Taking into consideration the public opinion reports, the results in the recent state elections and the general reporting, one could easily presage big trouble for the GOP in the 2006 mid-term elections. Not as well covered by the press are the equally abysmal polling results for the Democrats. Despite the ebbing enthusiasm for Bush II, the Democrats are hard press to convince the public that they are any better. If there is any conclusion to be drawn, it is that a "plague on both houses" is the prevailing sentiment. This suggest little chance of a Democrat bust out in the by elections.
While the press made much of President Bush losing two state governorships, it failed to adequately point out the fact that both seats belonged to Democrat incumbents – and New Jersey was a long shot going in. There is not a lot to suggest that the voters were swinging away from the GOP.
The upcoming election season of 2006 may not be all that great for the GOP, but we should not place too much to emphasis on current issues. Historic trends must first be considered. If the GOP loses in 2006 far exceed "normal" off year outcomes, THEN we can begin to look at true voter shifts.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
REACT: She's baaaaaack.
The good thing about Hurricane Katrina, it seemed to have knocked Cindy Sheehan off the media "must publicize" list. But, just when I was putting her non-presence on my Thanksgiving list, she re-emerged as the biggest turkey of the day. She is back in Crawford, Texas hoping to spoil President Bush's holiday dinner.
I like what George Will had to say about her. He opined that she is a Republican plant, designed to make the anti war claque look both nasty and stupid. Those were not exactly his words, but the point was made.
Outside of the media desire to bring down the President, one is hard pressed to see the news value in her crusade. Despite her national exposure and photo ops with the likes of Jesse Jackson, she is hardly able to muster enough protestors to sell out a small town high school play. Let's face it. For all the media hype it receives, the anti war movement is pathetic --- even more so BECAUSE of all the media hype. Without the benefit of much press attention, an old geezer like Billy Graham can fill a coliseum just by promising to show up.
With web sites, book deals and even talk of a movie, the mournful Cindy is the Martha
Stewart of the disloyal opposition. She even got herself arrested, too. A badge of honor to the strident left.
Like the ant at a picnic, Sheehan does not amount to much in reality, but there is an annoying pestiness about her. For me, she has one redeeming value, however. She serves as a convincing example of the liberal bias of the major news media.
I like what George Will had to say about her. He opined that she is a Republican plant, designed to make the anti war claque look both nasty and stupid. Those were not exactly his words, but the point was made.
Outside of the media desire to bring down the President, one is hard pressed to see the news value in her crusade. Despite her national exposure and photo ops with the likes of Jesse Jackson, she is hardly able to muster enough protestors to sell out a small town high school play. Let's face it. For all the media hype it receives, the anti war movement is pathetic --- even more so BECAUSE of all the media hype. Without the benefit of much press attention, an old geezer like Billy Graham can fill a coliseum just by promising to show up.
With web sites, book deals and even talk of a movie, the mournful Cindy is the Martha
Stewart of the disloyal opposition. She even got herself arrested, too. A badge of honor to the strident left.
Like the ant at a picnic, Sheehan does not amount to much in reality, but there is an annoying pestiness about her. For me, she has one redeeming value, however. She serves as a convincing example of the liberal bias of the major news media.
SIDEBAR: Political stridency (case in point #2)
Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion.
The most recent incident of right wing political stridency run amok (previous blog item) reminded me of another incident ... or maybe several more incidences … of the damage done to good old conservatism by the extremists in our own house.
As most every knows, I am a very hard-line pro-lifer. That did not prevent me from being attacked by one of the religious vigilantes.
Several years ago, I was leading a fight to reopen Chicago's lakefront Meigs airport after Mayor Richard Daley shut it down and painted an "X" on the runway. The effort to reopen was successful, much to the chagrin of the mayor. So, five years later, Hizzoner bulldozed the runway like a vandal in the middle of the night. But, that is another story.
During the earlier battle, I received an irate call from what I had always perceived to be a pro-life friend. He screamed into the phone, threatening to never associate with me or my activities again. (Listening to him at the moment, I considered that a blessing). In fact, I have not seen nor heard from him since (definitely a blessing).
One prominent personality in my Save Meigs coalition was Richard Phelan, fromer president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Despite his Catholic upbringing, and the plea of his fellow communicants, Phelan personally ordered the restoration of abortions at the county hospital. Needless to say, I was among those who thought excommunication was not inappropriate. However, those were the days of Cardinal Bernadine, who was more interested in his civic public relations than Catholic doctrine.
I explained to the caller that Phelan was the attorney for a group of pilots how had sued the mayor over the issue. But, that was not a suitable response. Having my airport cause supported by Phelan was unacceptable, period. It apparently was my obligation to myopically confront the former board president in the most hostile manner at each and every opportunity. For the caller, society had only one issue.
Finally, in frustration, I told the caller that if he could bring evidence that they were performing abortions at Meigs airport, I would cease my campaign to have it reopened, and disassociate myself from the scorned Mr. Phelan.
As a postscript, I should add that the caller was not one of the highly visible anti-abortion activists, but a ubiquitous fellow traveler. Never the guy on the podium, but the one always yelling from the rear of the room. You know the type, I am sure.
The most recent incident of right wing political stridency run amok (previous blog item) reminded me of another incident ... or maybe several more incidences … of the damage done to good old conservatism by the extremists in our own house.
As most every knows, I am a very hard-line pro-lifer. That did not prevent me from being attacked by one of the religious vigilantes.
Several years ago, I was leading a fight to reopen Chicago's lakefront Meigs airport after Mayor Richard Daley shut it down and painted an "X" on the runway. The effort to reopen was successful, much to the chagrin of the mayor. So, five years later, Hizzoner bulldozed the runway like a vandal in the middle of the night. But, that is another story.
During the earlier battle, I received an irate call from what I had always perceived to be a pro-life friend. He screamed into the phone, threatening to never associate with me or my activities again. (Listening to him at the moment, I considered that a blessing). In fact, I have not seen nor heard from him since (definitely a blessing).
One prominent personality in my Save Meigs coalition was Richard Phelan, fromer president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Despite his Catholic upbringing, and the plea of his fellow communicants, Phelan personally ordered the restoration of abortions at the county hospital. Needless to say, I was among those who thought excommunication was not inappropriate. However, those were the days of Cardinal Bernadine, who was more interested in his civic public relations than Catholic doctrine.
I explained to the caller that Phelan was the attorney for a group of pilots how had sued the mayor over the issue. But, that was not a suitable response. Having my airport cause supported by Phelan was unacceptable, period. It apparently was my obligation to myopically confront the former board president in the most hostile manner at each and every opportunity. For the caller, society had only one issue.
Finally, in frustration, I told the caller that if he could bring evidence that they were performing abortions at Meigs airport, I would cease my campaign to have it reopened, and disassociate myself from the scorned Mr. Phelan.
As a postscript, I should add that the caller was not one of the highly visible anti-abortion activists, but a ubiquitous fellow traveler. Never the guy on the podium, but the one always yelling from the rear of the room. You know the type, I am sure.
Friday, November 25, 2005
SIDEBAR: Political stridency (case in point #1)
Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion. Don’t you just want to slap a friend around when they go stupid on you.
I was recently dressed down by a conservative colleague for my friendship with President Clinton’s former Democrat National Chairman David Wilhelm. My compliment of Wilhelm brought on a venomous attack from the erstwhile ally, a guy who does not know David at all. The irrational hatred of the former President, and the relationship between him and David, was enough to not only personally slander my friend from the other side of the aisle, but to suggest my own disloyalty to the cause for merely associating with the guy --- and even worse, liking him personally. My sin was nothing more than the temerity of saying something truthfully nice about a person on the strident right hate list – or in this case an associate of a person on the strident right hate list. I could not have been more berated if I had complimented Hitler on population planning at a Bnia Brith meeting.
Let me first clear the record. I think Bill Clinton was a morally and ethically challenged, to say the least. His only chance at a legacy is to become the First Hubby of the first woman President. There is no doubt he tarnished the very important moral authority of the White House. His foreign policy was a disaster, and he produced no great memorable programs. Clinton is doomed to be remembered in history more for his erection than his election.
He had three saving graces, however. First: He is what you might call a “charming rogue,” and we tend to like charming rogues. I always figured if Hillary did not kick him out of HER house, no reason for the country to kick him out of the White House. Perhaps that sounds heretical to my blood thirsty brethren. But as a devoted conservative, I think removal from office should be reserved only for the most heinous acts. Bad character and lying are not sufficient. I mean, how many could survive in office against such a standard? I do favor a recall method, however, since it is the people who decide, not the politicians. Then the standard of removal is no higher than public opinion as reflected in the voting booth – as was the case in California.
Second: Clinton was confronted by an overly exuberant GOP, looking less like savvy politicos and more like prune-lipped school marms. The fact that Clinton was not removed from office was more the fault of the Republican lynch mob perception than grassroots support for the Prez. Please understand, I think the impeachment was well deserved for his perjury, if not for his oval office cigar habit. The problem was the removal from office. That is where the GOP and the public departed.
(I had occasion to offer solicited advice to the House Judiciary Committee at the time. I suggested that the House and Senate GOP announce UPFRONT that they did not intend to remove Clinton, but only would impeach him as an appropriate black mark on his already questionable legacy. Without fear of removal, the public would have clamored for the impeachment. I would have removed the Dems most popular argument. Under such a scenario, I think the courts may well have gone beyond pulling Clinton’s law license and really indicted him on the perjury charge – resulting in a possible post-term conviction. But alas, my free advice was given equal value)
Third: If we conservative can get past the personal animus, we have to admit that Clinton governed more to the center than the left, except for a few egregious, and (mercifully) failed, programs pushed by the browbeater-in-chief, Lady Hillary. He did a few things we right wingers could even applaud. The manifest disappointment of the left should be our gauge on those issues.
For the most part, however, I was outspoken critic of Bill Clinton, as a President and as a person. So, what does all that have to do with David Wilhelm. That is the point. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Let me say that David is most certainly a Democrat partisan – even more than I am Republican. He and I can look at the same clock and not agree on the time of day, at least on most issues. On the other hand, David is one of the most descent human beings I have known – especially in politics. He is respectful of other opinions. A surprisingly mild and soft spoken guy. He has a heart of gold. I knew him before he was THAT David Wilhelm … and after. The experience did not corrupt him – literally or figuratively.
It bothers me that so many people see politics as a blood sport. Modern times seem to require the casting of every person into the friend or enemy camp. There are no subtleties, no nuances. You are saintly or evil. In fact, hardly anyone fits into those categories. Most people are a blend of good and evil, right and wrong – even the person you see in the morning mirror.
You may have noticed, I referred to my attacker as an “associate” and David as a “friend.” That was no accident. I much prefer the company of a good person with whom I have broad policy disagreements (and great debates) over that of a hateful ally. So the next time you may spot me having diner in a restaurant, the person across the table is more likely to be David Wilhelm than that other guy.
I was recently dressed down by a conservative colleague for my friendship with President Clinton’s former Democrat National Chairman David Wilhelm. My compliment of Wilhelm brought on a venomous attack from the erstwhile ally, a guy who does not know David at all. The irrational hatred of the former President, and the relationship between him and David, was enough to not only personally slander my friend from the other side of the aisle, but to suggest my own disloyalty to the cause for merely associating with the guy --- and even worse, liking him personally. My sin was nothing more than the temerity of saying something truthfully nice about a person on the strident right hate list – or in this case an associate of a person on the strident right hate list. I could not have been more berated if I had complimented Hitler on population planning at a Bnia Brith meeting.
Let me first clear the record. I think Bill Clinton was a morally and ethically challenged, to say the least. His only chance at a legacy is to become the First Hubby of the first woman President. There is no doubt he tarnished the very important moral authority of the White House. His foreign policy was a disaster, and he produced no great memorable programs. Clinton is doomed to be remembered in history more for his erection than his election.
He had three saving graces, however. First: He is what you might call a “charming rogue,” and we tend to like charming rogues. I always figured if Hillary did not kick him out of HER house, no reason for the country to kick him out of the White House. Perhaps that sounds heretical to my blood thirsty brethren. But as a devoted conservative, I think removal from office should be reserved only for the most heinous acts. Bad character and lying are not sufficient. I mean, how many could survive in office against such a standard? I do favor a recall method, however, since it is the people who decide, not the politicians. Then the standard of removal is no higher than public opinion as reflected in the voting booth – as was the case in California.
Second: Clinton was confronted by an overly exuberant GOP, looking less like savvy politicos and more like prune-lipped school marms. The fact that Clinton was not removed from office was more the fault of the Republican lynch mob perception than grassroots support for the Prez. Please understand, I think the impeachment was well deserved for his perjury, if not for his oval office cigar habit. The problem was the removal from office. That is where the GOP and the public departed.
(I had occasion to offer solicited advice to the House Judiciary Committee at the time. I suggested that the House and Senate GOP announce UPFRONT that they did not intend to remove Clinton, but only would impeach him as an appropriate black mark on his already questionable legacy. Without fear of removal, the public would have clamored for the impeachment. I would have removed the Dems most popular argument. Under such a scenario, I think the courts may well have gone beyond pulling Clinton’s law license and really indicted him on the perjury charge – resulting in a possible post-term conviction. But alas, my free advice was given equal value)
Third: If we conservative can get past the personal animus, we have to admit that Clinton governed more to the center than the left, except for a few egregious, and (mercifully) failed, programs pushed by the browbeater-in-chief, Lady Hillary. He did a few things we right wingers could even applaud. The manifest disappointment of the left should be our gauge on those issues.
For the most part, however, I was outspoken critic of Bill Clinton, as a President and as a person. So, what does all that have to do with David Wilhelm. That is the point. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Let me say that David is most certainly a Democrat partisan – even more than I am Republican. He and I can look at the same clock and not agree on the time of day, at least on most issues. On the other hand, David is one of the most descent human beings I have known – especially in politics. He is respectful of other opinions. A surprisingly mild and soft spoken guy. He has a heart of gold. I knew him before he was THAT David Wilhelm … and after. The experience did not corrupt him – literally or figuratively.
It bothers me that so many people see politics as a blood sport. Modern times seem to require the casting of every person into the friend or enemy camp. There are no subtleties, no nuances. You are saintly or evil. In fact, hardly anyone fits into those categories. Most people are a blend of good and evil, right and wrong – even the person you see in the morning mirror.
You may have noticed, I referred to my attacker as an “associate” and David as a “friend.” That was no accident. I much prefer the company of a good person with whom I have broad policy disagreements (and great debates) over that of a hateful ally. So the next time you may spot me having diner in a restaurant, the person across the table is more likely to be David Wilhelm than that other guy.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
OP ED: Governor Ryan: The $10 million baby.
Illinois Governor George Ryan and his crew were bully politicians with a well known penchant for ruthlessly destroying the lives of the disfavored, while shamelessly enriching the lives of a rather sleazy band of insiders. Their lack of principle, absence of ethics and contempt for the public good have been established beyond any question. The only issue to be resolved is if their skullduggery rose to the level of punishable crime. In some cases, even that has been proven.
Now, we come to learn that this once powerful ne’er-do-good enjoys the pro bono (for the “public good?”) services of a major law firm at the expense of the partner’s profits, and the many clients who will have to make up some of the loss. Ryan already has consumed more than $10 million dollars in free legal services from Winston and Strawn, and the final figure is expected to be double that – not including appeals, if he is convicted. In the meantime, a lot of honorable citizens of modest means and minimal clout will find it impossible to be represented by lawyers willing to do pro bono work on their behalf.
Ryan’s attorney thinks the jury should know of his law firm's generosity, least they think the former governor has a stash of cash. The Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer wisely suggests that to give that information to the jury is to beg the question, “why?” Good question.
It will be interesting to see if the Internal Revenue Service also will give the former governor a financial gift by not seeking the taxes due on the Winston and Strawn donation of services. For commoners, the provision of such services is a taxable event. But, that is another potential news story. But, maybe the press will also give Ryan the professional courtesy of not inquiring. No end to the potential gift list.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Clause – even for naughty old men.
Now, we come to learn that this once powerful ne’er-do-good enjoys the pro bono (for the “public good?”) services of a major law firm at the expense of the partner’s profits, and the many clients who will have to make up some of the loss. Ryan already has consumed more than $10 million dollars in free legal services from Winston and Strawn, and the final figure is expected to be double that – not including appeals, if he is convicted. In the meantime, a lot of honorable citizens of modest means and minimal clout will find it impossible to be represented by lawyers willing to do pro bono work on their behalf.
Ryan’s attorney thinks the jury should know of his law firm's generosity, least they think the former governor has a stash of cash. The Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer wisely suggests that to give that information to the jury is to beg the question, “why?” Good question.
It will be interesting to see if the Internal Revenue Service also will give the former governor a financial gift by not seeking the taxes due on the Winston and Strawn donation of services. For commoners, the provision of such services is a taxable event. But, that is another potential news story. But, maybe the press will also give Ryan the professional courtesy of not inquiring. No end to the potential gift list.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Clause – even for naughty old men.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
OP ED: Liberals about to lose in court.
Despite right-wing panic, George Bush knew he had nominated a solid conservative in Harriet Meirs. It did not play out that way. The lack of judicial record and experience that was believed to be a benefit backfired into a disadvantage. Instead of befuddling the opposition of both philosophic wings, it united them in fear – each thinking she would sell out to the other.
Not willing to make that mistake again, the President chose the only kind of candidate he will nominate, a strict constructionist conservative pro-lifer – currently Samuel Alito. Unless the Democrats are willing to block every Supreme Court nominee for the next three years, they have no chance of a pro-abortion justice. The Senate minority is disingenuous in saying there should be no “litmus test” while placing an absolute prerequisite on the question of one specific decision.
The battle may be long and ugly. The pledge not to filibuster is likely to be broken by desperate Democrats, and the Senate may have to change the filibuster rule to re-establish the simple majority “consent” envisioned by the founders (not a bad reform in its own right). The current Democrat position is nothing less than minority dictatorship – attempting to force the nomination of THEIR candidate by obscene obstructionism and character assassination.
Despite short term desperation tactics, the Court will soon shift decidedly to the right. The liberal allusion to “balance” is a public fraud – an arrogant euphemism for liberal dominance. The Supreme Court has nine members so that there is never a “balance” on any issue. The Court is not in balance today, it is a precariously liberal court about to become a conspicuously conservative Court – and the ramifications go well beyond the issue of abortion.
Though seemingly unrecognized, or openly confessed, abortion is not a winning issue for liberals. Most Americans disapprove of abortions, as a practice. Most Americans disfavor various extreme forms of legal abortions. Under the new court, the practice will not be extended. Via various legal challenges, it is more likely that the most egregious and unpopular abortion practices and laws will be trimmed, to say the least.
After time and legal evolution, it is even likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a restoration of moral underpinning (as it should be). One hundred and fifty years ago, the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court declared that blacks had no rights as citizens. The Dred Scott decision was eventually overturned by moral enlightenment – and Republican appointments to the Court.
Even the overturning of Roe v. Wade will not ban abortions, as fear-mongering liberals peddle the argument. It simply de-federalizes the issue, leaving the states in the business of setting legal standards based on local values. If abortion is so popular with the masses, one presumes that states would legalize the procedure. Of course, if I were a pro-abortion liberal, I would not presume the assumption … nor the outcome.
Not willing to make that mistake again, the President chose the only kind of candidate he will nominate, a strict constructionist conservative pro-lifer – currently Samuel Alito. Unless the Democrats are willing to block every Supreme Court nominee for the next three years, they have no chance of a pro-abortion justice. The Senate minority is disingenuous in saying there should be no “litmus test” while placing an absolute prerequisite on the question of one specific decision.
The battle may be long and ugly. The pledge not to filibuster is likely to be broken by desperate Democrats, and the Senate may have to change the filibuster rule to re-establish the simple majority “consent” envisioned by the founders (not a bad reform in its own right). The current Democrat position is nothing less than minority dictatorship – attempting to force the nomination of THEIR candidate by obscene obstructionism and character assassination.
Despite short term desperation tactics, the Court will soon shift decidedly to the right. The liberal allusion to “balance” is a public fraud – an arrogant euphemism for liberal dominance. The Supreme Court has nine members so that there is never a “balance” on any issue. The Court is not in balance today, it is a precariously liberal court about to become a conspicuously conservative Court – and the ramifications go well beyond the issue of abortion.
Though seemingly unrecognized, or openly confessed, abortion is not a winning issue for liberals. Most Americans disapprove of abortions, as a practice. Most Americans disfavor various extreme forms of legal abortions. Under the new court, the practice will not be extended. Via various legal challenges, it is more likely that the most egregious and unpopular abortion practices and laws will be trimmed, to say the least.
After time and legal evolution, it is even likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a restoration of moral underpinning (as it should be). One hundred and fifty years ago, the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court declared that blacks had no rights as citizens. The Dred Scott decision was eventually overturned by moral enlightenment – and Republican appointments to the Court.
Even the overturning of Roe v. Wade will not ban abortions, as fear-mongering liberals peddle the argument. It simply de-federalizes the issue, leaving the states in the business of setting legal standards based on local values. If abortion is so popular with the masses, one presumes that states would legalize the procedure. Of course, if I were a pro-abortion liberal, I would not presume the assumption … nor the outcome.
Friday, October 28, 2005
TIDBITS: What a difference a week (or so) makes
I take a bit of time away from my blog rambling, and the world turns.
1. My prediction that Harriet Miers will be confirmed is out the window. Frankly, I underestimated the zeal of a good portion of the right wing lobby in opposition. I am not sure it was warranted, but it had its effect. I am also not sure it was a good strategy in the long run. It is my belief that Bush will not sway from his intent to name a conservative strict constructionist to the Court.
2. The Sox and world champions. Even as a Cub fan, I admire the quality of the team. They reflect everything good about baseball. In a day where sports is a brutal industry, it is good to see a team who seems to think the game of baseball is just that, a game -- something to be fun for players and fans. One cannot argue that they are a high performance team, too. They dominated the season and routed some pretty good teams in post season play. This was a solid, well deserved victory by a team that played excellent baseball with great dignity. I would even dare to say that outside of NOT snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they played baseball like the beloved Cubs. Congrats from Wrigley Field.
3. Gas prices in surprise drop? Methinks it has something to do with those embarrassing high profits the gas giants are reporting. It does not take an economist (which my degree says I am) to figure out that those power powerhouses gouged the public. Katrina, Iraq and SUV's provided a good excuse, but it is now obvious that there was another significant driving force in the price surge -- greed. I am a free market guy, but we have to know that the oil oligopoly is not necessarily a free market force. Of course, if one result is the collapse of SUV sales, the world will be a better, and safer, place.
4. Some things did not change in my blog absence. I impolitely referred to Governor George Ryan's I-want-to-be-your-friend-while-I-dump-on-you protégé as a sleaze. Well, he has now completed his time in the witness stand, and he never demonstrated any other trait. Humility, veracity, honestly and dignity eluded him to the end of his tortured testimony.
1. My prediction that Harriet Miers will be confirmed is out the window. Frankly, I underestimated the zeal of a good portion of the right wing lobby in opposition. I am not sure it was warranted, but it had its effect. I am also not sure it was a good strategy in the long run. It is my belief that Bush will not sway from his intent to name a conservative strict constructionist to the Court.
2. The Sox and world champions. Even as a Cub fan, I admire the quality of the team. They reflect everything good about baseball. In a day where sports is a brutal industry, it is good to see a team who seems to think the game of baseball is just that, a game -- something to be fun for players and fans. One cannot argue that they are a high performance team, too. They dominated the season and routed some pretty good teams in post season play. This was a solid, well deserved victory by a team that played excellent baseball with great dignity. I would even dare to say that outside of NOT snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they played baseball like the beloved Cubs. Congrats from Wrigley Field.
3. Gas prices in surprise drop? Methinks it has something to do with those embarrassing high profits the gas giants are reporting. It does not take an economist (which my degree says I am) to figure out that those power powerhouses gouged the public. Katrina, Iraq and SUV's provided a good excuse, but it is now obvious that there was another significant driving force in the price surge -- greed. I am a free market guy, but we have to know that the oil oligopoly is not necessarily a free market force. Of course, if one result is the collapse of SUV sales, the world will be a better, and safer, place.
4. Some things did not change in my blog absence. I impolitely referred to Governor George Ryan's I-want-to-be-your-friend-while-I-dump-on-you protégé as a sleaze. Well, he has now completed his time in the witness stand, and he never demonstrated any other trait. Humility, veracity, honestly and dignity eluded him to the end of his tortured testimony.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
OBSERVATION: Cindy who?
Despite all the controversial and sensational news of natural and political disasters, there is an underlying peacefulness in the public limelight. There is a bit of lost acrimony that is only evident by its absence.
Eureka!! I got it!! I have not seen nor heard recently from that eccentric peacenik scold, Cindy Sheehan. Could it be that her 15 minutes of fame is up? Or, does the major news press have sufficient other grist for the bias mill? Is there nothing new to report in her screeching?
Probably an element of truth in each of those considerations. Methinks, however, there is yet a more valid explanation for her disappearance from the public spotlight. It was increasingly evident that the more exposure she got the more embarrassment she caused the strident left. As the public got to know more about her oddball opinions and her lust for cameras, it became obvious she was not simply a grieving mother. As reality set in, it was apparent that she was a strident, mean-spirited, egotistical (and a bit loony) person caste unprepared and unsuited for the level of fame bestowed upon her.
Once she was no longer useful to the anti-war Bush-bashing left-wing portion of the press, they dropped her like a hot bomb over Baghdad.
Well, for whatever reason, my day is elevated by the absence of her name and face in my morning newspaper. Now, if only the press could give up ritual of daily Jesse Jackson sightings I could enjoy my morning tea and crumpet without an accompanying rise in blood pressure.
Eureka!! I got it!! I have not seen nor heard recently from that eccentric peacenik scold, Cindy Sheehan. Could it be that her 15 minutes of fame is up? Or, does the major news press have sufficient other grist for the bias mill? Is there nothing new to report in her screeching?
Probably an element of truth in each of those considerations. Methinks, however, there is yet a more valid explanation for her disappearance from the public spotlight. It was increasingly evident that the more exposure she got the more embarrassment she caused the strident left. As the public got to know more about her oddball opinions and her lust for cameras, it became obvious she was not simply a grieving mother. As reality set in, it was apparent that she was a strident, mean-spirited, egotistical (and a bit loony) person caste unprepared and unsuited for the level of fame bestowed upon her.
Once she was no longer useful to the anti-war Bush-bashing left-wing portion of the press, they dropped her like a hot bomb over Baghdad.
Well, for whatever reason, my day is elevated by the absence of her name and face in my morning newspaper. Now, if only the press could give up ritual of daily Jesse Jackson sightings I could enjoy my morning tea and crumpet without an accompanying rise in blood pressure.
REACT: Fawell shameless
The chief prosecution witness against former Illinois Governor George Ryan is his former top staffer and alter ego, Scott Fawell. Fawell, who is spending a few years in jail for his side of the official crimes, likes to have it both ways. He provides testimony to nail his old boss, while expressing his unabated friendship and affection for the old codger. He provides damning evidence, but upon cross examination attempts to undermine his own testimony by helping the defense.
Of course, Fawell claims that his "testimony under duress" is for the love of a woman. She will not face jail time if he 'fesses up. It makes for nice theater, but I contend that it is the reduction in Fawell's OWN time in prison (which is part of the plea agreement) that drives his testimony.
Having had dealings with Fawell, it has been my long time impression that at the bottom line his only concern is Scott Fawell. The strong bond to the ex-Governor and to his paramour existed only while he was on the receiving end of the relationship. He is, and has been, a ruthless and smarmy character. His performance on the stand is a perfect example. His whiney claim, that he is only telling the truth about is knowledge and involvement in massive public corruption because of the "pressure" exerted by the feds, in and of itself attests to a guy with no sense of higher calling. He is a sleaze trying to appear noble, and you and I have no reason to buy it.
Any more backsliding on the stand, and I would hope that the feds pull him aside and tell him the deal is off. Maybe he should be rewarded like the old wanted poster promise -- a reward for the "arrest and CONVICTION" of the culprit. Under that provision, you would see a very different Fawell. He would be spinning his testimony to make sure Ryan hit the steel bar hotel. He is just that kind of a guy.
Of course, Fawell claims that his "testimony under duress" is for the love of a woman. She will not face jail time if he 'fesses up. It makes for nice theater, but I contend that it is the reduction in Fawell's OWN time in prison (which is part of the plea agreement) that drives his testimony.
Having had dealings with Fawell, it has been my long time impression that at the bottom line his only concern is Scott Fawell. The strong bond to the ex-Governor and to his paramour existed only while he was on the receiving end of the relationship. He is, and has been, a ruthless and smarmy character. His performance on the stand is a perfect example. His whiney claim, that he is only telling the truth about is knowledge and involvement in massive public corruption because of the "pressure" exerted by the feds, in and of itself attests to a guy with no sense of higher calling. He is a sleaze trying to appear noble, and you and I have no reason to buy it.
Any more backsliding on the stand, and I would hope that the feds pull him aside and tell him the deal is off. Maybe he should be rewarded like the old wanted poster promise -- a reward for the "arrest and CONVICTION" of the culprit. Under that provision, you would see a very different Fawell. He would be spinning his testimony to make sure Ryan hit the steel bar hotel. He is just that kind of a guy.
OBSERVATION: Some thoughts on the Sox winning season
1. What about those Cub fans? The Sox victory is a natural reason for Chicago to officially celebrate. Of course, it brings to a boil the long standing schism between the fans of the south side team and the fans of the north side Cubs. And that is the whole point. The Sox are a south side team, and the south side is a completely different culture than the north side. Mayor Daley looks as natural in a Sox cap as he does in a bright green tie.
The Sox are a local team. The Cubs are a national team, with fans from sea to shining sea. This is due to the fact that the Cubs are more than a team, they are a mystic. And more than a little credit for their national fame has to do with their early telecasts on a WGN-TV, which went national with the sports broadcasts.
The Sox play baseball, in some years better than others. When they are winning, more seats get filled (although it takes at least a World Series to completely fill their stark stadium. The Cubs are a sports/social phenomenon. Win or lose, a ticket to Wrigley Field is hard to come by. This is a reality that Sox fans simply cannot comprehend, and it is not easy for Cubs fans to explain it. You just have to feel it.
With the Sox heading to the Series this year, there is a lot of snubbing of the old proboscis at the ever-loyal Cubs fans. They assume that Cubs fans are frustrated or jealous. Whether the outcome of the City Series, or the number of players in the All Star Game, or the relative ranking of the teams during the year, or entrance into post season play, Sox fans are quick to boast when they are ahead and silently sulk when they trail. Their sports self esteem, like ticket sales at the tacky-named U.S. Cellular Field, rises and falls on victory alone. Cubs fans, ensconced in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field just love the game, the team, the environment in which the game is played, and the zany fans.
Cubs fans do not begrudge the Sox their victory. They simply do not care. It is like being in a restaurant seated next to a family celebrating a birthday. Good for them. We might even applaud at the end of the birthday song, but there celebration is neither a source of jubilation or chagrin. It just is.
2. The Governor is capless and Soxless. Of course, when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wrote in Sporting News that he would never wear a Sox cap, not even if they played in the World Series, I am sure he never expected the team to get there during his administration – or his life time. Not a bad sentiment for a dyed in the wool Cubs fan. Unfortunately, it was a hapless statement fraught with political incorrectness when made by the elected leader of ALL the people, and was elevated to a major faux paw by the Sox unexpected winning season.
Just what does a savvy politician do in a situation like that? Well, the Governor’s response can be seen in the post season publicity shot. Proving him to be the things politicians are made of, he parses his statement by keeping his word on the cap, but dons a Sox jacket. Now everyone can see a desperate man twisting in the wind. The look on his face tells it all. But wait! He knows there is no escaping the embarrassment of the moment, and the scorn of the south side, so he does the publicity stunt with his sweetly innocent daughter at his side. He might was well be wearing a sign that says, “Don’t pick on me because my young daughter is here.”
Now, if that is not bad enough, ponder this. The Governor’s spin meisters put out the word that his anti-Sox comment in the press was not of his authorship. It was ghost written by a reporter for the publication – although they concede that he read and signed off out the article before publication.
Having transformed a bad comment into a public relations disaster, it is now questionable if Governor Blago can even get a ticket to any of the home games. He may not even receive the traditional invitation that automatically goes to the state’s chief executive for such events. Of course, if I was Jerry Reinsdorf, and I were of a mind to zing the Governor for his comments (and that would not be beneath Reinsdorf), I would make a very very public invitation to the Governor, and watch him squirm for credible reasons not to attend, or shame him into attending, and smugly grin as he is boo’ed by assembled crowd. Sox fans are like that. In truth, if the situation was reversed, Cubs fans would do the same.
3. The rich get richer. Jerry Reinsdorf will get a nice windfall from the World Series. Seems like, when no one was looking, our politicians pulled a fast one on the public. Those of us who footed the bill for that monstrosity called U.S. Cellular Field will get none … nada … of the revenues generated by the World Series. In a move that can only be described as a “gift” to the team owners, we taxpayers agreed to relinquish proceeds from any World Series tickets. Now that was damn generous of us. Perhaps, like Governor Blagojevich, those who made that decision on our behalf assumed that a Sox World Series would never happen in our life times. So, when you Sox fans see a beaming Mayor Daley standing next to grinning Jerry Reinsdorf, you will know that the glee is brought on by more than civic pride. That is not Jerry’s arm around the Mayor, it is his hand on the public wallet in his pocket.
4. The “Sold Rush” on the south side. There are many media stories about the demand for Sox tickets. There is confusion, and a couple of predictable stories of the “unfairness” of the process. Big shots getting tickets as the faithful get shut out. Well, all this consternation should come as no surprise. We should be more tolerant of the situation. It is a bit like the lack of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. Not only is the Sox winning season a generational event, but no one in charge at … gulp … U.S. Cellular Field has ever had any experience with a situation where there where more demand for seats than seat available. They should have hired some of the Cub officials, who have to face high demand all the time.
The Sox are a local team. The Cubs are a national team, with fans from sea to shining sea. This is due to the fact that the Cubs are more than a team, they are a mystic. And more than a little credit for their national fame has to do with their early telecasts on a WGN-TV, which went national with the sports broadcasts.
The Sox play baseball, in some years better than others. When they are winning, more seats get filled (although it takes at least a World Series to completely fill their stark stadium. The Cubs are a sports/social phenomenon. Win or lose, a ticket to Wrigley Field is hard to come by. This is a reality that Sox fans simply cannot comprehend, and it is not easy for Cubs fans to explain it. You just have to feel it.
With the Sox heading to the Series this year, there is a lot of snubbing of the old proboscis at the ever-loyal Cubs fans. They assume that Cubs fans are frustrated or jealous. Whether the outcome of the City Series, or the number of players in the All Star Game, or the relative ranking of the teams during the year, or entrance into post season play, Sox fans are quick to boast when they are ahead and silently sulk when they trail. Their sports self esteem, like ticket sales at the tacky-named U.S. Cellular Field, rises and falls on victory alone. Cubs fans, ensconced in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field just love the game, the team, the environment in which the game is played, and the zany fans.
Cubs fans do not begrudge the Sox their victory. They simply do not care. It is like being in a restaurant seated next to a family celebrating a birthday. Good for them. We might even applaud at the end of the birthday song, but there celebration is neither a source of jubilation or chagrin. It just is.
2. The Governor is capless and Soxless. Of course, when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wrote in Sporting News that he would never wear a Sox cap, not even if they played in the World Series, I am sure he never expected the team to get there during his administration – or his life time. Not a bad sentiment for a dyed in the wool Cubs fan. Unfortunately, it was a hapless statement fraught with political incorrectness when made by the elected leader of ALL the people, and was elevated to a major faux paw by the Sox unexpected winning season.
Just what does a savvy politician do in a situation like that? Well, the Governor’s response can be seen in the post season publicity shot. Proving him to be the things politicians are made of, he parses his statement by keeping his word on the cap, but dons a Sox jacket. Now everyone can see a desperate man twisting in the wind. The look on his face tells it all. But wait! He knows there is no escaping the embarrassment of the moment, and the scorn of the south side, so he does the publicity stunt with his sweetly innocent daughter at his side. He might was well be wearing a sign that says, “Don’t pick on me because my young daughter is here.”Now, if that is not bad enough, ponder this. The Governor’s spin meisters put out the word that his anti-Sox comment in the press was not of his authorship. It was ghost written by a reporter for the publication – although they concede that he read and signed off out the article before publication.
Having transformed a bad comment into a public relations disaster, it is now questionable if Governor Blago can even get a ticket to any of the home games. He may not even receive the traditional invitation that automatically goes to the state’s chief executive for such events. Of course, if I was Jerry Reinsdorf, and I were of a mind to zing the Governor for his comments (and that would not be beneath Reinsdorf), I would make a very very public invitation to the Governor, and watch him squirm for credible reasons not to attend, or shame him into attending, and smugly grin as he is boo’ed by assembled crowd. Sox fans are like that. In truth, if the situation was reversed, Cubs fans would do the same.
3. The rich get richer. Jerry Reinsdorf will get a nice windfall from the World Series. Seems like, when no one was looking, our politicians pulled a fast one on the public. Those of us who footed the bill for that monstrosity called U.S. Cellular Field will get none … nada … of the revenues generated by the World Series. In a move that can only be described as a “gift” to the team owners, we taxpayers agreed to relinquish proceeds from any World Series tickets. Now that was damn generous of us. Perhaps, like Governor Blagojevich, those who made that decision on our behalf assumed that a Sox World Series would never happen in our life times. So, when you Sox fans see a beaming Mayor Daley standing next to grinning Jerry Reinsdorf, you will know that the glee is brought on by more than civic pride. That is not Jerry’s arm around the Mayor, it is his hand on the public wallet in his pocket.
4. The “Sold Rush” on the south side. There are many media stories about the demand for Sox tickets. There is confusion, and a couple of predictable stories of the “unfairness” of the process. Big shots getting tickets as the faithful get shut out. Well, all this consternation should come as no surprise. We should be more tolerant of the situation. It is a bit like the lack of preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. Not only is the Sox winning season a generational event, but no one in charge at … gulp … U.S. Cellular Field has ever had any experience with a situation where there where more demand for seats than seat available. They should have hired some of the Cub officials, who have to face high demand all the time.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
OP ED: Dems in a pickle over Miers nomination
Despite all the apprehension on the right, President Bush has outmaneuvered the liberal Democrats with a brilliant double nomination strategy for the two overlapping vacancies of the Supreme Court.
In appointing the brilliant and super qualified Chief Justice Roberts, Bush was able to trump the Democrat’s ideological concerns with superior qualifications. This resulted in the approval of a Chief Justice as conservative as anyone the President could have chosen. With Roberts, Bush left the Senate Democrats with little to work with (or against, in this case).
In his second nomination, Bush selected a person not easily targeted as an extreme right winger. This time the Democrats are not trumped by intellect or constitutional track record, but by a confusing lack of information. The very fact that Harriet Miers is not only without a clear conservative record, but even has some "liberal" indicators in her long resume, is putting off the Democrats more than scaring the hard line conservatives.
Miers’ donation to Al Gore, and the support of some narrow gay issues, has many of my fellow conservatives armed and on standby -- and a few in full assault. In risking some conservative consternation, Bush has adroitly put the left in full disarray. The likes of Jesse Jackson are taking on the usual, and predictable, "shock and dismay" attitude. That would be the case for any appointment short of Jesse's son – and even then, the reverend would probably be suspicious of his offspring.
Senate Leader Harry Ried, however, has all but endorsed the appointment -- even taking some credit for the recommendation. Liberal as he may be, Ried is a pro life Democrat, so the litmus issue is not of great concern to him. That attack on Miers as intellectually and experientially deficient is spurious. It is coming from the strident left, as part of their package of criticisms, from judicial elitist, such as Robert Bork, who bifurcate society between their ivy-covered peers and the poor uneducated masses. Miers is as qualified as many of those who went on to great Supreme Court careers.
Oddly, this is an appointment the Democrats could defeat. If they were unified in opposition, there are enough wary Republicans to force her out of contention. Without an unbroken line of Democrat opponents, however, many wavering Republican senators will find it safer to go along with the President and the Senate leadership. Of course, the Democrats are not foolish. If they were to expend their political capital to defeat this woman candidate, they would be less likely to defeat the next, or the third, if that were to be the case. And they fully understand that the next appointments would not be fraught with doubt. They would be front line conservatives. For the Democrats, and especially for the major asses, such as Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer (alluding to their party’s donkey symbol, of course), the hope in the unknown Miers is better than the certainty of those others on Bush’s short list.
Liberal America must now recognize that they have been out foxed, out flanked, out classed, out done --- and now are outside the judicial halls. They know that the "new" Court is going to be far more conservative than the old. They were not wrong to mortally fear the potential of a President George Bush in the shaping of the senior courts. Upon confirmation of the next justice, Miers or not, the battle is won by the political right. If there should be another appointment for Bush, the seminal victory will be a generational rout.
As far as her "evolution" on the Court -- the great fear of many conservatives -- I take heart and hope in the fact that as the freshman justice, she will be “evolving” under the leadership of the solidly conservative and highly persuasive Chief Justice Roberts. For all his conservative leanings, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist can best be described as the “head” of the Supreme Court, not its “leader.” Historically, he may have been among the least persuasive Chief Justices in bringing colleagues to his view.
I believe Miers will be confirmed, since the Democrats do not seem to have even a winning strategy to be implemented. And, I suspect that Justice Miers will be mostly the conservative we all hope her to be. We may not like each and every vote. But on the matter of strictly interpreting the Constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench, I think she is there -- and will stay there.
In appointing the brilliant and super qualified Chief Justice Roberts, Bush was able to trump the Democrat’s ideological concerns with superior qualifications. This resulted in the approval of a Chief Justice as conservative as anyone the President could have chosen. With Roberts, Bush left the Senate Democrats with little to work with (or against, in this case).
In his second nomination, Bush selected a person not easily targeted as an extreme right winger. This time the Democrats are not trumped by intellect or constitutional track record, but by a confusing lack of information. The very fact that Harriet Miers is not only without a clear conservative record, but even has some "liberal" indicators in her long resume, is putting off the Democrats more than scaring the hard line conservatives.
Miers’ donation to Al Gore, and the support of some narrow gay issues, has many of my fellow conservatives armed and on standby -- and a few in full assault. In risking some conservative consternation, Bush has adroitly put the left in full disarray. The likes of Jesse Jackson are taking on the usual, and predictable, "shock and dismay" attitude. That would be the case for any appointment short of Jesse's son – and even then, the reverend would probably be suspicious of his offspring.
Senate Leader Harry Ried, however, has all but endorsed the appointment -- even taking some credit for the recommendation. Liberal as he may be, Ried is a pro life Democrat, so the litmus issue is not of great concern to him. That attack on Miers as intellectually and experientially deficient is spurious. It is coming from the strident left, as part of their package of criticisms, from judicial elitist, such as Robert Bork, who bifurcate society between their ivy-covered peers and the poor uneducated masses. Miers is as qualified as many of those who went on to great Supreme Court careers.
Oddly, this is an appointment the Democrats could defeat. If they were unified in opposition, there are enough wary Republicans to force her out of contention. Without an unbroken line of Democrat opponents, however, many wavering Republican senators will find it safer to go along with the President and the Senate leadership. Of course, the Democrats are not foolish. If they were to expend their political capital to defeat this woman candidate, they would be less likely to defeat the next, or the third, if that were to be the case. And they fully understand that the next appointments would not be fraught with doubt. They would be front line conservatives. For the Democrats, and especially for the major asses, such as Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer (alluding to their party’s donkey symbol, of course), the hope in the unknown Miers is better than the certainty of those others on Bush’s short list.
Liberal America must now recognize that they have been out foxed, out flanked, out classed, out done --- and now are outside the judicial halls. They know that the "new" Court is going to be far more conservative than the old. They were not wrong to mortally fear the potential of a President George Bush in the shaping of the senior courts. Upon confirmation of the next justice, Miers or not, the battle is won by the political right. If there should be another appointment for Bush, the seminal victory will be a generational rout.
As far as her "evolution" on the Court -- the great fear of many conservatives -- I take heart and hope in the fact that as the freshman justice, she will be “evolving” under the leadership of the solidly conservative and highly persuasive Chief Justice Roberts. For all his conservative leanings, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist can best be described as the “head” of the Supreme Court, not its “leader.” Historically, he may have been among the least persuasive Chief Justices in bringing colleagues to his view.
I believe Miers will be confirmed, since the Democrats do not seem to have even a winning strategy to be implemented. And, I suspect that Justice Miers will be mostly the conservative we all hope her to be. We may not like each and every vote. But on the matter of strictly interpreting the Constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench, I think she is there -- and will stay there.
Monday, October 03, 2005
REACT: Edgar out? He was never in.
I win a number of bets, and unlimited bragging rights, for my never-wavering contention that former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar would not run (see blog item August 26). I will say it with confidence, the outcome was never in doubt. His only true deliberation was when and how to say “no.” He did it in grand public relations style -- which is his greatest talent, anyway.
I never thought of Edgar as stupid (politically, that is) or nuts. He is a cunning political operator, with a keen sense of his image and poll numbers. In terms of public policy and issues, the Ken-doll-grown-old Edgar was never considered the sharpest knife in the drawer. Truth be known, many issue activists and lobbyists on both sides of the philosophic divide thought of him as a bit … well … let’s just say under informed. (More about that some other time.)
If there was ever any doubt in my mind that Edgar would reject the petitions of the politicians, it evaporated with his arrival at the Illinois Issues forum (which I attended) just before his weepy press conference. He was not in the room more than five minutes when my original opinion was confirmed -- at least in my own mind. He passed through the crowd with his insider-known disdain for the masses. Rarely smiling, and giving all (except a few of his former syncopates) an icy brush off. This was Edgar the person without any hint of Edgar the campaigner -- who could produce a forced gregariousness every few years for the sake of votes. The aloof Edgar was not a man about to run for public office.
Since his concern for good government and the welfare of his Republican party goes no further than his own ambition and ego appeasement, there was no self-motivation for Edgar to make an early decision for a greater good. If the former governor had no intention of ever running again, why the prolonged pondering? Simple. Ego.
As I noted in that earlier blog commentary, Edgar suffers from "the phone doesn’t ring as much anymore." This is his third public pensiveness. In each case he ran the publicity mill as long as he could before giving his predetermined reply. Nyet! Nein! Nope!
This play for publicity is not an Edgar invention. Former Illinois Governor Richard Ogilvie was courted to run for mayor of Chicago every four years. He would encourage speculation and drafts, then puff on his pipe ponderously for weeks as pundits speculated, the press reported and potential candidates awaited in the wings. Every twitch of his eyebrow was the subject of speculative meaning. Again, I never lost a wager by placing my marker on “no.”
Edgar said he is through running for public office, and that IS the truth -- but don’t be surprised if yet again some season speculation arises, and the old war horse again entices the phones to ring and the reporters to write. After all, this is man who convincingly said, “I never say never.”
I never thought of Edgar as stupid (politically, that is) or nuts. He is a cunning political operator, with a keen sense of his image and poll numbers. In terms of public policy and issues, the Ken-doll-grown-old Edgar was never considered the sharpest knife in the drawer. Truth be known, many issue activists and lobbyists on both sides of the philosophic divide thought of him as a bit … well … let’s just say under informed. (More about that some other time.)
If there was ever any doubt in my mind that Edgar would reject the petitions of the politicians, it evaporated with his arrival at the Illinois Issues forum (which I attended) just before his weepy press conference. He was not in the room more than five minutes when my original opinion was confirmed -- at least in my own mind. He passed through the crowd with his insider-known disdain for the masses. Rarely smiling, and giving all (except a few of his former syncopates) an icy brush off. This was Edgar the person without any hint of Edgar the campaigner -- who could produce a forced gregariousness every few years for the sake of votes. The aloof Edgar was not a man about to run for public office.
Since his concern for good government and the welfare of his Republican party goes no further than his own ambition and ego appeasement, there was no self-motivation for Edgar to make an early decision for a greater good. If the former governor had no intention of ever running again, why the prolonged pondering? Simple. Ego.
As I noted in that earlier blog commentary, Edgar suffers from "the phone doesn’t ring as much anymore." This is his third public pensiveness. In each case he ran the publicity mill as long as he could before giving his predetermined reply. Nyet! Nein! Nope!
This play for publicity is not an Edgar invention. Former Illinois Governor Richard Ogilvie was courted to run for mayor of Chicago every four years. He would encourage speculation and drafts, then puff on his pipe ponderously for weeks as pundits speculated, the press reported and potential candidates awaited in the wings. Every twitch of his eyebrow was the subject of speculative meaning. Again, I never lost a wager by placing my marker on “no.”
Edgar said he is through running for public office, and that IS the truth -- but don’t be surprised if yet again some season speculation arises, and the old war horse again entices the phones to ring and the reporters to write. After all, this is man who convincingly said, “I never say never.”
LMAO: Oy Vey! to oy vey … and other foolish things
LMAO #1 I love New York, oy vey.
Somehow, the borough of Brooklyn, New York convinced the state Department of Transportation to erect a huge exist sign that features the Jewish expression for disappointment or dismay -- as in “a tree just fell on my car, oy vey.” In that spirit, I am going back to my old blue collar neighborhood and ask for a similar sigh saying, “holy shit.” Maybe the exit near the high tech industrial district can say “omg.”
LMAO #2 A curse on the tax folks, the Dutch seem to be spellbound. A court in Holland recently decided in favor of granting witches a tax deduction for training and education in the occult arts. This is a nation already know for popularizing the most salacious pornography and promoting wide spread drug use as a means of recreation. Since almost all the Dutchmen I know in America are highly dedicated Christians with fundamentalist moral values, I can only assume the righteous immigrated to the United States, leaving behind the hedonists to run the country. On the other had, I would not mind learning more about the spell they put on the court. Could come in handy.
Somehow, the borough of Brooklyn, New York convinced the state Department of Transportation to erect a huge exist sign that features the Jewish expression for disappointment or dismay -- as in “a tree just fell on my car, oy vey.” In that spirit, I am going back to my old blue collar neighborhood and ask for a similar sigh saying, “holy shit.” Maybe the exit near the high tech industrial district can say “omg.”
LMAO #2 A curse on the tax folks, the Dutch seem to be spellbound. A court in Holland recently decided in favor of granting witches a tax deduction for training and education in the occult arts. This is a nation already know for popularizing the most salacious pornography and promoting wide spread drug use as a means of recreation. Since almost all the Dutchmen I know in America are highly dedicated Christians with fundamentalist moral values, I can only assume the righteous immigrated to the United States, leaving behind the hedonists to run the country. On the other had, I would not mind learning more about the spell they put on the court. Could come in handy.
Monday, September 26, 2005
UPDATE: Cindy off to the clinker.
You ever get the feeling you're watching a Saturday Night Live parody of a war protest. The arrest of the mourning-after mother, Cindy Sheehan, is almost that funny.It is widely reported that she took up her position in front of the White House for the sole purpose of getting arrested -- or, more accurately, for the sole purpose of getting lots of publicity for getting arrested. But, give her credit, she accomplished her mission.
Hey! Is that a big grin on her face? Yes! Yes! Cindy Sheehan is smiling -- one of those really self satisfied smiles. She is one smug happy lady. And, why not? She just got the gift she had hoped for. A real arrest. She is now a bone fide member of the great Civil Protest Society of America. She has proven herself so dedicated to "the cause" that she will endure the swift sword of justice. Not that it is a terribly sharp sword.
She will suffer about as about as much as getting picked up for a DUI. A trip to the station, then out on the streets awaiting a trial date. Maybe a fine, no jail time. Actually, she will be treated much better than a drunken drive ... even though her actions are likely to kill a lot more people.
Perhaps she will come out of the police station with a couple of self inflicted bruises, and a tale of the brutality of the cops. Remember, she is the one who cautioned about the coming violence during her camping out vacation outside the Bush ranch. I say cautioned, but her delivery suggested a certain hopefulness. I am not talking people getting killed, or badly hurt -- she just could have used a bit of rough stuff to further her woe-is-me victim charade.
Well, it is good to know she can smile. Quite a difference from all those other photos of people getting arrested -- crouching down, looking angry or scared. Then there are the folks who hid behind hats and newspapers. Not Cindy. She knows a good thing when she sees it. You go girl!! Directly to jail ... do not pass "Go."
P.S. I could have made some wise crack about that police hand between her legs as the sources of that smile, but that would be beneath my dignity.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
SIDEBAR: Barenboim to leave Chicago Symphony
Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion.
Internationally renowned musician and conductor Daniel Barenboim will surrender his baton at the Chicago Symphony.
I am way too much of regular guy to have more than a passing interest in the goings on in the hoi polloi world of the symphony. I do enjoy classical music of the type that most snobs consider schmaltzy. I like Liszt ... sway to Strauss ... like Beethoven basically ... Mozart mostly ... Hayden religiously ... and I think Rachmaninoff rocks. However, I am cool to Copland ... boycott Bartok ... and Mahler makes me moan.
None of this takes anything away from the professed genius of Barenboim. In fact, I have no frame of reference with which to comment or pass any sort of judgment on his talent. I can only accept the written word of music critics that he is, in fact, a talented genius.
Hence, this is not about Barenboim the music maker, but Barenboim the man -- at lease from my anecdotal acquaintanceship with him as a short term neighbor. You see, for several months he lived across the hall from us, in an apartment often used by great figures from the symphony and the Lyric Opera. We had the pleasure of friendly hallway encounters with such people as Eve Marton and Boris Godunov. Among the most frequent residents of the neighboring apartment were Maestro Bruno Bartoletti and his wife. He was musical director for the Lyric Opera. They were two of the warmest and most charming people on earth. Every music superstar we met was a wonderful neighbor.
Let me stress that we were not looking for social interaction with these celebrities, but did enjoy a gracious “passing in the hallway” relationship – maybe a bit more personal with the Bartolettis, who doted on our younger son and took a professional interest in our older and very gifted opera singer son.
Then there was Barenboim. All due deference to him as a musician, I can only say that the pejorative phrase "pompous arrogant insufferable jerk" seems to pop into my head whenever I see his name. This is a guy who would not so much as acknowledge a passing hello in the hallway. Even such a common courtesy would earn a scornful look, as if you had gotten a cell phone call during Debussy – and your ring tone was something from Led Zepplin. If Barenboim was about to enter the elevator, and saw someone coming down the hall, he would actually press the door closure button before they could enter.
I am not an anti-smoking zealot, but his late night cigars wafted smoke into our kitchen enough to put our noses and ceiling smoke detector on alert. The problem was somewhat ameliorated by the building management providing an air purifier.
Barenboim did not have one apartment. He had two. While he and a lady friend seemed to be ensconced in the luxury two-bedroom corner unit, his wife, kids and servant or nanny (as it appeared) were crammed in a one bedroom apartment down the hall. On those rare occasions when we actually saw him interacting with his family, his brutal authority over the family was, shall we say, discomforting -- bad enough to conjure up feelings of pity for the wife and kids we never got to know.
At least Mrs. Barenboim could still say "hi" in the hallway -- unless HE was with her, of course.
They eventually moved out of that apartment, and we moved to a higher floor in the building. The up close and personal Daniel Barenboim vanished from our daily life, thank goodness. The only aftermath is my insignificant, but self satisfying protest. While I still enjoy a good classical CD, I will not purchase any where Mr. Barenboim is conducting or playing.
Internationally renowned musician and conductor Daniel Barenboim will surrender his baton at the Chicago Symphony.
I am way too much of regular guy to have more than a passing interest in the goings on in the hoi polloi world of the symphony. I do enjoy classical music of the type that most snobs consider schmaltzy. I like Liszt ... sway to Strauss ... like Beethoven basically ... Mozart mostly ... Hayden religiously ... and I think Rachmaninoff rocks. However, I am cool to Copland ... boycott Bartok ... and Mahler makes me moan.
None of this takes anything away from the professed genius of Barenboim. In fact, I have no frame of reference with which to comment or pass any sort of judgment on his talent. I can only accept the written word of music critics that he is, in fact, a talented genius.
Hence, this is not about Barenboim the music maker, but Barenboim the man -- at lease from my anecdotal acquaintanceship with him as a short term neighbor. You see, for several months he lived across the hall from us, in an apartment often used by great figures from the symphony and the Lyric Opera. We had the pleasure of friendly hallway encounters with such people as Eve Marton and Boris Godunov. Among the most frequent residents of the neighboring apartment were Maestro Bruno Bartoletti and his wife. He was musical director for the Lyric Opera. They were two of the warmest and most charming people on earth. Every music superstar we met was a wonderful neighbor.
Let me stress that we were not looking for social interaction with these celebrities, but did enjoy a gracious “passing in the hallway” relationship – maybe a bit more personal with the Bartolettis, who doted on our younger son and took a professional interest in our older and very gifted opera singer son.
Then there was Barenboim. All due deference to him as a musician, I can only say that the pejorative phrase "pompous arrogant insufferable jerk" seems to pop into my head whenever I see his name. This is a guy who would not so much as acknowledge a passing hello in the hallway. Even such a common courtesy would earn a scornful look, as if you had gotten a cell phone call during Debussy – and your ring tone was something from Led Zepplin. If Barenboim was about to enter the elevator, and saw someone coming down the hall, he would actually press the door closure button before they could enter.
I am not an anti-smoking zealot, but his late night cigars wafted smoke into our kitchen enough to put our noses and ceiling smoke detector on alert. The problem was somewhat ameliorated by the building management providing an air purifier.
Barenboim did not have one apartment. He had two. While he and a lady friend seemed to be ensconced in the luxury two-bedroom corner unit, his wife, kids and servant or nanny (as it appeared) were crammed in a one bedroom apartment down the hall. On those rare occasions when we actually saw him interacting with his family, his brutal authority over the family was, shall we say, discomforting -- bad enough to conjure up feelings of pity for the wife and kids we never got to know.
At least Mrs. Barenboim could still say "hi" in the hallway -- unless HE was with her, of course.
They eventually moved out of that apartment, and we moved to a higher floor in the building. The up close and personal Daniel Barenboim vanished from our daily life, thank goodness. The only aftermath is my insignificant, but self satisfying protest. While I still enjoy a good classical CD, I will not purchase any where Mr. Barenboim is conducting or playing.
REACT: Sheehan and Jackson find common bond
There they are. Anti war protester Cindy Sheehan and serial activist Jesse Jackson in the very same newspaper photo, brought together by a deep common bond. No! I am not speaking of their opposition to the war in Iraq or their mutual genetic aversion to George Bush. I am referring to their lust for the lenses.
The photo captures them in their best crafted poses -- a smiling Jackson surrounded by cameras and Mrs. Sheehan drapped on his shoulder giving the photogs her well rehearsed vulnerable look. It is almost too intimate to observe, as each tenderly shares their most precious possession, the limelight.
If there were Academy Awards for "theatrics as news," these two would win hands down. In their case, paparazzi have no challenge in seeking and shooting their prey. In fact, I can even imagine charges being filed against Jackson and Sheehan for harassing those otherwise annoying shutter buggers in "turn about is fair play." I can see Jackson and Sheehan ambushing the photogs at ever opportunity, chasing cameramen down the street and jumping in front of their lenses without warning.
While Jackson is the experienced camera hog, Sheehan has one advantage. She is focused (no pun intended) on one issue. Jackson, like an ambulance chasing attorney, shamelessly shows up for every news event that garners more than three cameras.
To that extent, Jackson has made so many appearances on so many issues that his messages are becoming an irrelevant white noise (again no pun intended). Even worse for the good reverend, he is becoming more of a comedic character. Even his son, Congressman Jesse Jackson, makes fun of his father's publicity craving -- noting recently that he (the junior Jackson) had only had five press conferences in 10 year, but his father has that many a day.
On the other hand, Jackson has an advantage over Sheehan. As the war issue ebbs, as surely it will one day, Sheehan will disappear like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland (leaving for last that perma-pout instead of the enigmatic smile). The omni-issue Jackson will continue to find cause in every camera.
The photo captures them in their best crafted poses -- a smiling Jackson surrounded by cameras and Mrs. Sheehan drapped on his shoulder giving the photogs her well rehearsed vulnerable look. It is almost too intimate to observe, as each tenderly shares their most precious possession, the limelight.If there were Academy Awards for "theatrics as news," these two would win hands down. In their case, paparazzi have no challenge in seeking and shooting their prey. In fact, I can even imagine charges being filed against Jackson and Sheehan for harassing those otherwise annoying shutter buggers in "turn about is fair play." I can see Jackson and Sheehan ambushing the photogs at ever opportunity, chasing cameramen down the street and jumping in front of their lenses without warning.
While Jackson is the experienced camera hog, Sheehan has one advantage. She is focused (no pun intended) on one issue. Jackson, like an ambulance chasing attorney, shamelessly shows up for every news event that garners more than three cameras.
To that extent, Jackson has made so many appearances on so many issues that his messages are becoming an irrelevant white noise (again no pun intended). Even worse for the good reverend, he is becoming more of a comedic character. Even his son, Congressman Jesse Jackson, makes fun of his father's publicity craving -- noting recently that he (the junior Jackson) had only had five press conferences in 10 year, but his father has that many a day.
On the other hand, Jackson has an advantage over Sheehan. As the war issue ebbs, as surely it will one day, Sheehan will disappear like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland (leaving for last that perma-pout instead of the enigmatic smile). The omni-issue Jackson will continue to find cause in every camera.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
REACT: Christians and gays at it again
Just read an item about a Christian school in California that booted out a kid because his "parents" are a gay couple. Methinks the school officials should learn a bit more about being Christians.
Let us respect the right of the Christian school to proffer the belief that homosexuality is an immoral life style for the moment. Rather, just focus on this issue.
I see nothing Christian about booting a kid out of school because his PARENTS do not perfectly represent the life style of the faith. They are punishing the child for the perceived "sins" of the parents. Punishing the innocent is not a good thing to do, in my judgment -- and does not seem consistent with my understanding of Christianity.
In addition, I would think the school would be happy to have that young soul within the bosom of the faithful every day, instead of exiling that youngster to the totally secular world. Because it is likely that the child loves both parents, the example of the school can only drive the youngster away from Christianity in the belief that all the faithful are as bigoted and shortsighted as the local school leaders.
Thirdly, it is obvious that the parents were faithful enough to send their child to a strict Christian school. One must assume that they value Christian doctrine and religious education. In setting aside the Christian admonition to “hate the sin, but love the sinner,” these school officials can only alienate the person from the body of the faithful. They are guilty of both judging others and acting hatefully against the perceived sinner.
Should Christian schools expel kids of parents who do drugs, commit adultery, drink, smoke, or maybe not even be Christians believers? What level of parental orthodoxy or moral precision is necessary to assure a young person a proper education within a loving Christian community?
This is not an abstract issue for me. My 12-year-old son attends a Christian school where at least one child is parented by a gay couple. Rather than boot the kid out, our school has no problem with the situation. The administrators, teachers, parents and children all seem quite comfortable in welcoming and interacting with the child and the parents. Of course, it is the subject of discussion, but only in that it is newsworthy. I have sensed no prejudice or malice in the observations.
How is it that some Christians can be so zealous in their Christian belief that homosexuality is toally immoral by the word of god, and yet be so oblivious or rejecting of Christ's clear admonition not to judge others? From whence do THEY get the right to pick and choose from the buffet of moral mandates? In deciding which moral transgressions are to be followed, and which are to be ignored, they arrogantly supersede Christ -- imposing themselves as the godly decision maker.
Christianity teaches that we are ALL sinners. This means that every parent in that school, and the very people who expelled that student, are, themselves, sinners. By what yardstick of relativism to they then determine which "sins of the father(s)" requires punishment of the child, and which are exempt.
I have to say, whatever anyone thinks about the gay issue, I deeply believe that our school has out “Christianed” the one in California by a long shot. We may hold varing beliefs on the quesiton of homosexuality, but we are not about to judge others in our midst -- or to treat them in a hateful manner.
Let us respect the right of the Christian school to proffer the belief that homosexuality is an immoral life style for the moment. Rather, just focus on this issue.
I see nothing Christian about booting a kid out of school because his PARENTS do not perfectly represent the life style of the faith. They are punishing the child for the perceived "sins" of the parents. Punishing the innocent is not a good thing to do, in my judgment -- and does not seem consistent with my understanding of Christianity.
In addition, I would think the school would be happy to have that young soul within the bosom of the faithful every day, instead of exiling that youngster to the totally secular world. Because it is likely that the child loves both parents, the example of the school can only drive the youngster away from Christianity in the belief that all the faithful are as bigoted and shortsighted as the local school leaders.
Thirdly, it is obvious that the parents were faithful enough to send their child to a strict Christian school. One must assume that they value Christian doctrine and religious education. In setting aside the Christian admonition to “hate the sin, but love the sinner,” these school officials can only alienate the person from the body of the faithful. They are guilty of both judging others and acting hatefully against the perceived sinner.
Should Christian schools expel kids of parents who do drugs, commit adultery, drink, smoke, or maybe not even be Christians believers? What level of parental orthodoxy or moral precision is necessary to assure a young person a proper education within a loving Christian community?
This is not an abstract issue for me. My 12-year-old son attends a Christian school where at least one child is parented by a gay couple. Rather than boot the kid out, our school has no problem with the situation. The administrators, teachers, parents and children all seem quite comfortable in welcoming and interacting with the child and the parents. Of course, it is the subject of discussion, but only in that it is newsworthy. I have sensed no prejudice or malice in the observations.
How is it that some Christians can be so zealous in their Christian belief that homosexuality is toally immoral by the word of god, and yet be so oblivious or rejecting of Christ's clear admonition not to judge others? From whence do THEY get the right to pick and choose from the buffet of moral mandates? In deciding which moral transgressions are to be followed, and which are to be ignored, they arrogantly supersede Christ -- imposing themselves as the godly decision maker.
Christianity teaches that we are ALL sinners. This means that every parent in that school, and the very people who expelled that student, are, themselves, sinners. By what yardstick of relativism to they then determine which "sins of the father(s)" requires punishment of the child, and which are exempt.
I have to say, whatever anyone thinks about the gay issue, I deeply believe that our school has out “Christianed” the one in California by a long shot. We may hold varing beliefs on the quesiton of homosexuality, but we are not about to judge others in our midst -- or to treat them in a hateful manner.
Friday, September 23, 2005
OBSERVATION: The new Spanish-Indian war
The Spanish proved to be fair weather friends. Based on a narrow and selfish view of themselves and the world, the Spanish elected a government with an anti-American bias, and then proceeded to make an ignoble retreat from Iraq. I cannot help but wonder if there is any connection between that and the recent installation of Indian warrior Po'Pay in a place of honor in the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. Po'Pay's claim to fame is the brutal slaughter of about 400 Spaniards?
OBSERVATION:Supreme Court -- balance schmalance
With the ascension of John Roberts to the tallest of the tall-back chairs of the Supreme Court, all attention is now focused on President Bush's nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. If he sends the the Senate a person even slightly to the right of Justice O'Connor, the Court will likely course to the starbord for a generation to come.
In response to this potential, the liberal legions have lockstepped to the cadence of the "preserve the balance" drumbeat. It is their claim that somehow the court is currently in balance -- perhaps a bit of a conservative lean. For the sake of public debate and their own credibility, however, they will proffer a currently balanced Supreme Court that serves the public best by remaining without a teeter.
Of course, when President Clinton held authority over Supreme Court appointments, the word "balance" could not be found in their vocabulary. The liberal mission was to correct the "imbalance" by securing seats for only leftist jurists -- and that is exactly what they did.
The left wing's balance argument is no more valid than their argument that the person nominated must support certain icon planks of the liberal agenda. They argue against a "litmus test" so long as they can be provided with up front assurances of fixed philosophic postions on self-selected issues -- and they see no inherent hipocriscy in the illogic of it all.
Of course the liberal's view of balance would put the Court even further to the left of the national philosophic fulcrum. Since they see themselves as the natural ruling class, however, the norms of a less enlightend populace are not to be favorably considered in conjucntion with liberal superiority ... the arrogance of that notion buffered by their claim of noblis oblige.
Of course, we all want a balanced Supreme Court. The problem is our philosophic definition of IMbalance. Liberals assert that the old Court was in some sort of balance, or at least as far right as is tolerable. To appoint a jurist to the right of anyone would creat an imbalance.
On the other hand, I personally think the Supreme Court has been effectively imbalanced for almost my entire life. To appoint a strict constructionist conservative would go a long way to finally correct much of the imbalance.
It my impression, and hope, that the President will appoint to the right without consideration to the languashing liberal voices that demand adherence to their own self-defined version of balance. This is his among Bush's greatest potential legacies. I trust he will seize the opportunity.
Despite the fickle popularity polls, it is clear from the 2000 election that Bush was given a mandate to move the Court to the right. Democrats campaigned hard, using the next President's likelihood of naming several justices as a centerpiece issue. The public clearly took notice of that potential and overwhelmingly endorsed Bush in person, and conservative principles in general. The only way Bush can keep faith with the public, is to use that mandate to send the Senate another conservative -- maybe even more like Scalia or Thomas. Contemporary popularity polls, and the threatening barks of the left, should not trump the manifest will of the people. Bush has no re-election to compromise principle with political practicality.
Of couse, since this is the seminal moment for the left, we can expect their most brutal partisan attacks on the nominee. They are not looking to advise and consent. The Senate liberals want nothing more than to appoint by default. There only hope is to make the President believe that only a candidate acceptable to them will avoid a political donnybrook that will further sink his political fortunes.
In his next appointment, Bush will affirm his legacy with a philosophic nomination, and will fight to the mat to achieve confirmation, or he will succumb to the illusionary benefit of acquesence to the wilting assault of the left. I am betting on Bush to do what is right -- in every sense of the word.
In response to this potential, the liberal legions have lockstepped to the cadence of the "preserve the balance" drumbeat. It is their claim that somehow the court is currently in balance -- perhaps a bit of a conservative lean. For the sake of public debate and their own credibility, however, they will proffer a currently balanced Supreme Court that serves the public best by remaining without a teeter.
Of course, when President Clinton held authority over Supreme Court appointments, the word "balance" could not be found in their vocabulary. The liberal mission was to correct the "imbalance" by securing seats for only leftist jurists -- and that is exactly what they did.
The left wing's balance argument is no more valid than their argument that the person nominated must support certain icon planks of the liberal agenda. They argue against a "litmus test" so long as they can be provided with up front assurances of fixed philosophic postions on self-selected issues -- and they see no inherent hipocriscy in the illogic of it all.
Of course the liberal's view of balance would put the Court even further to the left of the national philosophic fulcrum. Since they see themselves as the natural ruling class, however, the norms of a less enlightend populace are not to be favorably considered in conjucntion with liberal superiority ... the arrogance of that notion buffered by their claim of noblis oblige.
Of course, we all want a balanced Supreme Court. The problem is our philosophic definition of IMbalance. Liberals assert that the old Court was in some sort of balance, or at least as far right as is tolerable. To appoint a jurist to the right of anyone would creat an imbalance.
On the other hand, I personally think the Supreme Court has been effectively imbalanced for almost my entire life. To appoint a strict constructionist conservative would go a long way to finally correct much of the imbalance.
It my impression, and hope, that the President will appoint to the right without consideration to the languashing liberal voices that demand adherence to their own self-defined version of balance. This is his among Bush's greatest potential legacies. I trust he will seize the opportunity.
Despite the fickle popularity polls, it is clear from the 2000 election that Bush was given a mandate to move the Court to the right. Democrats campaigned hard, using the next President's likelihood of naming several justices as a centerpiece issue. The public clearly took notice of that potential and overwhelmingly endorsed Bush in person, and conservative principles in general. The only way Bush can keep faith with the public, is to use that mandate to send the Senate another conservative -- maybe even more like Scalia or Thomas. Contemporary popularity polls, and the threatening barks of the left, should not trump the manifest will of the people. Bush has no re-election to compromise principle with political practicality.
Of couse, since this is the seminal moment for the left, we can expect their most brutal partisan attacks on the nominee. They are not looking to advise and consent. The Senate liberals want nothing more than to appoint by default. There only hope is to make the President believe that only a candidate acceptable to them will avoid a political donnybrook that will further sink his political fortunes.
In his next appointment, Bush will affirm his legacy with a philosophic nomination, and will fight to the mat to achieve confirmation, or he will succumb to the illusionary benefit of acquesence to the wilting assault of the left. I am betting on Bush to do what is right -- in every sense of the word.
OBSRVATION: What is with Cindy Sheehan?
I have been involved in public issues for two score, and like to think of myself as one of those who can respect opinions I do not share -- and even like the people who express them.
I generally support President Bush on the rationale and necessity of the war in Iraq. I have many good friends who disagree. I have had many a civilized debates with such friends, leaving the discussion with the same friendship and respect with which I entered it.
Then there is Cindy Sheehan, the crusading mother of one of our fallen heroes. I would rather spend eternity tied to my old school desk while tormentors scratch the blackboard than to listen to her shrill voice screeching out inanities. Her camera-petrified dropping face is an assault to my eyes. The intelligence quotient of her argument is as close to zero as is humanly possible.
She brings out my least generous side. I even wonder if her son's enlistment was not a means of getting away from "mommy dearest," and if the flight of her husband was not a rational act of self preservation. Oh, I know these are terrible thoughts, and I am at a lost to know why she so readily conjures them.
It is not as if I have to deal with her real person on a day-to-day basis. I need no military enlistment or divorce to keep her at distance. I am fortunate to only have to turn the page or change the channel to have her removed from my presence.
As I ponder my own reactions, I know that part of it is my belief that she is now overtaken by her own ego -- caring no longer for the cause, those other soldiers, the truth, or even her son. She has defined her whole being in her narrow mission. Everything else is a pretext.
Virtually no one in authority agrees with her "pull out now" position. Certainly not those of us who believe that the war was necessary, weapons of mass destruction not withstanding. But, even those who originally opposed the war reject instant withdrawal. They, too, understand that abandonment now would create not a safer world, but rather would give reign to an orgy of political violence, the collapse of Iraq into a terrorist anarchy, destabilize the middles east, wreak havoc on the world's oil-dependent economies and increase acts of terrorism within these United States.
While I take comfort in the fact that her pleas will go unheeded by the rationale and responsible world, the fact that she would give aid and comfort to our enemies maybe at the root of my uncharacteristic animus. Or maybe my realization that her egotistical malevolence or pathetic stupidity will only embolden the madmen to step up their killing efforts. To the extent she gives hope to those maniacal killers, she will cause more of our soldiers ... and more innocent civilians ... to be brutally and ruthlessly slaughtered.
The war in Iraq will ... and must be continued. Cindy Sheehan's only contribution will be to increase the number of American soldiers returning home in body bags, and the number of unsuspecting men, women and children blown to bits.
Maybe the fact that I have a grandson in the front line in Iraq ... maybe that is why I find her so very offensive. I do not want him to be one of Cindy Sheehan's victims. I wish she would have the decency to go home in silence ... and stay there.
I generally support President Bush on the rationale and necessity of the war in Iraq. I have many good friends who disagree. I have had many a civilized debates with such friends, leaving the discussion with the same friendship and respect with which I entered it.
Then there is Cindy Sheehan, the crusading mother of one of our fallen heroes. I would rather spend eternity tied to my old school desk while tormentors scratch the blackboard than to listen to her shrill voice screeching out inanities. Her camera-petrified dropping face is an assault to my eyes. The intelligence quotient of her argument is as close to zero as is humanly possible.
She brings out my least generous side. I even wonder if her son's enlistment was not a means of getting away from "mommy dearest," and if the flight of her husband was not a rational act of self preservation. Oh, I know these are terrible thoughts, and I am at a lost to know why she so readily conjures them.
It is not as if I have to deal with her real person on a day-to-day basis. I need no military enlistment or divorce to keep her at distance. I am fortunate to only have to turn the page or change the channel to have her removed from my presence.
As I ponder my own reactions, I know that part of it is my belief that she is now overtaken by her own ego -- caring no longer for the cause, those other soldiers, the truth, or even her son. She has defined her whole being in her narrow mission. Everything else is a pretext.
Virtually no one in authority agrees with her "pull out now" position. Certainly not those of us who believe that the war was necessary, weapons of mass destruction not withstanding. But, even those who originally opposed the war reject instant withdrawal. They, too, understand that abandonment now would create not a safer world, but rather would give reign to an orgy of political violence, the collapse of Iraq into a terrorist anarchy, destabilize the middles east, wreak havoc on the world's oil-dependent economies and increase acts of terrorism within these United States.
While I take comfort in the fact that her pleas will go unheeded by the rationale and responsible world, the fact that she would give aid and comfort to our enemies maybe at the root of my uncharacteristic animus. Or maybe my realization that her egotistical malevolence or pathetic stupidity will only embolden the madmen to step up their killing efforts. To the extent she gives hope to those maniacal killers, she will cause more of our soldiers ... and more innocent civilians ... to be brutally and ruthlessly slaughtered.
The war in Iraq will ... and must be continued. Cindy Sheehan's only contribution will be to increase the number of American soldiers returning home in body bags, and the number of unsuspecting men, women and children blown to bits.
Maybe the fact that I have a grandson in the front line in Iraq ... maybe that is why I find her so very offensive. I do not want him to be one of Cindy Sheehan's victims. I wish she would have the decency to go home in silence ... and stay there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
