceable!

At the same time, and I will repeat, we are not a democracy. Nonetheless, following that “Democracy” idea, we have presidential candidates vying with each other to pass even more laws, spending what’s left of our public funds in vote buying social engineering schemes. Many of these candidates want to pass laws giving all kinds of money, benefits, and even social security to illegal immigrants. Leaving no child behind, we have laws requiring a massive increase in educational expenses, that will probably be expanded into government mandated classes in hard rock appreciation and the glories of the Hollywierd drug culture. Along with the drive for laws creating nationwide socialized medicine, we can also expect to see laws generating a nationwide children’s health insurance program that not only covers poverty stricken or low income families, but every child in the country including those whose fortunate parents make a few million dollars a year!

Laws, rules, regulations… government orders enforced by the police and the military, controlling and restricting every aspect of a supposedly free peoples existence. Laws, major and minor, that fill our overcrowded prisons with people convicted of all sorts of offenses, both serious crimes and some quite frivolous mistakes. In my mind, what we need are far fewer laws, and more common sense, in this country. Of course a little self-discipline on the part of many citizens wouldn’t hurt either, but in accordance with the law, neither parents nor our schools can teach that subject anymore.

Appeasement

There’s an old saying that’s seemingly been around forever, “If you can’t learn the lessons of history, then you’re cursed to relive them.” It’s pretty much the same thing as when your Dad told you that he was trying to save you from making the same mistakes he made. Unfortunately for most of us, we hear, but we don’t listen, and we suffer the consequences as a result. There are reasons to study history… to understand the mistakes made in the past, and use that knowledge to avoid making those same mistakes now. But I guess its human nature to learn the hard way, and it appears we’re on the verge of doing it again.

Sixty years ago appeasement cost millions of Jews their lives, as England and France negotiated and hesitated far too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to meaningless agreements. Appeasement legitimized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, suppressive and quite murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though they had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, Europeans debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do their work for them, and not incidentally saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now ignores suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is discovered that the loudest critics of the American war in Iraq made tens of billions of illicit dollars in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.And now we are faced with other forms of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Europe? By suggesting that they really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany! A substantial fraction of the German Government, and if the polls are correct the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will spare them from the wrath of fanatical Muslims. I recall the pictures of Neville Chamberlain waving the White Paper signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the western public and its political leadership catch on? There is a sort of crusade underway, a crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against Western societies, and fully intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It’s a conflict that will probably continue longer than any war of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be “appeased” by the liberals much touted compromise, nor tamed by tolerance and accommodation, but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for a sign of weakness.

For his policies, President Bush risks the fall of the dollar, additional national debt, a massive burden on the American economy, and political suicide… because unlike almost all of Europe, he realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While Europeans criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, they timidly defend their Social Welfare systems. “Stay out of it!” they wail, “It could get expensive!” In this country we'd rather discuss reducing our workweek, the costs of health care, or the price of gasoline. Or listen to the anti-was crowd preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists… understand and forgive". Today, we find America’s liberals preaching much the same thing as their European brethren, all conveniently forgetting that if you once pay the Danegeld you still have the Danes to contend with, and they will be back next year, with even greater demands.

The somewhat misnamed “War on Terror” is not being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are merely individual battles in a world wide war that pits the western concept of a free and open civilization against a fifteen hundred year old dictatorial religion founded in the deserts of the mid-east by a warlike nomadic society, and based on total subjugation to the will of a few “rulers”. The first crusade of 1095 AD was ostensibly fought to free the holy land from non-Christians, or at least that was the general excuse. It was also fought to halt Muslim excursions (read “invasions”) into western Christian lands, most notably the vestiges of the Eastern Holy Roman Empire in Constantinople. That crusade was marginally successful only because the Arabic Muslims were disorganized both politically and militarily. They also had no real idea of how to fight the heavily armored knights of Europe. Over the following centuries the Arabs became better organized, and adopted the highly mobile light cavalry tactics of the eastern steppe nomads, to which the western knights in their turn could not adapt. The following crusades became an ongoing war of attrition which the west was ill suited to sustain, and subsequently Europe lost its tenuous hold on the Holy Land.

Since those long ago days, the Arabic style of war changed little until the twentieth century and the massive influx of western “petro-dollars”. With that money they could buy the modern toys of the more developed nations. Today we see Arab national armies equipped with modern western weapons, which for the most part they little understand and are generally ill suited to use against our western armies. However, the Arabic fundamentalists understand this problem, and unlike the west are adapting to the changing times. They are not fighting us tank for tank, or jet fighter for jet fighter. Instead they utilize a form of guerrilla warfare, terror, pitting the snipers bullet, IED, and suicide bomber against civilians. Guerrilla warfare is something that western leaders have been notoriously slow to understand, and against which our conventional military wisdom has had little success over the last fifty years.

Fortunately for the west, the Arabs are again politically disorganized, and divided along religious lines. But we, in our arrogance, mistakenly assume that Islamic fundamentalists think in the same manner we do, that they have similar values, and that they can be swayed by our logic. We thought much the same about Hitler, and about the Communists. We failed to heed the warnings of Mien Kampf, and got WW II as the result. We ignored the Communist Manifesto, and got the Cold War. Today we fail to heed the warnings of the Quran, and hope to “appease” fundamentalist Islam.

It would seem that far too many of our national leaders refuse to learn from history, and once again are sentencing us to relive it.

Candidates

I’ve stated repeatedly that I for one am not real impressed with the Presidential candidates currently parading themselves before the voters. For the most part they strike me as being little more than a mob of Ho-Hum “kinder, gentler” wimps with not a lot of leadership traits, which, considering the global mess we’ve managed to get ourselves into during the course of the last few regimes is about the last thing we need in the White House! The concept of a kinder, gentler world is all well and fine I suppose, and would probably be a very nice place to live, as long as they leave the socialism part out of it. But to make that happen, the rest of the world has to agree with the idea, and everyone would have to work towards that lofty end. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, it’s also an unachievable goal, and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future for that matter. Comparing today’s geopolitics to the sea, those are shark infested waters out there, and certainly no place for a peaceful little sardine to be swimming around in if he hopes to survive. In today’s world you had better be the biggest shark around if you don’t want to be somebody else’s supper! As a sop to the bleeding hearts among us I’ll add that the big shark doesn’t necessarily have to be an aggressive bully either, just big and bad enough that nobody else wants to pick a fight with him. Unfortunately the United States no longer meets those standards, instead we’ve become little more than the biggest, fattest, juiciest sardine in the sea, and the real sharks are quickly gathering ‘round.

The president of the United States is inevitably faced with two broad categories of problems, usually defined as Foreign policy and Domestic policy, and he’d better be an expert on both subjects. Then of course he has a few other concerns such as a congress that seemingly can’t agree with anybody about anything, bloodthirsty political opponents, a sensation seeking media that has learned to make immense mountains out of minor molehills, a politically ignorant population, special interests, and a bureaucracy that’s out to grab everything they can. To be successful he’s got to be brilliant, courageous, a master of diplomacy, an expert in the military sciences, an economist, a world class administrator, an accomplished public speaker, and a “man of the people” preferably with the Wisdom of Solomon. I also think it would help to have an extensive background in tightrope walking.

All the current candidates claim to have “experience” of course, although none of them have ever occupied the Oval Office, or faced the problems that come with the job. Instead we get some with experience in congress to one extent or another. A few have been the governors of their home states or big city mayors. Some have assorted corporate executive experience as well. One is even a medical doctor. Hillary is the only candidate that’s actually lived in the white house, but as “co-president” she seemed to spend most of her time firing the travel office people, and apologizing for Bill’s interest in interns and his difficulties in understanding the simpler words in the English language. None of the candidates are very charismatic, and for the most part are hardly known outside their home states. While I hear a lot of talk about how they’re going to do this, that, or the other thing, I don’t hear much about the important things, like how they plan to get all these bright ideas past congress and other special interest groups, nor of how they figure to finance things.

I found an interesting internet website that’s a computerized matrix combining the various candidates and their stance on the primary issues. It’s open to the public, wherein you can “vote” on how much you agree or disagree with the particular position of any candidate. On a scale of nine, with “one” being strongly agreed with, “five” being indifferent, and “nine” being strongly disagreed with, all the candidates were rated at a more or less “Blah” four, five, and six by the respondents, with some being only a bit more popular on certain issues than others. For viewers with a mathematical bent the voter statistics are given, but for the rest of us the results are color coded, with bright red being strongly disagree, and bright green being strongly agree. The five issues considered are; the economy, energy, health care, immigration, and the war in Iraq.

The condition of the national economy generates a lot of bright ideas and instant cures among the candidates, but the respondent rating is a more or less indifferent “five” in all cases. Energy independence seems to be about the same, with Bill Richardson’s ideas being the most popular at a three. The response to health care proposals is also rather indifferent, with Chris Dodd being the least popular by a very small margin. The immigration issue is much the same, with Ron Paul having by far the most popular stance at a resounding three, and Chris Dodd the least popular. Despite all the media coverage, the proposals for ending the war in Iraq can only be analyzed as varying levels of indifference! Here, Joe Biden and Ron Paul’s ideas are tied for being the most agreed with, and Tom Tancredo leads the pack in disagreement. Keeping in mind that the ratings change with every vote, Obama is the most popular Democrat at the time of this writing, and Ron Paul is the leading Republican. However, no candidate is yet a clear winner on any issue.

Perhaps these presidential hopefuls should start looking for a different set of issues to pillory their opponents with? How about things like the burgeoning bureaucracy, looming national bankruptcy, public education, tax reform, our worn out highways, and the rather run down condition of the military? Perhaps they could explain their position on homeland security, domestic spying, constitutional law, and our slowly disappearing Bill of Rights. Personally I’m very interested in what we’re going to do about manned space development as well, although I don’t hear much from any candidate on that subject.

All in all I guess the somewhat mediocre quality of the candidates we’ve been offered over the last few years is really a blessing in disguise. If we think about the congressional powers that have been meekly surrendered to the president, along with the powers of the Patriot Act and the long standing Executive Orders law, it’s not the least bit unimaginable that a strong and ambitious president could make himself dictator in short order. Nor is that unprecedented, remember that Adolf Hitler went from being the lawfully elected Chancellor of Weimar Germany to absolute dictator of the Third Reich, completely in accordance with existing German laws, and seemingly did it overnight.

As the great hot air machine on capitol hill seems to be little more than a debating society nowdays, perhaps our next President should make an issue of insisting Congress repeal some of those laws, and take back the authority granted them by our constitution.

Police State

“The Constitution of the United States was written by 55 men—and one ghost,” wrote military historian Dave R. Palmer. The nation’s Founders were quite well aware of Oliver Cromwell, who led the revolution that deposed King Charles I and established civil government in Great Britain. That democracy was short lived because when the newly formed Parliament refused to meet Cromwell’s demands, he used the army to seize power, establishing himself as Great Britain’s “Lord Protector.” To America’s Founding Fathers, the lesson was obvious: standing armies threaten liberty. Which explains why our Constitution divides control of the military between the executive and legislative branches of the government.

What America’s Founders did not foresee was the cold war era, where war could break out in a matter of moments, and widespread death and destruction was only a missile launch away. The war powers act was passed to allow the sitting president the authority to defend the nation (read “vaporize the Soviet Union”) in the event of a nuclear attack, where time would not allow Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. I suspect that if the cold war had turned hot, whatever was left of Congress, hunkered down in the national command bunker, would have been asked to issue a declaration of war, just to make things nice and legal of course. However, the War Powers Act was not intended to allow the President to indiscriminately start wars on his own. Just to confuse the issue even more, congress has not seen fit to rescind the war powers act in the seventeen years since the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today there’s even a movement afoot within the executive branch to militarize our borders, and to rescind the “Posse Comitatis” laws, which would give the president unlimited power to do anything he wants with the military, inside the United States.

In addition to handing their military authority over to the President, Congress also happily allows the president to control a small army of civilian police. The Secret Service, the National Park Police, the Transportation Security Administration, FBI, ATF, US Marshals Service, and dozens of other executive agencies act solely at the president’s behest and under his authority. It’s also been my understanding that the US Constitution does not give the federal government any law enforcement powers, instead leaving that authority with the Several States. The US Marshal Service was founded to police the vast western territories before they gained statehood. The FBI was only intended to be an investigative agency to assist the various state law enforcement organizations, and without any powers of arrest. The Secret Service was formed to chase down counterfeiters, not to protect the president! But instead of checking the expansion of executive police powers, members of Congress have virtually abandoned their oversight responsibilities, and allowed the president to become the virtual dictator of a shadowy Federal police state!

Although the growth of federal police powers began well before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the threat of terrorism is now used to justify their continued expansion. Restrictions on individual freedom are completely unchallenged as long as they are called “security measures.” After 9/11, the president closed the Statue of Liberty. Liberty Island has since reopened, but people can no longer go inside the statue to overlook New York City and the harbor. The statue that stands as a beacon of courage and freedom has now been closed off because of fear. Independence Hall in Philadelphia now resembles a heavily guarded prison facility. In Washington, D.C., entrances to public buildings are blocked by metal detectors and armed guards. Drivers near the Capitol can be randomly stopped by police on city streets and their cars searched by bomb sniffing dogs. Visiting museums requires waiting in long lines while backpacks and pocketbooks are searched. The Park Service has turned the Washington Monument into a surveillance tower, placing cameras on its observation deck that record activity on the National Mall and beyond. The Park Police fence off the National Mall before such events as the Fourth of July festivities and herd visitors in through checkpoints, which they no longer pretend are purely anti-terrorism measures. Park officials have admitted that they search picnic baskets and coolers for contraband, “alcoholic beverages, glass bottles, fireworks.”

In October 2001 Osama bin Laden boasted that terrorist attacks would achieve their purpose:
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The United States government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Life in the United States remains fairly good so far, and is a far cry from bin Laden’s “unbearable hell.” But some recent changes are rather worrying. Long lines, insistent searches, and odious identification requirements are becoming routine. Unwarranted intrusion and inconvenience are becoming the American way of life. To counter this insidious push for diminished liberty, we must examine the arguments behind it. The most common of course is that 9/11 “changed everything.” But life was also changed forever with the invention of gunpowder, aerial warfare, and of the atomic bomb. History is in large part the story of aggression, and restricting our freedoms certainly can’t stop that aggression.

Another argument used to justify excessive security at public landmarks is that police are merely “protecting the symbols of democracy.” But the symbol of democracy is an open society, not an ominous police presence. Terrorists have already hit our national monuments through the years, the difference being that after those earlier attacks, the government did not respond with hysteria. The war against terrorism is in large part a war against fear. To win this war, all Americans must accept the reality that our society will never be able to afford an environment that is totally free of risk from terrorist attacks. Nor would most Americans want to live with the restrictions that such a risk-free environment would demand. Then too, our nation’s leaders must be willing to demonstrate courage. Freedom prevailed in other times of national emergency only because our leaders did not succumb to fear. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated during the worst days of the Cold War, many in his administration feared his death was the start of a coup. If so, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson, would likely be the next target. Yet when Kennedy’s widow announced her intention to walk from the White House to her husband’s funeral, Johnson helped lead the procession that marched through the streets of downtown Washington rather than hiding out in the White House war room.

After winning rather vicious wars against the empires of Great Britain, Germany (twice), Japan, and the Soviet Union, will America now lose its freedom to a handful of religious zealots? “Terrorism succeeds,” said the late senator Patrick Moynihan, “when people become terrified.” Sadly, such success looms, unless America’s leaders begin defending our freedom and our Constitution, rather than giving in to their fears.

Climate Change

So far the presidential candidates haven’t had much to say about climate change or global warming. However, as the election draws nearer I’d expect to hear a lot of bright ideas about the subject, although I’m not real confident that they can pass an effective law against long hot summers. Oh well, somebody will try I’m sure.

The blame for the present global temperature rise is generally laid at the feet of western industrialized civilization and its genius for generating clouds of greenhouse gases that trap sunlight in the atmosphere. The world’s incessant demand for more and more energy has pressed us into consuming the fossil fuels that nature required millions of years to lay down, in little more than a hundred years. Consumption of these fuels, (oil, coal, and natural gas), primarily by burning them, releases a number of waste products that are popularly called “Greenhouse Gases”. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others), allow the suns visible and ultraviolet light to enter the atmosphere freely, but when sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat), acting as a balance to maintain a steady temperature. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. These gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, leaving a few scientists and many non-scientists believing this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases. People call this climate change “Global Warming.”

But another possible culprit is fast emerging. For centuries, scientists have known that the Sun is less steady than sunbathing and casual observation suggest. It has seasons and storms and rhythms of activity, its sunspots and flares appearing in cycles roughly 11 years long. But only in the last decade or so have these and other solar variations begun to be tied to climate shifts on Earth -- first tenuously, and more solidly of late. Today, a growing number of scientists contend that the Sun's fickleness might rival human pollution as a factor in climatic change. And some research, though sketchy and much debated, suggests that the Sun's variability could account for virtually all of the global warming measured to date. Others dismiss the possibility of such an influence, even while they agree the solar factor should be studied more thoroughly.

Global warming skeptics freely admit that earth’s climate is changing for one reason or another. However, they also challenge many of the claims that it is solely due to the activities of humankind over the last 150 years, stating that those claims are based on “junk science” and are heavily biased in favor of the desired results. Junk science can often be detected when the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. Then we have the politicization of science, which occurs when government, big business, or special interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which might differ from their prefered viewpoint, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Please note that these special interest groups can range from the local power company to the Serria Club.

Fears are that if humans keep producing such gases at increasing rates, the results will be negative in nature, causing severe changes in the Earths climate. It’s claimed by alarmists that these changes to the environment will most likely cause negative effects on society, such as a lower level of general health and decreasing economic development. At the same time, we have climate records that indicate we’re presently coming out of a mini ice-age, and that the Earths “normal” temperature is several degrees higher than we see at present. During the time of the dinosaurs the global mean temperature was approximately 35* F higher than today, with the tropics extending nearly to the current polar regions!

The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement, despite the fact that they emit even more greenhouse gases than the United States. Essentially, the Kyoto agreement severely penalizes the western nations, while doing nothing about the rapidly increasing emissions from industries of the developing countries. Under Kyoto, China is free to continue producing unlimited greenhouse gases even though it has recently become the world’s single largest producer.

While the environmentalists weep and wail about the soon to be announced total collapse of nature (for which Al Gore will probably win another Oscar), many countries and much of the multi-national corporate world are making money hand over fist buying, selling, and trading “carbon credits” issued under the aegis of the Kyoto protocol. These credits are issued for not producing greenhouse gases. Al Gore castigates President Bush for not signing the Kyoto agreement even while visiting his Hollywierd friends in a gas guzzling, smog generating SUV. Environmental activists collect outrageous speaking fees for telling the rest of the world how environmentally insensitive Americans are. The Sierra Club leaders fly around in private jets while drawing six figure salaries from their membership for “directing” the clean air and water drive. The rest of us are supposed to pay for everything while living a stone-age, non-technical existence I guess.

Dunno about anybody else in this neck of the woods, but my poor old aching joints definitely support global warming!

Issues

With the presidential election fast approaching, the politicians are all making fine sounding pronouncements of what legislation they hope to pass, and of what they’ll accomplish once in office. Some of these things they could actually do, if they can get a majority of congressmen to agree with their ideas, and if they can find the funding. A lot of the things they promise, they simply can’t do, for any number of perfectly sound reasons.

The war in Iraq appears to be a leading bone of contention, with the Democrats generally wanting to pull out, and the Republicans generally figuring to stay the course. Personally I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, as we had to many other and less combative ways and means of eliminating Hussein as a power in the mid-east. But the fact remains, we did invade, we did eliminate the existing power structure, American air strikes certainly didn’t do the Iraqi infrastructure any good, economic sanctions did more harm to the Iraqi people than to the regime, and now we more or less demand that they form a democratic government that meets with our approval. We’ve made ourselves responsible for the present mess, and like it of not, we’re morally responsible for cleaning things up. Then to, if the United States abruptly walks away from Iraq, we’d be leaving a power vacuum and a full blown civil war in our wake, one that can only be advantageous to our real enemy, fundamentalist Islam. Consider also, if we walk, there’s no reason for any of the mid-eastern peoples or governments to ever again trust the United States, or believe anything we say. We’d have the same sort of situation that followed our surrender in Vietnam, where our friends of 1970 were left in the lurch, and they certainly don’t trust our word very far today.

Another favored talking point concerns taxes. Like most Americans I’d surely like to see a massive tax cut as proposed by many of the republican candidates. But that isn’t going to do this country any good at all! We don’t need the tax increase and massive expenditures proposed by a number of democratic candidates either. What I’d propose is that we leave the taxes at about the current level, make the tax system more equitable for all of us, and devise a massive cut in expenditures. With that, we could use the surplus to pay down the debt, and edge away from a looming national bankruptcy. Despite the claims of Wall Street financial gurus, it’s not the job of the US government (or American taxpayers) to keep their stockholders rolling in dough! What do they expect the government to do when the treasury runs dry, or the taxpayers run out of patience, start selling the rest of us into slavery!? The stock market is where you put some of the extra cash you’ve got on hand and don’t know what else to do with. It’s not supposed to be a national gambling casino in which you bet your life savings so that some business executive can make an obscene salary, leaving the US taxpayer to pick up the tab when things go sour!

Yet another point of contention is national security, mostly the arguments over the department of homeland security. Some people want to completely eliminate the whole thing, while others want to massively expand the department and its powers. I for one fail to understand just why we need such a department in the first place, unless it’s to provide work for a lot of unemployed paper shufflers. I’d think the federal money being tossed at homeland security would be much better spent in securing our borders, and perhaps helping the Canadians secure theirs as well. Instead, the government has pretty well managed to ignore the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rapidly turning us into a police state, while managing to antagonize a lot of formerly friendly countries with a flurry of senseless rules and regulations about passports, secure identification cards, and air travel. Our borders are effectively wide open as is demonstrated by the continuing flood of illegal immigrants. Our ports certainly aren’t secure despite all the promises from Washington. What I understand is called “airline security” consists of a bunch of people confiscating nail clippers and bottled water, while looking for hidden facial expressions. Profiling is out of the question for political reasons, despite the terrorist threat coming from a known and specific group of people. Instead of looking at wild-eyed Arabic types, we have a no-fly list of “terrorist suspects” that might have been randomly selected from the local phone book!

The government has created yet another layer of supervision for the various intelligence agencies, with of course yet another hidden budget. I find it quite strange that we need a new agency to do exactly the job that the CIA was created to do back in the 1940’s, that of overseeing all US intelligence efforts! For decades the government has ignored the interagency turf wars in the intelligence community, and has not supported the CIA mandate in doing its job. Instead, the agency takes the rap whenever we have a perceived intelligence failure, no matter which agency originated the problem. How about we eliminate this “Intelligence Czar” position (and the entire office), and just enforce the rules allowing the CIA to do what it’s supposed to be doing?

The last newsletter I received from Sen. Larry Craig gave the results of a straw poll conducted among Idahoans, indicating what subjects they felt were most important, and should have a high priority in being addressed by Congress. 31.6% felt that immigration was the most important subject, closely followed by the war in Iraq with 28.0%. 9.5% felt that the economy should receive immediate attention, 6.9% were greatly concerned with health care, and only 4.8% indicated that national security was of major importance. Following the top five, only 4.4% of the respondents were worried about Congressional ethics.

Strangely enough, I would think that ethics and morality, not just in congress either, would be considered a very important subject by most Americans. After all, the folks we elect to various government offices are representing us before the entire world. These people hold the reputation of our nation, the well being of our citizens, indeed our very lives, in their hands! The President of the United States, with his red and gold phones, controls more naked power than any other man in the history of the world. I for one certainly don’t wish to have my life decided by anyone who would sell my future (such as it is), to the highest bidder! Public office is far to important to be decided by voters considering little more than physical appearances and trivial personalities. I’d much rather have a crotchety guy like Harry Truman in the white house, than another photogenic Slick Willie Clinton! There isn’t a one of the leading candidates today, of either party, that I’d trust to take out the trash, much less lead this country in what’s proving to be a very dangerous 21st century!

Perhaps the voters should do some really serious thinking about the issues and the candidates, before the 2008 election rolls around.

Candidates

Since I started writing this column I’ve had several “discussions” with a couple of aquaintenances over my perceived misuse of the words “Liberal” and “Conservative” when referring to the political left and right, or rather to Republicans and Democrats. In the interest of keeping open warfare to a minimum, I did an internet search for the definitions of these two words. So, with my apologies to the original writer, I’ll present a rather abbreviated version…

Liberal; the dictionary definition of “liberal” is now almost exclusively used to mean someone from the political left, or simply a synonym for a Democrat. As such, “liberal” has undergone an about-face from someone who is open-minded and non-traditional to someone who seeks to maintain the status quo in the face of efforts to undo the program of past liberals. In addition, the word “liberal” has acquired a negative connotation as spend-thrifts of government money.

Conservative; an old-style conservative was one who is skeptical of change, and who prefers a “go slow” approach to change. “Conservative” is now simply used to mean someone from the right, or simply a synonym for a Republican. As such, “conservative” has become one who demands change from current forms or ways, toward a set of restrictive social mores coupled with an economic program designed to strengthen the current class system and maintain the power of the existing ruling classes.

(Honest, that’s what it said in the book!) As a long time Independent I can’t say that either description really fits my attitude towards our political system. I rather think I could best be described as on “old style” conservative that thinks we need to do a lot of study on whatever subject before we start changing things around.

I’ve also been following the seemingly endless rhetoric of the current crop of presidential hopefuls with a lot of misgiving. We should or we should not withdraw from Iraq. We should or we should not come up with a nationalized health care plan. We should or we should not allow abortion. Private schooling is/is not a good idea. We need more/less government surveillance. We need a bigger/smaller government. Do we increase taxes, or reduce them? Sheesh, it’s enough to drive a normal person crazy trying to keep track of all the options we’re being offered! We’ve got Republicans, Democrats, Moderates, Independents, “Greens”, Constitutionalists, Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, several groups of Theocrats, Isolationists, States Rightists, a Neo-Nazi or two, Anarchists, wannabe Communists, “Know Nothings”, and a bunch of folks I don’t know how to describe, all running for President, and of course they’ve all got their own bright ideas. There’s at least one young feller out there in internet land that thinks the United States should adopt the diplomatic policies of Attila the Hun! In my case I can scream, preach, and do all the finger pointing I want, because I have no intention of ever running for President, or even dogcatcher for that mater. But if we suddenly find the need of a “Dictator for Life”, I could be talked into accepting the job…

One thing most Americans fail to understand is that government is a self perpetuating industry these days. It is not in the best interest of government or government employees to be limited in size, or to have its income (taxes) reduced or restricted by statute. Governmental authority is usually considered to be the right to collect taxes, enforce obedience, and delegate power or influence, based on control of the police and army. (If anyone other than the government tried to do that, it would be called extortion, and they’d justifiably spend quite some time in the hoosegow.) We all realize of course that we don’t operate our “government” in quite that manner here in the United States. Instead, every four years we vote for whatever individual we want to have controlling the police and army, so they can collect taxes, enforce authority, etc. etc.

The problem is in deciding whom, of all the people making campaign promises they have no intention of keeping, do we vote for? Most Americans solve that problem by watching TV, and selecting the candidate they think the most handsome, or the better public speaker, or perhaps whoever makes the most outrageous promises. But we also forget is that insincerity is hard to detect on television or even in the printed media. Sound bites and shallow reporting see to that. Our two-party system further complicates the issue by severely limiting our choices to the people selected by vested interests, with the alternative being the assorted fringe elements.

I used to think the European political scene was a confusing madhouse until I started looking at the fringes of American politics. For the moment I’ll define “fringes” as anything that isn’t an integral part of what is commonly considered Republican/Democratic “mainstream” politics. I understand that there are more than 200 distinct political parties or movements active in the United States today, each with their own political agenda, and each with somebody that wants to be president, which gives us a lot of fringe movements!

The political fringes seem to be populated by any number of lunatics at first glance. But the further you look into them, there are a few people out there with some pretty good ideas, at least from my viewpoint. Some of those fringes actually think we need a smaller government and lower taxes! Some of those crazies actually oppose the growing “big brother” state with its endless surveillance of the citizenry! Some even oppose the “Nanny State” so beloved of the mainstream left! If you stop and think about it for a moment, what’s so “fringe” about thinking that our government is supposed to be a constitutional republic with limited powers, instead of a welfare state democracy, or a “safe and secure” police state?

Ron Paul of Texas, and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, appear to be two of those “fringe” politicians standing in opposition to whatever it is that mainstream politicians have in mind for the future of our country. Ron Paul seems to think we need a smaller government and lower taxes, less government surveillance, and that we should pull in our horns and tend to our own knitting for a change. Tom Tancredo opposes our “open borders” policy, unlimited federal spending, and activist judges. I rather think that both of these guys are worthy of a long look before they’re dismissed as crazies without a chance of winning.

After all, Ross Perot was considered a crazy fringe politician by the mainstream, but American voters thought he was serious enough that he wound up with 19% of the popular vote. How many more didn’t vote for him, but later wished they had?

Vandals at the Wall

The Vandals are upon us again, and I don’t mean the athletes from Moscow either. Real ones this time, honest to Gawd barbarians that have no respect for other people, civilized behavior, or much of anything else except their own personal desires. They can’t yowl loud enough to become rock music stars, they’re not pretty enough to be movie stars, and they aren’t smart enough to be crooked politicians. So instead, they find other means to draw attention to themselves, in this case defacing public memorials.

Friday, the 7th of September, a “light, oily substance” was splattered on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall panels and paving stones in an act of vandalism. The vandals appear to have walked along the wall while squirting an oil based substance on the lower sections of the panels. The liquid discolored the polished surface of the stone memorial and was absorbed into the porous parts of the stone where the names of our fallen warriors are etched into the stone. Many names have become unreadable due to the absorption of the fluid.

At the same time, Washington was deeply involved with the reports by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, which the Democratic leadership had already condemned as more “Bush lies” well before anything was said. At the same time, ANSWER and a number of other anti-war groups including moveon.org were planning massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, events that seem entirely too coincidental to assume that Friday’s discovery was an act of vandalism unconnected with the demonstrations. Jan Scruggs, who is the founder and president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund said that there is a belief that the recent vandalism was motivated by "MoveOn.org type of people" but he hopes that no one is accusing them at this point. “I just can’t image that this was an organized activity or a conspiracy involving more than one deranged person, or that anyone would have done this to score political points for their cause -- it would have just the opposite effect.”

Col. Harry G. Riley (US Army, Ret.) who is heading up the “Eagles” veterans group said that “When you see there is some type of a substance on the wall down and on the base for 50 to 60 feet, its pretty hard for me to rationalize how that could be anything other than purposeful…” “Who ever did this, if they were trying to enrage the Vietnam Veterans, they did.” In response some veterans groups planned to parallel the anti-war demonstrations with lines of volunteers blocking access to the Vietnam Wall and other memorials they believe may be targeted for defacement. Col. Riley’s right you know, this wanton act of vandalism has certainly infuriated this Vietnam vet, and not in a manner that would meet with the approval of the anti-war crowd!

The week of anti-war events is intended to trigger a nationwide demonstration against the war in Iraq, and is set to begin Saturday with a 1,000-person “die-in” at the U.S. Capitol. The die-in is planned to be the high point of a march and rally. Organizers hope the event will spur people in the antiwar movement to move from protesting to performing acts of civil disobedience that “get in the way of the war machine”. For some reason this is beginning to smell like the mess we found ourselves facing in the 1960’s, where sensless rioting and wanton destruction became a common fact of American life.

Certainly anti-war protests are nothing new in American history, with some protests becoming rather bloody riots in both New York and Baltimore during our Civil War. Unlike places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Red China, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, protesting is the right of all American citizens. However, I see a distinct difference between protesting the war in Iraq, and purely destructive vandalism!

That someone would deface this place is beyond me. They dishonor the dead, they dishonor those that came home, having left too many of their friends-not to mention part of themselves-somewhere in Vietnam. They also dishonor the families of the dead. For what? So they could make some sort of juvenile statement? Whatever statement they were trying to make was made in cowardice. While I despise those idiots who took it upon themselves to make asses of themselves during the Congressional Testimonies, at least they had the nerve to do so in public and risk arrest. The slime that defaced the wall made their statement in fear, and in a city full of monuments with which to make a bad decision, they made the worst decision possible. That place is hallowed ground to so many. Many more will now come to defend it, because it is as much theirs as it is anyone else’s. My advice to the anti war crowd: Stay away from The Wall. It may belong to all of us, but trust me when I tell you that right now, you will not be welcome there. You will now be met by a group of people that will be justifiably angry.

So far I’ve been fairly quiet about this savage act because I haven’t been able to say anything that wouldn’t be considered a criminal act, to whit, advocating vigilanty justice. To say that I am mad as hell doesn’t even begin to explain the rage that I feel about this. I’ll join my voice with many veterans in saying that those who defaced the wall should be hunted down, drawn and quartered. Their heads should be posted on pikes on one side of the wall, and the rest of them scattered to the four corners of America as a warning to others who would do the same. There is no reasoning with the kind of people who deface war memorials to further their warped cause; they can only be likened to insane people who are possessed by a rage that knows no bounds. It takes a really sick individual with no moral conscience whatsoever to violate the rights of the dead.

The young men and women whose names cover the wall gave their lives for their country in Vietnam. They did not run away from their obligations as American citizens, they did not hide behind some conveniently assumed morality, they did not mindlessly parrot the lies of those who would destroy this nation. Those young people didn’t start the war in Vietnam, many didn’t agree with that war, and certainly they weren’t here to start the war in Iraq. They were simply young Americans, who, as American soldiers have throughout our history and in accordance with our law, went where their country sent them… and there - like the three hundred Spartans - they died, doing their duty.