I remember a jingle that went something like this: “I don’t stoke the furnace, and I don’t ring the bell, but let that engine leave the track and see who catches hell.” It reminds me of our government. Here we are, a nation of 300 million people held captive by a mere 545 individuals from inside the beltway. With a hat tip from my good friend Pablo, writer Charlie Reece put it this way . . .

[Continue Reading]

There is no greater bar to social harmony than the appallingly high numbers of divorces, single parents, and illegitimate babies cared for by single-parent grandmothers. A frequent commenter argues that the number one economic problem in the United States, from his point of view, is income disparity. In my opinion, it is plain as pudding that for as long as American society is producing broken homes, income disparities will only get worse. How can it be otherwise among children who grow up angry, learn to value crime over education, who have developed contempt for women and who see them only as an opportunity for sexual congress and propagation of more illegitimate babies?

[Continue Reading]

There is both a science and an art to American politics. It is a science because a successful politician must understand human psychology and behavioral norms; it is an art because it requires sophisticated manipulative skills, convincing potential voters that a politician shares their concerns. This isn’t news, of course; political tricks and tricksters have been with us from the very beginning of human development. What has changed, however, is the technical sophistication used to convey political ideology — along with information media that aid and abet presidential hopefuls. It is clearly difficult to find much in the way of critical analysis from any of the major news networks openly supportive of their preordained favorite. What this suggests, I believe, is that voters must become more discerning; if the news media eschew skepticism, then voters must increase their knowledge of issues and their cynicism of politicians. It is the only way pathway in raising the bar of political expectation.

[CONTINUED]

There is almost nothing in Sen. Barbara Boxer’s repertoire that interests me. I find her, if anything, obnoxious, egregiously obtuse, and representative of those political elites who suffer the illusion they are serving their country. Still, I do find agreement with her ire in observing the manner in which Iran Iraqi President Maliki recently received President Ahmadinejad. Aside from the cultural aversion I have to men kissing other men, and holding hands as if they were teenaged lovers, the fact is that Mr. Maliki demonstrated how amateurish he is in matters of foreign diplomacy. I had a similar reaction when Mr. Bush held hands with the Saudi King at his ranch in Crawford; given the price of oil today, it looks as if that romance was short lived, too.

Of course, there is a certain protocol receiving a foreign head of state (if Ahmadinejad is that, in fact), but the question arises whether such an inappropriate display of fellowship didn’t actually encourage Moqtada al-Sadr (now living in Iran) to increase the efforts of his so-called Mahdi Army to create mischief in Basra. We can most certainly assume that Ahmadinejad is capable of measuring the cut of a fellow diplomat’s jib, and then taking advantage. This is a critical issue because diplomacy only has two categories: professional, and everything else. In my judgment, Mr. Maliki demonstrated “everything else.” The consequences could have been much worse, but we may not know the full extent of his error for several months.

Iran continues to exert unwanted interference in Iraq by providing men and munitions to the Mahdi Army and other pro-Shi'a factions — and doing it with impunity. I have little doubt that Iran will continue its meddling until the Maliki government puts a stop to it. It is certain that Mr. Maliki hasn’t consulted with me on this (more the pity, I think), but if he expects to unite the Iraqi people, he must protect them from such deviants as Moqtada al-Sadr and covert operatives from Iran’s revolutionary guards. The best way to do that is for Maliki to issue a shoot on sight order to his senior commanders, and offer a bounty for every captured or killed insurgent; naturally, each apprehension warrants full media exposure. I have every confidence that this kind of exposure will cause Iran to re-think their plan for Iraq.

I do believe Iran has a plan — and that no one is going to like it. The ayatollahs of Iran no doubt see themselves as the legitimate heirs of a new world-wide Caliphate. It is difficult to imagine that the Saudis agree, or any of the other oil sheiks of the Middle East. On the other hand, none of those other fellows is working on the development of nuclear weapons. Iran’s armed forces are presently insufficient to attack Iraq with any certitude of success (so long as the U. S. military maintains a presence), but our rapid withdrawal from Iraq could send a dangerous signal to the ayatollahs (not unlike the one that triggered the first Gulf war). Again, diplomacy depends on more than the spoken word; it often hinges on an innocuous action. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi leaders are learning important lessons. I hope Ambassador Ryan Crocker is providing tutorial services, because there is still much to accomplish before the United States completely disengages itself from Iraq.

In fairness, Mr. Maliki is not the world’s only novice diplomat. As I said, we have President Bush along with two competing liberal clowns named Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — both of whom have made almost every diplomatic blunder possible for mere presidential candidates. They each remind me of the erstwhile Jimmy Carter (now conspiring to aid and abet terrorists), who incompetently informed Iran (via the evening news) exactly what they could expect from his administration once Iran seized our embassy and took American hostages. Americans and Iraqis can do without inept diplomats, thank you very much, and this is particularly true when they are the Head of State.

Imagine having a good head-start in a rewarding military career and then, allowing for a flaw in character, you find yourself participating in an activity that is not only a social taboo, but blatantly illegal. According to testimony given in the Deborah Palfrey Escort Service Trial, Navy Lieutenant Commander Rebecca Dickinson has admitted to having engaged in sex for money, but said she quit her moonlighting position in early 2006 because “she didn’t like the work.” Palfrey, of course, wants us to believe she didn’t know that the escorts were having sex for money because the service she provided was only an erotic fantasy service.

Aside from the immoral aspects of Dickinson’s conduct, she has broken faith with her country and the “special trust and confidence” aspects of her commission. She also broke faith with her subordinates, who often look to their officers for principled leadership and guidance. Commander Dickinson, now on leave from the Navy, might consider getting her resume in order, as it is likely the Navy will prefer court-martial charges and at least demand her resignation. Even the most liberal definition of gentleman or gentlewoman does not apply to one who engages in prostitution, as either a buyer or a seller. 

On the other hand, no one knows what Navy Secretary Donald Winter will decide from one moment to the next. For example, he recently decided to place female officers and enlisted personnel aboard a nuclear submarine beginning in 2009 — the last bastion of all-male duty assignments in the Navy. Career submariners cannot imagine the impact cloistered living conditions will have on the morale and efficiency of those engaged in this highly dangerous mission. But Dr. Winter’s decision does at least provide an interesting window into the apparent inept mindset of the highest echelons of the Navy Department; it is always possible that Commander Dickinson’s navy career is only just now getting started.

The testimony today of Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus was, I believe, welcome news on the status of US efforts in Iraq, but then I must admit (unlike some members of the Senate), I was listening carefully.  A number of senators (from both parties) seemed to be paying attention by half; too many senators demanded instant solutions well beyond the means of normal men, and several provided much encouragement to Al-Qaeda (Iraq) and their patron saint, Osama bin-Laden.  “We cannot afford this war,” proclaimed Senator George Voinovich (R, OH). This is precisely what the enemy wanted to hear.

I might observe that few people were interested in the grandstanding of Senators Levin, Kennedy, Clinton, Boxer, and Kerry – but then if that were really true, they wouldn’t do it, and media pundits wouldn’t have much to talk about.  I wish I could express disappointment in the lack of statesmanship exhibited by committee members, but I have actually come to expect it.  Their unseemly behavior probably explains why the administration attempts to keep classified information away from members of congress.  Still, I do understand that politics provides something to do for those who would be otherwise unemployed; if only they could learn to act sincere:  “Alas, our casualties have now exceeded 4,024,” said the senator while eating breakfast.  “It’s a positively dreadful business, you know.  We ought to do something about it . . . and say, would you mind passing the marmalade?”

I do admit I was baffled by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh's suggestion that political disagreement with administration officials does not suggest that politicians are defeatists (on the matter of the war in Iraq); both Mr. Crocker and General Petraeus were quick to agree with him.  The odd statement did cause me to wonder whether Sen. Bayh defended General Petraeus six months ago when Democrats called him General Betray-us. 

Nevertheless, senators continued throughout the day to press both witnesses to provide a definite date for the withdrawal of all military forces.  The administration has already answered this question numerous times so I suppose we should assume greater press coverage the more often it is asked.  The administration has said that it will withdraw our forces when, and only when, it is time to do so. Few senators understand how complex Iraq has become, the likely disastrous consequences of acting prematurely, and few seem to care. I thought, “Setting Iraq up for failure is not an honorable course of action,” but then it occurred to me: setting others up for failure is exactly how politicians win elections.

Honest men can disagree on important matters, but it would seem to me that if we had statesmen (instead of politicians), Congressmen would understand that some discussions are better held in private.  If they were experienced, thoughtful men, they would know that no one abhors warfare more than a combat soldier; If General Petraeus had his way, all of the troops would be home by now.  As I observed distinguished gentlemen slashing verbally at Mr. Crocker and General Petraeus, I realized that either of these two witnesses could become truly excellent senators, but not a single senator is qualified to serve as an ambassador or theater commander.

Each of us should reflect on the significant contributions and accomplishments of men such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for they were many and no one can say that the distinguished civil rights leader did not display great courage in the face of the adversity of racial hatred. But we cannot help but wonder today how much of his good work has been undone or altered by individuals who capitalize on racial division. Recently, Dr. King’s daughter Rev. Bernice Albertine King evoked her father’s name calling for a renewal of efforts to achieve a multicultural society, something that I do not believe Dr. King ever called for. Indeed, multiculturalism is a blight upon America, and but one example demonstrating how Dr. King’s work has been misinterpreted over the past forty years by those pursuing their own agenda.

Victimhood has become a steppingstone to riches among unscrupulous characters, which of course includes politicians who will say or do anything to advance their own cause. Imagine the nerve of contemporary democrats, in pandering to the black community for support, now proclaiming Dr. King’s good works and identifying themselves with what he stood for. Of course, this would be the same political party that developed, enacted, and implemented Jim Crow laws, establishing the second greatest racial myth of all time: separate but equal. And what is the new promise for Americans of all colors? It is the continuation of spending on social programs, none of which have worked to the advantage of the poor or economically disadvantaged. Clearly, it is not spending where we fail as a society; it is the negligible product.

If education is the doorway to success (and I believe this is true), then public education was intended to be the great social equalizer. In spite of billions of dollars spent on public education annually, it is our greatest failure. Today’s high school graduate is at best qualified for a minimum wage job. It is bad enough that students are not even minimally qualified, but worse that public education caters to so-called college bound students at the expense of those denied access to vocational and technical training programs. We must wonder why this is true in light of the fact that only 30% of individuals who enter college as freshmen graduate with a four-year degree. 

When rated against foreign students in other western-industrialized countries, American children are at the 85^th percentile at the end of elementary school, but only the 43^rd percentile at the end of high school. This fact alone should cause us to ask ourselves, after spending so much money on education, why we aren’t educating our children. Clearly, no successful businessman would continue throwing money into a program that isn’t returning a profit — so why are we?

The education issue isn’t about the quality of teachers as much it is about the attributes of students; there is no greater indication of how serious the problem is than the fact that most schools now employ armed police officers. We might wonder why the minority student drops out of high school at a much higher rate than white majority students do. We should ask why the rate of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is higher among black and Hispanic students. Even the best-qualified teachers cannot teach students who will not learn, so we will not find the answer to such questions on high school campuses. We must look to their home environments and their neighborhoods.

Democrats, in the zeal to provide a decent place to live for disadvantaged citizens only make matters worse by installing them in government-subsidized housing. I have never seen a public assistance neighborhood that wasn’t run-down, seedy, unsanitary, or crime infested. They are places where residents are at the mercy of criminal predators, and where (in some cases) police and fire officials refuse to enter without significant backup protection. Within these neighborhoods, the elderly live out their remaining days on government assistance, and single parents leave their children unattended to find their own way. And of course, they do. They find their way to drug dealers, sexual predators, and they start having drug-addicted babies so that democratically sponsored social programs can raise them to become criminals and victims.

Alas, our socialist politicians have done their jobs quite well. They’ve managed to create dependencies through billions of wasted dollars, and convinced millions of our citizens that they are victims. Indeed, they are – but not of an oppressive white society as much as unscrupulous politicians and radical black segregationists who benefit directly from these unsavory conditions. What real opportunities do people have when they are uneducated, when they have criminal records, or when they become parents before they are even adults?

If we chose to honor the memory of Dr. King, and if we value what he worked and died to achieve, then we must renounce those who capitalize on victimhood. We are spending more than enough money now, but we are not getting a return from our extraordinary investment. If we choose to provide an avenue for success of all our citizens, we must reevaluate our paltry education systems, demand better parenting, reinforce traditional values, and uplift our citizens through achievement. Failing this, we fail Dr. King, our people, and our future.