Racial Profiling?

1-13-02 11:21Hrs–Rochester, NY—

Charges of racial profiling are all the rage, these days. It seems
there was a Secret Service agent who was recently kept off an American
Airlines flight from Baltimore/Washington to Dallas, Texas by the
captain who noting the man was carrying a firearm, and hadn’t filled
out the proper paperwork, as mandated by the government even before
9/11, had the nerve to suggest he wasn’t satisfied with the man’s
credentials. So, now the agent and his attorney, John Relman, are
saying that the agent was the victim of racial and ethnic profiling.

Several questions pop up here, mostly relating to common sense. Among
them:

Isn’t the Secret Service subject to aviation law?

Are minorities immune to aviation law?

Isn’t the Captain of the flight the one in charge?

Let’s look at this from his perspective, shall we? Let’s assume, just
for the sake of discussion that this guy IS in fact a terrorist since,
after all, the captain couldn’t be sure, based on the information he
had. Here is, by all accounts, a belligerent SOB with a gun, and one
who submitted a rather smudged carbon copy of his paperwork instead of
the required original, at that. Sounds like a real winner, this guy,
huh?

It gets better.

According to the reports I’m seeing, he failed in two subsequent
attempts to fill out the required paperwork correctly. He was trying
to board a flight headed in the general direction Of President Bush,
on a day when security forces are on a maximum alert for terrorist
activity. To top this off, the guy’s of Middle Eastern descent.

Now, we’re supposed to expect the captain to presume this idiot was
who he said he was?

Now, let’s say this guy IS a terrorist, and breaks out this weapon
mid-flight and tries to create a 9/11 scenario. Think the families of
the people on that plane aren’t going to have a few questions as to
why procedure wasn’t followed? How about the media and the public?

These charges should be thown out without comment and the Secret
Service chap should spend several years behind bars. If we are taking
our security seriously, Mr Bush, I suggest you start with this idiot.
Interesting, how we’ve not heard anything further on this one.

Consider a similar incident in injecting race where it simply doesn’t
belong; Check the thumbnail picture below:

You’ve all seen this picture before, so I won’t waste bandwidth on the
high-res version. The FDNY decided to commission a statue of this
picture to place in their city HQ. Trouble was, they altered the race
of the people in the pic. Can someone explain to me what would have
motivated the ‘artist’ to do that?

The commonality of course is that in both cases, someone waved a
magical wand called RACE and thought that would make it all better.
Were whites to try this…. How long do you suppose it’d be before we
saw Jesse Jackson front and center?

12-25-01 10:20Hrs–Rochester, NY—

Another Christmas has come.

This one is filled with all the wonder and all of the joy that their predecessors have brought, along with some added sadness. As I sat and watched our two kids open their gifts from Santa this year, over the rim of my morning tea, a focusing thought struck me. Is it just me or do our lives get sadder every year? I just had to write a column…

No, don’t worry. I’ve not taken leave of my senses… I am not being overly morose here, nor am I wallowing in self- pity. There is a positive point, here, trust me.

But consider; as we get older, we become more aware of the world around us, and how hard it can be. Small concerns are our focus when we are as young as my two are. My younger boy’s biggest concern is, will he get to play with his trains today, and watching a favorite cartoon. The older boy’s big thing these days is watching the real trains when we get the chance to go out and see them together. (I suspect that the ‘together’ part is the most important.)

As we grow up, our focus changes, of necessity. It’s a hard world out there, and being adults we’ve come to understand this, in a way of understanding that only long exposure and experience can bring.

Each new hurt leaves it’s own scar on our souls. We see, this year, the illusions of peace disappearing in the Middle East, and we’ve seen the war being brought to us here in the US. There’s nothing like the specter of 5000 people dying on national television to remind us we’re not in control.

Seems every year we have more worries and concerns. We worry about out health, and those concerns increase with advancing age. We worry about our jobs, about our investments, our savings, about the future in general. Retirement is a concern. Will we have enough? We worry about the future our kids will have and the normal growing up problems, but we also worry about the future that we’ve left our kids. What kind of a world have we left them? We see loved ones die. We’ve seen marriages
we thought would pass the test of time, pass away, instead. Things we had hoped would come to pass, didn’t, and those we’d not dreamed, in our wildest nightmares would happen, did. The list of these reverses, these scars, gets longer as the years progress, and it starts eventually, to break down the positive outlook in us all…. Each according to their ability to resist.

And that, I thought, over this morning’s Earl Grey, is why Christmas holds a special place in our hearts, and our traditions. The obvious spiritual considerations aside for the moment, it is a time of renewal of our fragile human spirit. All of the hurts, small and large, become less pronounced, and fade under the soft glow of the lights, the candles the fireplace, and the smile of the children.

It is the children, in fact, that do us the most healing. Our long experience has hardened us to the realities of the world around us, and perhaps jaded our point of view. Christmas gives us, individually and collectively, the chance of looking at the world though the wonder-filled eyes of a child once again. Becoming childlike,
ourselves, in the process, and becoming healed and renewed.

Hmmm. Little Children, eh? (Sound of turning pages)

“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.”

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.”

Healing, indeed!

A blessed Christmas to each of you.

12-19-01 21:21Hrs–Rochester, NY—

Back on the 13th of September , a mere day and a half following the attack on America, I pinned the fault for this happening, squarely on the shoulders of one Bill Clinton, for having done the Chamberlain dance with Yassir Arafat. I’ve been suspecting for a long while, and made my feelings public that day, that the problem was Clinton either being collusional enough, or perhaps being more kind… flat out stupid enough, to be dealing with Arafat as if he was the genuine article.

I caught hell from the usual suspects, but that only served to confirm I was onto something. Indeed, I went further in my next several articles, saying in the most recent, that we’d have to take Arafat out. As of today, it looks like I have proof that I pinned it. Within three days, This unspeakable slimeball has tried playing one end then the other. Just today, Arafat put the Hamas leader suit back on and
appealed for martyrs in the war against Israel.

In an address in Ramallah, Arafat said Palestinians should regard a Palestinian youngster killed in crossfire between PA and Israeli forces killed in the Gaza Strip as an example for the Palestinian people. And some of the reports I’ve seen say the kid was so busy chucking peaceful stones, he never noticed the Palestinians opening up behind him. In all likelihood, in his act of hate, he got caught between his elders act of hate, and their intended target… the victims in all of this…Israel. Arafat, trying desperately to score points with his Hamas Masters, said all Palestinians are martyrs. Now, doesn’t that sound cozy? Oh, so peaceful.

Just so we know this was no fluke, no slip of the tongue… that he really meant to say this, he went farther:, saying he is willing to sacrifice 70 Palestinians to ensure the death of one Israeli. And just so we know we heard it correctly, the speech was rebroadcast several times on PA radio today. “We will defend the holy land with our blood and with our spirit,” he wailed. “We do not only wear uniforms; we are all military. We are all martyrs in paradise.” According to at least one account I’ve seen, the crowd seeing the speech live began to chant that millions of Palestinians are prepared to march as martyrs to Jerusalem.

So peaceful huh? If we take his word, that means that all bets are off, and that any Palestinian is a legit target. That’s really what you want? So be it, Yassir.

And all of this, as I say, less than two days after calling for an end of Palestinian attacks against Israel. Of course, Palestinian insurgency groups have rejected Arafat’s appeal, and apparently dropped a few well-worded threats, and presto-chango, he’s a warrior again. Well, news flash, guys… he’s always been a warrior. He’s been using this ‘peacemaker’ act as he would any other weapon… against his enemy. That much has now been made so startlingly clear, even those of
the left can no longer deny it. The PA cannot be trusted, and never should have been trusted. It’s been clear to me for some years, now, but as I said some months ago…

The supposedly peace loving liberals among us must feel blind sided as regards the middle east these days, as they are a great many things. Because of Bill Clinton’s bumbling in the Middle East, we’re now closer to war than we have been in years.
Ah, yes… Middle East peace. Never have so many westerners given so much for so little. So great is the need to believe that sacrifice and bloodshed will not be necessary; and that peace and prosperity are the universal goals of mankind, that they were willing to accept the help of a known liar toward their goal of, as Neville Chamberlain put it; “Never to go to war with one another again”.

We now see where this leads us.  There is no longer any argument that the bumbling of Mr. Clinton has led us to this pass. It is now to George W. Bush to clean up the mess Clinton made, while Clinton’s fellow Democrats fight him almost as tenaciously as El Quieda. One wonders, if after all proof, the Democrats continue to fight Bush’s efforts, because they and El Quieda share the same goals…. The destruction of America.

The vast majority approves of Mr. Bush’s actions and continues to thrash the Democrats in the job approval polling. Yet the partisans keep trying to play roadblock in our efforts against the Terrorists and our recovery efforts as well, all while blaming Mr. Bush for Mr. Clinton’s doings.

The sad part is, Clinton won’t pay for this crime, nor will his supporters and apologists both then and now. The really sad part is, WE will be paying for his trying to diffuse his legacy, for decades to come.

12-09-01 23:14Hrs–Rochester, NY—

Poor Yassir Arafat. I gather we’re all supposed to feel sorry for him these days. The years of playing one force against the other for his own aggrandizement have taken their toll. He’s just not able to fool anyone, any longer, and it’s down to put up or shut up time.

I said, just after the attack of 9/11, that “Arafat’s comments, following the attack, (Shock and dismay in carefully measured amounts) as compared to the reactions of his people, (dancing in the streets at our losses) show him to be a liar of the first order, or that the
Palestinian people are not under his control, or both. As a result, Arafat commitments were useless to (the West), and yet useful to the Arabs who wish and work for the destruction of America, her citizens and her friends.” Such as, of course, Israel.

Mr Bush knows this, as do his advisors, many of whom have held from the beginning, as I have, that Arafat is a sham. And yet, they know that the best chance for a peace process on paper at least, is to have Arafat as part of the mix.

But of course then comes two hard questions.

Is Arafat to be trusted?

And, even assuming he is to be trusted, will a peace treaty with Arafat’s signature on it mean anything more than paper, given that the Palestinians seem to be out from under his control?

A look at the support for Hamas, this last weekend, is an example. The ‘police actions’ Arafat’s PA took were a dismal failure from every angle you look.

The reason for Arafat still being regarded as the only person who can be negotiated with is simple; even assuming he could be removed who is to replace him in the role of head of the PA? The answer at the moment appears to be under Palestinian law, the speaker of the Palestinian legislature, Ahmed Queria, also known as “Abu Ala,” who would be
acting president for 90 days pending new elections.

“Do not be deluded by the word `elections,’ ” said an Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, in a recent Knight Ridder article, which was run in the Miami Herald recently. “These are selections, not elections. The voting will crown the victor who has been decided by the leaders in advance.” Queria “is a contender that others do not want,” said this official, who regards him as having little chance of retaining the presidency after the interim period. I have seen information, suggesting Ala is a Hamas supporter.

So far, I’ve seen nothing that will contradict this information. So, in all likelyhood, he will not be supported by the west, as well as not being supported by his own.

To my mind, this not having a popular successor, raises the issue of the legitimacy of the position Arafat now holds. In every other position of political leadership around the world, including ones which are of rather dubios value, such as the politlca role of one Jesse Jackson, have someone waiting in the wings, to take over the role should the need arise. Even if, as in Jackson’s case, it’s one of his children.

The comparison seems to me quite apt. Arafat seems to me a very Jesse Jackson – like figure. Like Jackson, Arafat holds no real power, and like Jackson, Arafat is not even recognized by most of his own people as being in a leadership role. Nobody, including his own people, wants him around, but the people whose race and culture he claims to
represent would be offended if he wasn’t given the treatment due someone of leadership status by the remainder of the world. So, Arafat gets invited to the party, and negotiates for meaningless peace treaties.

Frankly, my perception of his position comes down to this; That the only people in position to take the reins from Arafat are Hamas, makes one wonder if about Arafat’s loyalties to the concept of peace.

But all of this has now come to a head in the last week. Israel, taking their long overdue queue from the United States, has now also declared War on terrorism. And with that have come the attacks of Israel against Hamas, and their supporters, including Arafat’s
compound. Israel sees itself as having the support of the world in this, and for the first time in many years, they’re right, for the most part.

Arafat responded to Israel’s get tough actions by issuing scores of arrest warrants. Problem is, the PA jails have a revolving door on them. Arafat makes a show out of arresting people and then turns them loose as soon as the dust settles. In hearing the reports these days of the arrests by the PA police, one nearly envisions Claude Rains in
the guise of Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca, giving the order to ‘Round Up the usual suspects’.

Arafat certainly is playing this so that he doesn’t erode his own power base. He has long played things so as to expand his power. This tendency has been noted previously, and current events with him have changed little, his policies and actions.

But with the hard choices he now has to make, he may not be able to maintain his power, and peace, both. Peace may have to come at the price of his power. Indeed, it will be easier without him in his current position. But, no matter what he does, the danger for him is that Palestinians will look at him as having gone too far while Israel will say that he has not gone nearly far enough. Arafat certainly no stranger to playing both ends against the middle, but the stakes, with 9/11, have been raised on an order of scale. Ironicly, this is,
perhaps, an unintended effect of the attack.

After an attack by Israel against Hamas positions, Arafat, clearly annoyed at having the facade of peacemaker stripped away to reveal the Hamas leader underneath, spoke irritatedly to Israel’s Channel One, about recent American pressure on him to arrest militants,:

“Dear God, who cares about the Americans,” Arafat said, striking the
air with his hand at his office in the West Bank city of Ramallah. “The Americans are on your side and they give you everything, ` `Who gave you the airplanes? The Americans. Who gave you the tanks? The Americans.”

Well, Yassir, you seemed to care enough during the Clinton years, when you all but had your own room at the White House. As to caring now about America now, you’d better start, Yassir. The people in those tanks know better than the people negotiating those sham peace treaties with you, that they’ll have to use those tanks and planes to come after YOU. And, it’ll be happening soon, barring a change on your part.

After which, peace may at last come to the region.

The Democrats started 2001 smelling blood in the water, and like any mindless shark, started snapping at anything that moved. As they start 2002, though it’s looking more and more like the blood they smelled was their own. It’s just that quite a few of them, like the sharks they are, don’t know it yet.

They started this year of their campaign against Mr. Bush by challenging his legitimacy as president, claiming that Bush really lost the 2000 election and so shouldn’t have been in the White House at all. According to these people, it belonged to Gore… even when Gore was sounding rather relieved to have not made it in. Then during the summer, the big deal was punishing Bush and the ‘thieving’
Republicans in the 2002 elections

More recently, it’s had the undercurrent of that 2002 win pushing Bush out in 2004. These attacks have gotten so brazen and bizarre, that we are seeing indications that the Democrats plan to demonize conservative Christians as being like the Taliban, according to an article in Newsweek. All in the name of tolerance, of course.

Howard Fineman, in the NEWSWEEK, writes: Democrats “are planning a daring assault on the most critical turf in politics: the cultural mainstream” ….. ” The theory goes like this. Our enemy in Afghanistan is religious extremism and intolerance. It’s therefore more important than ever to honor the ideals of tolerance ? religious,
sexual, racial, reproductive ? at home. The GOP is out of the mainstream, some Democrats will argue [this] year, because it’s too dependent upon an intolerant ‘religious right,'” Mr. Fineman says.

Fineman has obviously not been reading Usenet, and some of the other political forums on the net, because that nonsense has been going on in there since Gore finally admitted Bush won. The usual suspects are getting more strident as they find themselves taken out of the realm of validity. But you’re always going to get that in Usenet.

But the net is hardly the only place. Consider Laura Conway of the ‘Village Voice’: “Progressives spent much of 2001 getting punched in the nose again and again and again… all the way from the crushing denouement of Bush-Gore-Nader to the collapse of a visible anti-war movement. We lost on tactics, principles and PR. The year opened with a few thousand protesters straining to be heard at the crowning of an illegitimate president and ended with 90 percent of the country … and no small number of progressives… backing that president’s military machine. As if understanding that the left is losing the fight badly, the Village Voice wails:

“The left can … and must… get up off the mat. The bell is ringing and the fight is now.”

What is happening here is that America is beginning to understand that what the left has been executing is an attack on American culture. This understanding existed , even before 9/11 but certainly after it. It’s not been until 9/11 that we as a people understood just how important that cultural base is, and how low the American left has been bending so as to attack it.

With all that Democrat partisanship as a backdrop, the left now decides to puke up charges about Bush’s involvement with Enron. But as usual, the left can’t seem to see the facts, so blinded are they by their desire for revenge. Consider the linkages:

Enron does fine for years, under Clinton. Under Bush they go under? Just what is Enron supposed to have gotten under Bush, anyway? Here’s a clue: Other energy companies fell the same way and most often and hardest in the states where energy companies are most closely regulated. Such as Democrat – dominated California. So, Bush gets the blame? Well, let’s see… Under the Clinton administration, what would
have kept Enron afloat? On Nov. 22, 1995 President Clinton scrawled an FYI note to chief of staff Mack McLarty, enclosing a newspaper article on Enron Corp. and the vicissitudes of its $3 billion power-plant project in India.
…..
McLarty then reached out to Enron’s chairman, Ken Lay, and over the next nine months closely monitored the project with the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, keeping Lay informed of the Administration’s efforts, according to White House documents reviewed by TIME magazine.
……
In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron’s controversial $3 billion power-plant project, Enron’s gave $100,000 to President Clinton’s party.
……
Enron denies that its gift was repayment for Clinton’s attention, and White House special counsel Lanny Davis says McLarty acted out of concern for a major U.S. investment overseas, TIME’s Michael Weisskopf reported.

And of course, Enron later hired McLarty. Lay played golf with President Bill Clinton and slept in the Clinton White House. Lay served as an adviser to the Clinton White House on energy issues. So, Clinton did what the left is now complaining aout with Bush. The difference is, there’s documented evidence that the Clinton administration, in turn, helped Enron get a contract for a gas pipeline in Mozambique and other projects, according to many, many reports..

And Clinton wasn’t alone in taking the money. What kind of donations did Enron cough up to the Democrats in Congress? Here’s a breakdown of Enron contributions 1989-2001

Enron Donations to Senators

#1: Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) $99,500
#2: Phil Gramm (R-TX) $97,350
#3: Conrad Burns (R-MT) $23,200
#4: Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) $21,933
#5: Michael D. Crapo (R-ID) $18,689
#6: Christopher S. Bond (R-MO) $18,500
#7: Gordon Smith (R-OR) $18,000
#8: Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $14,124
#9: Chuck Hagel (R-NC) $13,331
#10: Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) $12,000
#11: John B. Breaux (D-LA) $11,100
#12: John McCain (R-AZ) $9,500
#13: Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) $8,053
#14: Pat Roberts (R-Kan) $8,000
#15: Bob Graham (D-Fla) $8,000
#16: John Ensign (R-Nev) $7,500
#17: Larry E. Craig (R-ID) $7,250
#18: Craig Thomas (R-WY) $7,000
#19: Don Nickles (R-OK) $7,000
#20: Tom Daschle (D-SD) $6,000
#21: Ben Nelson (D-NE) $6,000

Enron Donations to Representatives in the House

#1: Ken Bentsen (D-TX) $42,750
#2: Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) $38,000
#3: Joe L. Barton (R-TX) $28,909
#4: Tom DeLay (R-TX) $28,900
#5: Martin Frost (D-TX) $24,250
#6: Charles W. Stenholm (D-TX) $14,439
#7: Chet Edwards (D-TX) $10,000
#8: Doug Bereuter (R-NE) $10,000
#9: Larry Combest (R-TX) $9,820
#10: John D. Dingell (D-MI) $9,000
#11: Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) $8,500
#12: Edward J. Markey (D-MA) $8,500

*All figures from the Federal Election Commission

Confirmation:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42757,00.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_cong_senate.asp
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_cong_house.asp

Interesting; the farthest to the right they got with their donantions was left of center. An agenda, perhaps?

And of course, let’s recall, shall we, that the Congressional leftists in the Congress weren’t alone, here. Gregg Simon, Jack Quinn, and Johnny Hayes were all Gore advisors, and all took cash from Enron, while in that capacity. Remember these names; they will play heavily in any investigation into Enron. Bill Clinton did too, and so too, many other DNC candidates. Enron’s two biggest donations to House members went to Democrats. The company spread its cash around in vast amounts, on the left. How much remains to be seen, and I doubt we will ever know. And the reason is simple: The accounting for it has been destroyed.

Recently stories about Enron accounting records that were destroyed have surfaced. What the press hasn’t been telling you…at least as of this writing, is that the accounting firm, whose records were destroyed, were from the accounting firm Arthur Anderson and company.

Anderson is a company with a long history of supporting Democrats, with maximum money, and some reports place the amounts given well OVER the legal maximums. They also provided services worth millions of dollars, cooking up the books to defend Bill Clinton’s nonsensical economic prattle. With this in mind, it’s not hard to see why those documents have recent been reported as destroyed.

What did Enron get for all of those Democrat donations? There is much in the way of indication that Enron got special treatment from our federal government, both allowing, shall we say, non-standard budgeting practices, and international influence, in places like India, for example. Thing is, with the documents being destroyed, we’ll never know.

Putting the links together, it’s getting easier to see that this attempt to slander George W Bush by the Democrats will fail yet again, and will in fact backfire on them. I suspect and suppose the Democrats have dug their own grave. And like any body that’s dying, some parts just don’t know it yet.

Others seem to, however. Says the Washington Post this morning:

“Democratic lawmakers are divided about how aggressively to investigate the White House’s relationship to the implosion of Enron Corp., with an increasing number of party officials warning their colleagues against overreaching or showing too much glee in attacking a popular wartime president.”

I wonder if Tom Dashiele has gotten the message. If not, one could say the DNC is dead from the neck up, given that Dashiele is the only one who doesn’t know his moves will kill the party, if he keeps it up.

If he does, he’ll be doing the country a service for the first time in his overly long political career.

It’s been a very fast month.
I know, I know, I’ve not written a new column in a whole stupid month,
where the beep am I? Well, the problem is, each time I’ve sat beack to
write about something, the situation changed. As fast as things are
going of late, I’d have had to write a column every day. I wrote
several times in the last month, but each time I did, the suituation
changed, requiring a re-write. It’s months like this that I marvel
that the people who do this for a living can generate any output at
all. Anyway, I generally find myself trying to stick to one specific
topic per column. Alas, it didn’t work that way. I really don’t fully
know the reason why. Perhaps it’s the larger tension we find ourselves
in these days, butI find my notes on events of late coming out in
shorter spurts.

Here’s a bunch of them, in no particular order, then, just as they’ve
occurred to me over the last two weeks and I’ve written them into my
Palm Pilot.

** It’s time to tighten up our visa policy. The terrorists in the case
of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, those involved in the more
recent (1998, I think) plot to bomb New York’s subway system, and the
CIA shootings, back in 1993… all of these were Middle East aliens
who either were granted a visa that should never have been issued or
had overstayed a visa and should have been expelled. Apparently, our
lessons were not learned. State has no clue as to how many such people
there are in the country. That is the first duty of any government.

**It’s time to put some serious money into border guards on our
northern border. Our border patrols were under serious cutback under
the Clinton misadministration, and President Bush should set that to
rights. I keep seeing reports that some of the hijackers got here by
way of Canada into Maine, In at least three different reports I’ve
found FBI Director Robert Mueller says that at least some of the 19 or
so hijackers had no proper immigration documents. Now, before you
misunderstand me, our relationship with Canada is a good one, and one
to be kept… but one that needs management. Canada has a
no-questions-asked immigration policy. There are those in Canada, even
today, who cringe at the idea of tightening those policies Add this to
the fact that many of our border crossings between the US and Canada
are unmanned, and you have a recipe for easy entry of whoever wants
into the US. This apparently is exactly what happened prior to 9/11,
and according to some at the State Dept, is a method used by terrorist
groups for many years. And of course, Mexico?.. OK, you get the idea.

**It’s time to rethink our no-gun policy on domestic flights . If it’s
known that passengers are armed, nobody will even TRY to hijack a
plane… and if they did, their attempt would fail. Picture it;
Someone stands up and says: “OK, This is a hijacking!” … the last
part of the sentence being drowned out by bolts being drawn back. At
the very least, paying an armed guard, and advertising that fact? but
making sure the guard looks normal. Potential hijackers not knowing
who the guy with the gun is, is an advantage. Yes, there is the
argument that suggests any firearm in the plane, even by a trained
guard will down the plane. But consider the people in the WTC. Sure
the people on the plane may (or may not) be hurt, but at least the
plans of the terrorist are thwarted and people on the ground are
saved.. Consider the idea that had only one person per plane been
armed, who was not a hijacker, at least 4000 less people would have
died, even if we assume that the Terrorists didn’t know there was
someone in the plane capable of thwarting their plans, and the planes
had crashed. Had the terrorists known that such a person or persons
existed on those flights, the attempt to take over the plane would
never have been made. And it seems to me these ideas are valid outside
the environment of the plane, as well. There’s clear evidence that in
the case of the passengers in the flight that crashed in a western
Pennsylvania field, that in the absence of law enforcement, self-help
is desirable, and in fact crucial. This seems to me to be what we
should be keeping in mind as we create laws, which attempt to protect
us from ourselves, by means of removing those tools we use to protect
ourselves.

** Security should make sense. We’re busy trying to shore up our
security procedures at airports, and that’s a good thing. But it seems
to me that we we’re not looking at these ideas through the filter of:
“Would this have stopped 9/11 from happening?” A good chunk of the
ideas we’re seeing enacted for added security most clearly would not
make it past such a filter. Tight security procedures are all well and
good, but practical application of the theories presented, and the
laws and procedures which result from those theories, are in order. In
the absence of practical application, laws are doomed to failure, as
are ANY laws created in such an environment.

** What kind of image are we projecting? Literally! I am willing to
bet that a lot of the problems between us and other nations and other
cultures is a misunderstanding based on what others see of our culture
in our media. Consider it this way: When was the last time you saw a
movie that made the military look good? How about one that cast a
positive light on the Christian religion? Or Judaism? One that showed
us that the American family is supposed to be a cohesive unit, much
less one that actually WAS?

**President Bush has shown himself to be a very capable leader. He is
doing what needs to be done in this situation, and more. Perhaps this
needs to be laid out because after 8 years of Clinton, we’ve lost
touch with the way things are, and what a real leader is.

The definition of a hero, is someone who does what’s needful,
regardless of who it is that gets the credit… or for that matter,
any other consequences. . We saw many of these in New York and
Washington.

The definition of a leader, similarly, is is someone who gets others
to do what’s needful, not because the leader orders them to, not
because of a punishment if a thing is not done. The leader is
successful in convincing people that a thing is needed, so that they
act on that need of their OWN choice… not the leader’s choice..
Ironically, it is often that thereby the followers become heroes. This
is something that Mr Bush is wildly successful at. Which, it seems to
me, means he is a genuine leader.

Frashback:

11-13-01 –Rochester, NY—
It’s been a very fast month.
I know, I know, I’ve not written a new column in a whole stupid month, where the beep am I? Well, the problem is, each time I’ve sat beack to write about something, the situation changed. As fast as things are going of late, I’d have had to write a column every day. I wrote several times in the last month, but each time I did, the suituation changed, requiring a re-write. It’s months like this that I marvel that the people who do this for a living can generate any output at all. Anyway, I generally find myself trying to stick to one specific topic per column. Alas, it didn’t work that way. I really don’t fully know the reason why. Perhaps it’s the larger tension we find ourselves in these days, butI find my notes on events of late coming out in shorter spurts.
Here’s a bunch of them, in no particular order, then, just as they’ve occurred to me over the last two weeks and I’ve written them into my Palm Pilot.
** It’s time to tighten up our visa policy. The terrorists in the case of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, those involved in the more recent (1998, I think) plot to bomb New York’s subway system, and the CIA shootings, back in 1993… all of these were Middle East aliens who either were granted a visa that should never have been issued or
had overstayed a visa and should have been expelled. Apparently, our lessons were not learned. State has no clue as to how many such people there are in the country. That is the first duty of any government.
**It’s time to put some serious money into border guards on our northern border. Our border patrols were under serious cutback under the Clinton misadministration, and President Bush should set that to rights. I keep seeing reports that some of the hijackers got here by way of Canada into Maine, In at least three different reports I’ve found FBI Director Robert Mueller says that at least some of the 19 or so hijackers had no proper immigration documents. Now, before you misunderstand me, our relationship with Canada is a good one, and one to be kept… but one that needs management. Canada has a
no-questions-asked immigration policy. There are those in Canada, even today, who cringe at the idea of tightening those policies Add this to the fact that many of our border crossings between the US and Canada are unmanned, and you have a recipe for easy entry of whoever wants into the US. This apparently is exactly what happened prior to 9/11, and according to some at the State Dept, is a method used by terrorist groups for many years. And of course, Mexico?.. OK, you get the idea.
**It’s time to rethink our no-gun policy on domestic flights . If it’s known that passengers are armed, nobody will even TRY to hijack a plane… and if they did, their attempt would fail. Picture it; Someone stands up and says: “OK, This is a hijacking!” … the last part of the sentence being drowned out by bolts being drawn back. At the very least, paying an armed guard, and advertising that fact? but making sure the guard looks normal. Potential hijackers not knowing who the guy with the gun is, is an advantage. Yes, there is the
argument that suggests any firearm in the plane, even by a trained guard will down the plane. But consider the people in the WTC. Sure the people on the plane may (or may not) be hurt, but at least the plans of the terrorist are thwarted and people on the ground are saved.. Consider the idea that had only one person per plane been armed, who was not a hijacker, at least 4000 less people would have died, even if we assume that the Terrorists didn’t know there was someone in the plane capable of thwarting their plans, and the planes had crashed. Had the terrorists known that such a person or persons
existed on those flights, the attempt to take over the plane would never have been made. And it seems to me these ideas are valid outside the environment of the plane, as well. There’s clear evidence that in the case of the passengers in the flight that crashed in a western Pennsylvania field, that in the absence of law enforcement, self-help is desirable, and in fact crucial. This seems to me to be what we should be keeping in mind as we create laws, which attempt to protect us from ourselves, by means of removing those tools we use to protect ourselves.
** Security should make sense. We’re busy trying to shore up our security procedures at airports, and that’s a good thing. But it seems to me that we we’re not looking at these ideas through the filter of: “Would this have stopped 9/11 from happening?” A good chunk of the ideas we’re seeing enacted for added security most clearly would not make it past such a filter. Tight security procedures are all well and good, but practical application of the theories presented, and the laws and procedures which result from those theories, are in order. In the absence of practical application, laws are doomed to failure, as are ANY laws created in such an environment.
** What kind of image are we projecting? Literally! I am willing to bet that a lot of the problems between us and other nations and other cultures is a misunderstanding based on what others see of our culture in our media. Consider it this way: When was the last time you saw a movie that made the military look good? How about one that cast a
positive light on the Christian religion? Or Judaism? One that showed us that the American family is supposed to be a cohesive unit, much less one that actually WAS?
**President Bush has shown himself to be a very capable leader. He is doing what needs to be done in this situation, and more. Perhaps this needs to be laid out because after 8 years of Clinton, we’ve lost touch with the way things are, and what a real leader is.
The definition of a hero, is someone who does what’s needful, regardless of who it is that gets the credit… or for that matter, any other consequences. . We saw many of these in New York and Washington.
The definition of a leader, similarly, is is someone who gets others to do what’s needful, not because the leader orders them to, not because of a punishment if a thing is not done. The leader is successful in convincing people that a thing is needed, so that they
act on that need of their OWN choice… not the leader’s choice.. Ironically, it is often that thereby the followers become heroes. This is something that Mr Bush is wildly successful at. Which, it seems to me, means he is a genuine leader.

01/21/03 –Rochester, NY—

About a month after the 9/11 attacks against America, I had asked the question:

** What kind of image are we projecting? Literally! I am willing to bet that a lot of the problems between us and other nations and other cultures is a misunderstanding based on what others see of our culture in our media. Consider it this way: When was the last time you saw a movie that made the military look good? How about one that cast a positive light on the Christian religion? Or Judaism? One that showed us that the American family is supposed to be a cohesive unit, much less one that actually WAS?

So, over a year later, here comes Fredric U. Dicker, The New York Post’s State Editor, who basically points up the same problems, through the filter of a discussion about film director Martin Scorsese’s new movie “Gangs of NewYork” :

“LET’S see: Martin Scorsese’s new movie demeans Lincoln’s efforts to save the nation, mocks the Union Army, sneers at volunteer soldiers, derides native-born New Yorkers, pours scorn on firefighters and police officers and fails to find a single person of quality among all of New York City’s leaders, circa 1863.”

It would do well, perhaps to at this point look at the output of Martin Scorsese, aside from GANGS.

* The Last Temptation of Christ.
Ah, yes. Portray Christ as a sex-crazed mental defective. Wonder what would happen if he was to portray Mohammed that way?

* Good Fellas.
Oh, yeah. THERE’s a great picture of America.

* A remake of Cape Fear.
Even the cast of the original, which was sill alive at the time thought it overly violent.

* Taxi Driver
Another great snapshot of our country and out culture. 13 year old hookers are common. Got it.

* Casino
Another great snapshot of our country and out culture.

*The Grifters
Another great snapshot of our country and out culture.

There would seem to be a basic theme developing here, in his list of movies, that not many are willing to see. It’s one that Scorsese himself addressed, in an interview years ago:

“My parents wanted to protect my brother and myself from the horrors out there – the degradation of the poor derelicts, who were literally there on your block, in your building, on your stairs as you were going out to school in the morning; who were there, drunk, fighting each other with broken bottles or knives, or dead, literally dead.  Parents didn’t want you to touch them – they’re dirty, they’re this, they’re that. But at the same time, the church is always talking about compassion. So I’ve always had this split guilt: I’ve always felt not quite right not doing anything about it and that’s one of the reasons I wanted to make this movie.”

There is no question but that Scorsese is a genius at getting his vision onto film. Trouble is, as Dicker suggests:

“… Scorsese’s frightening vision… is just plain wrong, terribly wrong, and wrong in a way that is an insult … to millions of Americans – then and now. “

Dicker goes on to suggest:

.”

I’m less than convinced that such deconstruction was the original object of these films, though I can certainly see the argument for it. Rather, I suppose that Scorsese is, like most liberals driven by guilt they wish to impose on themselves, and the remainder of their society. I would go on to suggest that the level of recognition he gets, is based on this lean of Hollywood’s.

But for all this inaccuracy, we’re supposed to take him seriously when he says as he did a couple weeks ago, on the BBC, that President Bush is wrong to take on Iraq for “the oil” and that America allegedly refuses to “respect how other people live”? Sorry, Martin, no sale here. Worse, what is the remainder of the world seeing in this
distortion?

Nor am I suggesting by ANY stretch, that Scorsese is unique in this. The larger issue here, in my view is the kind of message we’re sending by holding up such films, and such people as make them, as our best? We need to consider, both as individuals making films, music, whatever, and as corporations and investors? and as buyers? what kind of message we’re sending not only to those within our own society, but also to the rest of the world. What kind of message, do you suppose was sent to people all over the world trying to make sense out of the propaganda piece spewed by the fat idiot, Michael Moore? What kind of message about us, are the people in the rest of the world getting from most of today’s Rap “Music”?

Small things over which we have exerted little control, are usually what drives our foreign relations.

Think I’m kidding?  Consider the pictures that the populations in other countries have, pictures they use to form their opinions about us. Most will never set foot on our soil. Yet, they think they know us by our propaganda, which is masquerading as entertainment. What else do they have to go on? You may consider this overstating the case, but I think not. Can you imagine anyone watching the films listed above,
having a positive attitude about Americans?

And look, I’m by no means suggesting that we should somehow place artificial (nee: Legal) limits on the produced matter. What I am suggesting is that our country, our culture, our world, would be far better off, if the producers of popular films, music and so on were more conscious of what kind of image we’re sending of ourselves. That can best be arranged by the American buying public were being
conscious of the message sent in what we’re buying. If we don’t buy it here, it won’t be selling overseas, either, and thereby we will have some control over the kind of picture others are getting of us.

Our future may depend on what others see of us. Shouldn’t we be paying attention to it?

-0-

Postscript, 01/22/03:
Just this morning, a couple days after writing this column, a peice by
Newt Gingrich on this very topic was posted on his website, and run in
the LA TIMES Op-Ed section. His conclusions are slightly different
than my own, but valid, nonetheless, and decidedly worth a read. It
can be found at
http://www.newt.org/index.php?src=news&prid=473&category=Opinion )

It is recorded in our history books that when he looked down at the ship full of smiling, victorious faces… faces of his flyers, just having returned from Pearl Harbor, Japanese fleet Admiral Yamamoto was quiet, pensive, even apprehensive. He later wrote in his private diary,

“I fear all I have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

As this column is written, it is the second night after the dastardly attacks on the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, and the Pentagon. In that amount of time, I have heard, on the news channels, and on the internet, a phase batted about several times, in various refinements, when discussing these attacks: “Like Pearl Harbor”.

Something in that phrase struck a deeper chord with me. It was, at the same time, unsettling, and reassuring. And about 20 minutes ago, my memory finally coughed up that quote from Yamamoto, and with it, my entire thought process about these events crystallized. In that revelation, it occurred to me I’d already written about what I was feeling.

In that column, I wrote of my worry that our influence on the world stage had suffered seriously, under the weight of Bill Clinton’s international bumbling. Well, Bumbling isn’t the right word. Bullying, is perhaps more accurate, yet still not spot-on.

I said, then:

“From Oslo to Camp David, Clinton has pushed Israel to the bargaining table, and pressured her to give up vital strategic and cultural assets she has no business giving away, if survival is at all on her agenda.  Ehud Barak, by his giving into Bill Clinton (who, along with his staff including Jim Carville, did much to put Barak into office), has done little more than demonstrate just how empty the Palestinians’ peace talk really is, and how desperate Clinton was to be seen as a good President, his crimes against his oaths not withstanding. 

Consider….

At Clinton’s insistence, Barak offered Arafat the keys to the kingdom; just about all of the West Bank and Gaza, plus East Jerusalem and even Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. How do the peace loving Palestinians respond?  Yasser Arafat turned it all down, and gave us another few nights of headlines, filled with kids in the street throwing stones, and being shot, occasionally. He also sent his armed forces, (You recall, they’re supposed to be policemen?) to fire at the Israelis, apparently hoping for an excuse to tell the rest of the world how Israel is a war-mongering nation. 

Of course that should have been a signal to about anyone with a brain that he didn’t give a damn about peace. All he and his followers are interested in is the destruction of Israel. It should have also been a signal that Clinton’s attempt at a legacy backfired, big time, and more, that it didn’t have a chance to start with…. something that Clinton should have known, did he have any understanding of the
situation at all. You will recall, perhaps that back in 1992 , Clinton more or less bragged he had no understanding of matters of foreign policy. This was never quite so clear as during this monstrosity Mr. Clinton unleashed on the world.

For Israel’s part, all of this has been laid at the feet of Ehud Barak, perhaps unfairly. No, I don’t think he was the man for the job, and clearly was only in the PM’s position because Clinton’s people worked so hard to get him there, apparently hoping to set up Clinton’s brokering a of peace deal. Easy to do when you have the PM of Israel owing you his election. But Barak apparently was under pressures he had no control of, having nothing to do with politics at home, or the Palestinians… both of which were quite out of his control to begin with, in any event.. He was concerned with Israel continuing to get support from the US. In this concern, he saw Israel as being on the controlled end of the puppet’s string… and knowing that if he did not capitulate to Clinton’s demands, that vital US support would wither as quickly as Benjamin Netenyau’s prime ministership did, when it became clear he wasn’t going to buckle to Clinton’s concession demands.

And Barak wasn’t alone, nor was the left in Israel, in this perception of US control versus Israel’s survival. Yitzhak Rabin, hardly a liberal even by American standards and certainly not under Bill Clinton’s extortion based control to the extent that Barak was, saw the same problems. His longtime friends, according reports I’ve seen,
tell us he was deeply troubled over the prospect of losing US support… and therefore bought into the ‘land for peace’ deals being brokered by the liberals in the US. This was something I predicted he wouldn’t have done.

Israeli voters, seeing this happening, and clearly annoyed with the US control over Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians, trounced Barak in the polls. Unless one considers this anger, the election of Ariel Sharon, his replacement, is hard to fathom, since he has never been overly popular, as best I can tell. But perhaps the people of Israel are finally figuring out what the real story is.. that in truth, there is no dealing with the Palestinians, and Arifat.

One hopes that they’ve not been too late in coming to this conclusion. If they are, world war seems fairly certain to me… possibly nuclear in nature.”

When I re-read that, I knew I’d found what I’d been feeling, and why the Yamamoto quote had been nagging at me.  I was feeling a deep anger. Justifiable, deep and abiding anger.  Anger not only at the terrorists who arranged and executed the events of September 11th, but anger at the policies which here at home led us to this pass.

I said, back in February:

“Others learned the lessons, painful as they tended to be. Chaimberlin’s England, for example,along with the remainder of the free world, learned about appeasement of a mortal enemy the hard way. The American left, apparently not having leaned the lesson taught by the infamous socialist, Hitler, was taught the lesson again, by another band of socialists, as Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan 40 or so years later. “

What’s this leading up to?

Well, dear reader; the conclusion that we are now paying the price for Clinton’s presidency. One can only hope we have paid the full price…. But I doubt it.

A rash statement, say you? I think not. Consider the timing of this attack on the US. 

Clinton, far from being firm with the Arabs, was giving them just what they wanted, following the World Trade Canter bombing in 1993; legitimacy, to use as a tool against us. Ironic; he’s supposed to be representing US. And to boot, we were ripping Israel apart for them. 

I have stated several times, that Clinton’s sole purpose here was to save his legacy. But how to achieve his goal? By bowing to Arab terrorists, and bullying Israel into giving in. So, while that’s going on, everything is sweetness and light. America decides to elect George W Bush, who will (rightly) support Israel and the Arabs aren’t too happy.

And since Clinton also decimated our military, you ability to mount a credible defense is so laughable as to encourage attack…

Boom.
Boom.
Boom.
And, splat.

Likely 20 thousand people dead, and as many injured, all in one afternoon, along with the likelihood of many more to follow.

Oh, I hear you squirming already… particularly those on the left… those who have always defended Clinton before, regardless of any fact. I hear you saying:

“Shouldn’t we be concerned with catching, and dealing with the people
who ordered and financed all this? And as Americans, shouldn’t we be
sticking together?”

Oh, certainly. String them up. Cut off all relations with the Palestinians, and do it now. No question.  And Military action isn’t out of the question, either.

And yes, I think we all as Americans should stand together in times like these. And, no, I’m not trying to gain political points, here… this problem affects every one of us.

Logic dictates that actually solving a problem, necessarily includes that both the problem, and the causes of that problem which can be controlled, be identified, so that action can be taken to ensure that such problems cease to exist.

Now, like it or not, we can’t do much about extremist causes. But we CAN control them to the point where they don’t cause us nearly the concern, by not acceding to their demands, as Chaimberlin did, and as Clinton did. We can support our longtime friends in the world. Clinton ran fast and loose with that requirement, in an effort to be remembered for something better than the long list of shady dealings and downright criminal acts, and what happened to be running down his leg at any given moment.

Trouble was, and remains, that Clinton was dealing with Yassir Arifat. Arifat’s comments, following the attack, as compared to the reactions of his people, (dancing in the streets at our losses) show him to be a liar of the first order, or that the Palestinian people are not under his control, or both. As a result, Arifat’s commitments were useless to us, and yet useful to the Arabs who wish and work for the destruction of America,her citizens and her friends.

Would it not have been simpler, would it have not cost less life, I ask, to elect a president who can keep his pants on, rather than get us into international trouble because of half-baked efforts at obscuring his own history? Something we should consider at the next election. As I said in February; Our future, assumng we have one, depends on it.

In any event;

My heart and my prayers go out for the persons lost, the persons yet trapped, and their families and loved ones. 

My great respects go out to those rescue workers, paid and otherwise, who carry on the fight that all will not be lost. Your wounds from this, I fear, will be greater than the wounds on those you struggle to save, because it is a cold fact that you will not succeed in saving all of them, and you know it going in. To you falls the task from which no sane person could walk away unaffected… and yet you go in, willingly.  And that is a wonder to all Americans, and most people in the rest of the world.

My respects also go out to the many law enforcement and military officials who are working to gather information toward the capture of those who ordered and executed this attack… at times risking THEIR lives.

We each, all of us, need to take out own kind of action in times of crisis. We feel we have the need to accomplish something to help to solve the issue. The people I mention above are doing that, certainly.

But my personal resolve is to work hard toward making sure we have Presidents who actually respect and want a strong Israel. As a start, that means making sure we never again have a president of the lowly in-the-gutter presence of a Bill Clinton.

Yours should be as well.

I only hope it’s not too late.

The similarities between the cases, and the conduct, of Ex-president Bill Clinton, and that of soon- to- be- ex- Congressman and fellow Democrat Gary Condit, are startling. This is true for both the conduct of the central figures, and the defense being put up for each. 

Now, we both know that the happenings of Bill Clinton, are well documented first in ‘Body Count” http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1996/bodycnt.htm and and in other places since, are well enough known.
So I won’t delve too deeply into them here, exept in comparison.

Last I knew, we’re supposed to operate under presumption of innocence in this country. When we do so, we abandon the mentality of the mob.(A mentality which oddly enough, seems rather prevelant when Conservatives are accused of something or another.) So, we’ll push aside the ideas and arguments surrounding the charge that Chandra Levy is dead and Condit has something to do with that death, for the moment.

That done, there is still much in the way of similarity between Condit’s case, and Clinton,s vis-a-vie Monica Lewinsky, and the rest of the number of women.

Consider:
In the time since Levy’s disappearance,

*Condit’s has engaged in Clintonesque evasion.

*Condit’s has engaged in Clintonesque spin.

*Condit’s has engaged in Clintonesque flat out lies.

*Condit, like Bill Clinton has apparently engaged in apparent attempt to suborn perjury.

*Condit, like Bill Clinton, is both lecherous and dishonest. An evil mix in normal life, much less public life.

*Condit, like Bill Clinton is rather cruel, at need.  ( having obviously and deliberately misled and stonewalled Ms. Levy’s parents in the matter or where she was, and the nature of the calls made to him, by her, on his secure phone line..)

*Condit, like Bill Clinton, either delegated or ‘permitted’ aides run a Clinton-like whisper campaign against Chandra Levy. This ‘nuts and sluts’ tactic backfired rather badly, and was soon abandoned. A new tactic was promptly employed: Attack Chandra Levy’s parents.  Sounds just like Bill Clinton, no?

It gets better: we now have reports from poeple investigating Condit that they are in fear for their lives.  Just like Bill Clinton.

*Like Bill Clinton, Condit has a history of sexual abuse. Reports to show in the national media within a week of when this is written, report that Condit was investigated for it in 1983. The case officer at that time reported that the teenage girls he attacked were also terrified of Condit to the point that they fled their homes… 

Just like Bill Clinton.

Also, the case file was later stolen…(Or was it simply mislaid?)

Just like Bill Clinton.

Clearly, Bill Clinton, if nothing else, has eroded our vision on the question of “private character” vs. “public virtue”.  Integrity you will recall, used to be defined as ‘what controls what you do when nobody’s looking’.  It is apparent that definition has been altered to ‘what you do when people are looking on’.

As a quick aside, let’s ask ourselves the question…  Even assuming a public figure could be a sexual preditor, and a criminal in private while being a prince in public, should s/he be rewarded for that rougish behavior with our high public offices?  Do we really want to publicly approve of a leader who supposedly does their job well, but can’t seem to keep their hands off young interns? What kind of lesson does that teach the next generation, particularly in a society so consumed with protecting women’s rights, at the exclusion of common sense?

The biggest and first rule in “The Ethics Manual of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct” tells members to “conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects credibility on the House.”

Now, look gang, I really don’t care, for the sake of argument, what you think or don’t about of adultery, per se’. It is, as it happens, still a crime in the District of Columbia, though I can’t find any record of it having been enforced recently.  (I’ve looked) But regardless, does the House really want to say that having sex with an intern reflects credibility on the institution?  That spin, evasion and flat out lies to cover up such entaglements reflects credibility on the institution?

That point having been raised, the question also comes to mind, what of Bubba? Assume for the moment, that Condit gets ousted, as he should. Does that ousting mean that the only reason Bill Clinton wasn’t ousted from his office was because, of the two similar behaviors, Condit alone was the one didn’t have the power of the presidency to protect him in his misdeeds?

Yes, it does.

But there is another similarity, here. A larger, more compelling and more dangerous one… and sadly one the Democrats are more likely to ignore… Sad, because it runs against their stated purpose of helping the helpless in our society. In this, it is revealing, as well. 

At the bottom line, Condit, like Clinton, is one of the powerful, not giving a damn about the less powerful.  In the Condit case, the Levys are just an average family. They have means that, relative to Condits, are rather modest. Condit knew full well they lacked the power to cause him any real problem and so wasn’t at all worried about putting his own self-interest above their needs.  This eletism may also explain why the press is so reluctant to report on the matter… CBS and ABC in particular. The so-called mainstream press has show symptoms of this eleism in the past, even the recent past. I suppose and expect this is simply one more example of it.

Just like Bill Clinton; consider the treatment of the people who got in his way.. even the ones who were his sexual servators. There is a similarity in the way the press treated these, as well. Hump as many interns as you like, abuse your power all you like…. so long as you save the snail darter.

Don’t misunderstand; This is not to suggest Clinton broke any new ground for the Democrats.  Consider the treatment of the Kopeckne Family by the press, and by Ted “Hang a left off the next bridge” Kennedy. Jesse Jackson, seemingly, is in similar trouble, and tried a whisper campaign of his own against the woman in question. William Kennedy Smith, of teh rape case of two years ago, is now considering a run for the Senate from Illinois. WHich would seem to partially
explain Hillary Clinton running from New York instead of her home state, Illinois. Gee… anyone would think there’s something of a pattern developing here, were this any other group on the planet. But these are liberal Democrats and so this problem goes without note. 

The question has now elevated to the point of: “Are the Democrats going to stand up and be counted in their fight against the powerful abusing the powerless, or are they going to hide because the powerful happen to be Democrats?”

Alas, I fear the latter, given the long history of this situation. 

But more, I fear the press, too, will let them get away with it again. And again, and again.  And yet more, I fear so too, will the congress, who will ignore their duty, all in the interests of ‘diversity’, of course.

Humping interns is a diversity thing, isn’t it? Only a personal judgement, after all.

One wonders if the Amercan people haven’t had enough of the judgements of such abusers. And if not, why not?

Perhaps we’d better put some ice on that.

As some of you know, we’d been considering a run to New Brunswick/Nova Scotia this year. We HAD been planning on running through Quebec. We decided instead to stay Stateside due to the added miles from our Western NY home.

We decided to run through New England, taking the Scenic route, though Keene NH… Rt 7, 202/4/9/28 etc. Pretty route, but not for the faint of heart in terms of towability, particularly with larger trailers.

We took our new (to us) 95 Chevy Astro, with it’s 4.3L V6, and 3.42 gears. Rated capacity for this gearing is 4500lbs, though I’ve seen ratings for this design as high as 6600lbs. I expect we’re dealing
with the higher rating being the somewhat more popular 3.78 gearing. The tranny /engine combo was a dream for towing, as it turns out.
(I’ll get to that)

We towed our faithful Viking SP166… GV around 1500lbs.

We decided to go with no advance reservations, so as to allow us to stop at things that captured our interest on the road. Between the backroad routing, and our taking our time, we made it so far as about half-way across New Hampshire, the first night.  In looking at the AAA and Woodall’s listings, we opted to stay at the spot nearest our location, which turned out to be the “Blake’s Brook Family Campground”

Blake’s Brook Family Campground
RR1 Box 149 Mountain Rd.
Epsom, NH 03234
(603) 736-4793

We were less than fully pleased with this particular camping experience. Woodall’s rates it rather low… in our opinion this rating is justified. Oh, the people were freindly enough, but we
found the facilities wanting, in every area. The shower and restroom facilities were ‘rustic’ to say the very least. The campsite itself wasn’t easy to get into, being several miles off the paved road,
Quiet, though, and in our case, fairly secluded. We were apparently given a site in a new area of the park. It was OK for the night, since we were leaving at first light, we shrugged, and set up camp.

We got up, and proceeded on our way, eventually getting onto I-95 to go up to Houlton, ME.  For those who don’t know this particular stretch of road, it has a bit of a reputation. It’s a nasty place to break down, particularly north of Brunswick or so. The road has many many miles of hills, all fairly
gentle but some quite long. On all of these hills is the largest amount of trees I’ve ever seen lining any freeway, anywhere. Very pretty, and worth the drive.

It was here that the Astro really showed me something. What I found on these hills was that if handled correctly, the Astro will tow this weight of trailer with it’s two-stage overdrive engaged.  The trick is to watch the amount of tourqe being applied at all times. Using the cruise control required me to drop OD out altogether, and heated the engine around 20 degrees or so…. heating the tranny, with it.

I shut the cruiser off and shifted to what I call ‘momentum mode’, allowing the down side of hills to take me to around 65 and sometimes 70, depending, and then going up the next hill, watching the vaccum guage to keep the thing from downshifting… simply backing off on the throttle, allowing the hill to slow me down some, sometimes allowing it to drop to around 45, depending on traffic. ( In traffic of course I kept my speed somewhat more constant, but on this outback road, often as not, I had nobody behind me, so was able to stretch the momentum. Both the engine and tranny actually ran cooler, doing this, by some 20 degrees. Besides, I assume my milage was far better, too.

We crossed the border at Houlton, ME, and headed up the Trans-Canada to Sussex, where we stayed at one of the better campgrounds I’ve had the pleasure of being at:

Pine Cone Camping
P.O. Box 4852, Sussex, NB, E4E 5L9
Tel: 506-433-4389
Directions: 3 miles east of Sussex on Trans Canada Highway 2 to Exit 418,
east 1 mile on Hwy # 114
Open: May 10 to October 15
Daily Rates: $22.50 to $24.50 (cash or cheque only)
Reservations: Recommended
Site Description: Level Ground, Shaded, Partial Shade, Fireplace/Pit/Barbeque, Handicap Access Facilities: Hydro/20/30-amps, Water, Sewer, Dump Station, Flush Toilets, Showers, Laundry, Internet Access, Pay Phone, Camp/Grocery Store, Restaurant/Snack Bar, Security Gate, Night Guard, Propane,
Diesel­.5km, Gas­.5km

Recreation: Outdoor Heated Pool, Wading Pool, Playground, Recreational Director, Recreation Hall, Bingo, Dances, Horseshoes Area Attractions (within 10km): Golf Course,The Hopewell Rocks, Reversing Falls, Tidal Bore, Magic Mountain, Magnetic Hill, Fundy Trail Parkway

Actually, this should read within 50 klicks, not 10.
If you’re visiting Fundy, be prepared for longer drives over roads which may be less than you’ve come to expect, and more up and down than anyplace I’ve driven in a long time. Even with the higher gears, the Astro proved to be a mountain goat. When allowed to use it’s low end tourqe, the thing lumbered up and down every hill presented it.

That said, Pine Cone is a fine choice for basing your tourism of the area. Only two drawbacks I could even think of that anyone would have is that it’s close to the highway, and close to the CN Railway’s Moncton sub. (2 or three trains daily) For us, it was a plus… being railfans. Now, we COULD have stayed in the Fundy National Park, but reservations are required. As it is, we did fine, visiting the park when needed.

Fueling up in the morning, I had a bit of a shock; over $50 for a tank of fuel for my Astro’s 27 gallon tank. Of course, I later found that it translated to around 35 bucks US. Lesson learned: Charge all purchases as possible when in Canada… the conversion takes place at current bank rates automatically. Cash they’ll do, but you tend to get screwed on the exchange.

We stayed three days driving all over the area, putting almost 700 miles on the truck in three days,, and loved every minute of it. The Pine Cone is highly reccomended. And Fundy, well… is Fundy. I won’t
try to add anything to what is already on the web about it.

As a result of this trip, my wife has decided she wants to go to a larger camper… possibly a Trailmanor, or a high-lo. (Shrug) She loves to camp, but wants to eliminate the canvas, Oh, well. We’ll see.

Well, it’s past the 100 day mark, and what do you know?

President George W. Bush is doing far better than anyone in the so-called mainstream media predicted, or indeed, is ready to admit to the people now.

The president has garnered approval ratings in the low 60’s in two seperate mainstream media polling projects. One from ABC, and the other from CBS… the latter of which, as usual, when finding polling numbers that don’t reflect their Marxist idealism, buried the report.

Matter of fact, Bush’s poll numbers are better than BIll Clinton’s were, eight years ago. Of course mainstream press and their leftist freinds, when you can get them to admit the polling numbers at all, will tell you it can’t be because people like the way he does things, and like his polcies. No, they’re still working on the tired, and often disproven notion that the only reason people like him is because
he’s got a wonderful ‘Gee, whiz’ smile about him, and that he can actually speak without falling over his own tounge once in a while. 

And how do they justify these kind of misreads? Simple enough; they load their polling questions, as I have pointed out before many times in this medium.

Here’s an example question from the ABC poll: “Do you think Bush cares more about protecting the interests of ordinary working people or cares more about protecting the interests of large business corporations?”

Here, my freinds, is a typical socialist trick; putting ‘real people’ on one side, and those cold, nasty, faceless figures from business in separate, warring camps, instead of understanding that these are people as well.

Another example of how they won’t tell you the whole story: We’ve been seeing in the Usenet and on some opinion pages around the world from leftists, about how Dick Cheney is really the one running things. 

Um… Guys? You may be interested to know that the polling data are in on that as well… and CBS and ABC didn’t report it to you… certainly not at the levels they trumpted Clinton’s numbers. But I will.

Question from the ABC polling: Does President Bush have the “experience and ability to meet the challenges of the presidency?”

63% answered YES.

Question from the ABC polling: “Does Dubya rely too much on his advisors or not enough?”

Only 20% say too much, and 62% say again he’s doing things the right way.

Another example: When they asked if Dubya was too liberal, too conservative, or just about right ideologically, 31 percent answered “too conservative”, but the overwhelming response…. some 62 percent… said “about right”.

Gee, that a bit of a shocker, huh?  Moderates and conservatives like his policies; the far leftists don’t.  Big loss. (Shrug)

The numbers are in, guys… the public are saying “We like President Bush, we don’t like the nonsense coming from the Democrat leadership, and we’re not listening to you anymore, either. 

OK, the polling ABC and CBS did didn’t say that. The viewer ratings have, however. And the numbers are backing this up bigtime, as well. ABC, NBC and particularly CBS, are all losing viewers. Indeed, CNN is passing out pink slips already; they’ve all been losing Market share to Fox News, rather dramatically.

Personally, I’m rather enjoying watching these idiots on the left, squirm.

The supposedly peace loving liberals among us must feel blind sided as regards the middle east these days, as they are a great many things. Because of Bill Clinton’s bumbling in the middle east, we’re now closer to war than we have been in years.

Ah, yes… middle east peace. Never have so many westerners given so much for so little. So great is the need to believe that sacrifice and bloodshed will not be necessary; and that peace and prosperity are the universal goals of mankind, that they were willing to accept the help of a known liar toward their goal of, as Nevile Chamberlin put it; “Never to go to war with one another again”.

Thing is, facts refute liberalism. The middle east is no different than any other armed conflict in the history of man.  Others learned the lessons, painful as they tended to be. Chaimberlin’s England, for example, along with the remainder of the free world, learned about appeasement of a mortal enemy the hard way.  The American left, apparently not having leaned the lesson taught by the infamous socialist, Hitler, was taught the lesson again, by another band of socialists, as Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan.  It is clear reading Jimmy Carter’s comments on the era, that HE hasn’t learned anything from the experience, to this day.

I doubt the remainder of the American left have leaned their lesson yet, either As evidence, I point to the recent events in the middle east, and their foolish forbearance of Clinton’s vain and blind pursuit of his legacy… right in the same spot Jimmy Carter tried so hard to earn a legacy that, alas, lasted around, oh, fifteen minutes. Al at the expense of Israel.

Israelis seem to be waking up from the over-long self delusion… one that’s been going on since President Clinton decided he wanted to try and create a legacy for himself, other than Monica, and a string of dead bodies and other scandals. One wonders if leftist Americans will EVER wake up.

From Oslo to Camp David, Clinton has pushed Israel to the bargaining table, and pressured her to give up vital strategic and cultural assets she has no business giving away, if survival is at all on her agenda.  Ehud Barak, by his giving into Bill Clinton (who, along with his staff including Jim Carville, did much to put Barak into office), has done little more than demonstrate just how empty the
Palestinians’ peace talk really is, and how desperate Clinton was to be seen as a good President, his crimes against his oaths not withstanding.

Consider….

At Clinton’s insistence, Barak offered Arafat the keys to the kingdom; just about all of the West Bank and Gaza, plus East Jerusalem and even Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. How do the peace loving Palestinians respond?  Yasser Arafat turned it all down, and gave us another few nights of headlines, filled with kids in the street throwing stones, and being shot, occasionally. He also sent his armed forces, (You recall, they’re supposed to be policemen?) to fire at the Israelis, apparently hoping for an excuse to tell the rest of the world how Israel is a war-mongering nation.

Of course that should have been a signal to about anyone with a brain that he didn’t give a damn about peace. All he and his followers are interested in is the destruction of Israel. It should have also been a signal that Clinton’s attempt at a legacy backfired, big time, and more, that it didn’t have a chance to start with…. something that Clinton should have known, did he have any understanding of the
situation at all. You will recall, perhaps that back in 1992, Clinton more or less bragged he had no understanding of matters of foreign policy. This was never quite so clear as during this monstrosity Mr. Clinton unleashed on the world.

For Israel’s part, all of this has been laid at the feet of Ehud Barak, perhaps unfairly. No, I don’t think he was the man for the job, and clearly was only in the PM’s position because Clinton’s people worked so hard to get him there, apparently hoping to set up Clinton’s brokering a of peace deal. Easy to do when you have the PM of Israel owing you his election. But Barak apparently was under pressures he
had no control of, having nothing to do with politics at home, or the Palestinians… both of which were quite out of his control to begin with, in any event.. He was concerned with Israel continuing to get support from the US. In this concern, he saw Israel as being on the controlled end of the puppet’s string… and knowing that if he did not capitulate to Clinton’s demands, that vital US support would wither as quickly as Benjamin Netenyau’s prime ministership did, when
it became clear he wasn’t going to buckle to Clinton’s concession demands.

And Barak wasn’t alone, nor was the left in Israel, in this perception of US control versus Israel’s survival. Yitzhak Rabin, hardly a liberal even by American standards and certainly not under Bill Clinton’s extortion based control to the extent that Barak was, saw the same problems. His longtime friends, according reports I’ve seen,
tell us he was deeply troubled over the prospect of losing US support… and therefore bought into the ‘land for peace’ deals being brokered by the liberals in the US. This was something I predicted he wouldn’t have done.

Israeli voters, seeing this happening, and clearly annoyed with the US control over Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians, trounced Barak in the polls. Unless one considers this anger, the election of Ariel Sharon, his replacement, is hard to fathom, since he has never been overly popular, as best I can tell. But perhaps the people of Israel are finally figuring out what the real story is.. that in truth, there is no dealing with the Palestinians, and Arifat.

One hopes that they’ve not been too late in coming to this conclusion. If they are, world war seems fairly certain to me… possibly nuclear in nature.

However… also of great import, I think, and far more certain, is the damage that has been done to our ability to deal with other countries on the world stage, even on the assumption that Israel survives all they’ve given away under Clinton’s threats. Our foreign policy influence has been diminished, because other countries, seeing what has gone on with Israel, one of our best friends, will trust us less, when we come with the helping hand. They’ll be, perhaps, wondering what the OTHER hand is doing. And after Bill Clinton, who could blame them?

And no… as much as I loathe Mr. Clinton and everything he stands for, I’m not piling on. I am simply issuing a warning that the damage he has caused will take a while to heal, if it will ever do so. And that we should avoid making such choices in the next several elections.  Never again should we as a nation or as a world, allow ourselves to be pushed into the situation we found ourselves in with Mr. Clinton’s attempts at salvaging face.

Our future, assuming we actually have one, will depend on it.

2-12-01 10:20Hrs–Rochester, NY—

As most of you know, I have a newswire here, which is updated for me, live, 24/7. It is where I get a goodly dose of news myself. You can, too, at http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/newsroom.html

Since it updates fairly frequently, this story is likely not in there any longer. Here’s the link to it, but I’ll save you the trouble.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63701-2002Feb12.html

Mr. Turner, speaking before a group of students at the school he was tossed out of several years ago, Brown University, was there giving a lecture on international affairs. I’ll bite my tongue on that one for the moment. Turner said, in part:

“The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don’t have any hope for a better life,”

It’s a tremendously “feel good” kind of nothing that many liberals, and many people in the EU I’ve spoken with, have been tossing out of late. The basic idea is we here in America are taking all the wealth and all the resources. So, the poor of the world attack us, as a result. We’re supposed to feel guilty for being Americans, and guilty for being successful, because the old zero sum game suggests that because we’re successful, no other countries can be so.

Well, let’s examine this idea. If you want to speak of abject poverty, shall we discuss the depression, here in America? 30-50% of people out of work? Hmmm. I don’t seem to recall many innocents being targeted for wholesale slaughter in that period.

It should be noted that Mr. Turner is a multi-millionaire. It should also be noted that the person who paid for the attacks on 9/11, is (or was) a multi-millionaire. Clearly, another factor is at work, and Mr. Turner’s argument is tossed on its face.

OK, I’ll grant you, Ted Turner is a nutcase….a point even Hanoi Jane figured out. But he’s hardly unique in the ranks of the elitist left. Consider Al Gore, in an AP story:

“In his first policy address since the 2000 election, Gore renewed his support for the Bush administration’s “highly successful opening counterattack” to the attacks. But he said it is crucial that the administration show “a more evident respect” for the coalition of allies it has built or that alliance could quickly crumble. Gore said the administration sometimes sends the message: “With others, if we must; by ourselves, if possible.”

As if there’s something wrong with that, huh? The story goes on:

“Gore said U.S. policy should also be aimed long-range at “draining the aquifer of anger that underlies terrorism.” “The evil we now confront is not just the one-time creation of a charismatic leader and his co-conspirators, or even a handful of regimes,” Gore said. “What we deal with now is today’s manifestation of an anger welling up from deep layers of grievance shared by many millions of people.”

Of course, Mr. Gore is saying, it’s our fault that these people are angry. Of course they’re angry at us for being Americans, being successful. Fortunate for us, The “Blame America First” message was disastrous to the 80s Democrats and is no more effective today, than it was back then, else Gore would be president.

Let’s face it, folks; the cause for the attack on 9/11 is the existence of evil, and the Clinton administration’s allowance for it, in terms of decimating our intelligence gathering and national security as well as bargaining with a known terrorist.

The lack of focus we see today on the part of the Democrats, seems on the surface to be a blessing to America; their true natures tend to come out when they are less well orchestrated. This anti-Americanism is the heart of Liberalism, and their true natures are showing… just in time… on the leading edge of the election season. The republicans would do well to remind the America people where the hearts of the
left really are, as this election season progresses.

As an aside: we still don’t have an explanation for the 6 million dollar heist at London’s Heathrow a few days ago. I’ve seen some speculation that suggests the people who pulled that off were Bin Laden’s people, trying to secure other means of financing, since their assets have been frozen around the world. Interesting but
unsubstantiated as yet. (In public, at least)

I wish I could say I had a postive experience at the Erie KOA.
I can’t.

I can’t lay blame at any one aspect of the place, so I don’t know as it’d be fair to say this trip could have been a better one given different management.

I rolled in in Saturday afternoon; the place was pretty well full… and ‘jammed full’ would be the phrase. I swear, I have never seen campsites so close to each other in any other campsite
I’ve ever been to, and when the place gets full… hoo boy.

The office staff was rather nice, the camp store in good shape, and fairly well stocked.

I got to my site… 22… and the first thing I noticed was the large dog turd when I unwittingly stepped into as I stepped from the truck. (Oh, Joy. Rapture.) It was shortly thereafter that I
noticed I was positioned directly across the narrow road from the dumping station. (I decieded at that point there was something of a theme developing, here)

I set up camp, without incident. I noted that the power hookups were set up for both regular 20amp service and 30amp Shore Power service. Nice touch, that.

After getting things situated, we started to check out the camp at large. A goodly mix of camper types, perhaps a few more hi-low types than I’ve seen. A few big rigs, that tended to make the
sites look even smaller.

The place has a pond that looked interesting, (Paddle boats, catch- and- release fishing) but nothng I’d want to swim in… there’s a fairly good pool for that. The Rec center looks OK…
has a Jukebox that plays 45’s. Heck, I didn’t know anyone was even MAKING 45’s anymore.

Rest rooms were fairly clean… since this was one night only and a short hop to the house, I didn’t get the chance to check out the showers.

They also were doing some kind of a theme weekend, when we showed up. The movie for the night was the original “20,000 leauges under the sea”…. which as it turned out was the secondary theme for the visit. To say it rained would be like saying that Sir Alec
Guiness did a little acting.

My first action the following morning was to push perhaps 5 gallons of water out of my awning, and make note of all the new leaks I found. The site drainage left something to be desired… and from looking around I found I was not alone…. in particular the poor schmuck a few sites over who was tent-camping was having LOTS of fun, and appeard to be learning a new language, to boot.

Having seen the good effort other KOA’s go through to maintain their sites after every visitor checks out, (clean, level, dry) and therefore, maintaining their reputation, one wonders
what their policy is here.

As to the site size issue…. Perhaps it’s just me, but does anyone else dislike having to say ‘excuse me’ to the folks in the next site when putting their awning up? (Ok, I’m strecthing it a bit… but not much.)

Guess I’ll check out other operations next in Erie… there are several… a few within shooting distance.