SamSaid!

VICTIMHOOD  

   I wonder if anytone else is getting a little bit fed up with the black victimhood that is being incessantly beamed our way by the media and various spokesmen with individual agendas to pursue. I, for one, am.

     Without a doubt, slavery was the darkest chapter in the 225 year history of our country. It was awful, and nowadays, most people simply cannot envision or comprehend our countrymen buying and selling human beings. But they did. History is a fascinating story of the evolution of mankind over 3000 years. In many ways, it is indeed a fertile ground for intellectual study; however it is not a particularly rich and warming tale. Viewed from the 21st Century, most people can't really appreciate the evils that marked the past 20-30 centuries. Stripped to its essentials, history is a long long continuum of power contests in which winners had slaves, and losers were slaves. It didn't matter whether the slaves were yellow, black, brown, white, red or polka-dot.Slaves were slaves. Most certainly, slavery is not a black/white phenomenon peculiar to 100 years in the Southeast USA. As a matter of fact, slavery continues right now in parts of black Africa (US blacks prefer not to talk about that). The tough part about history is that you can't re-live it, can't re-write it, and can't change it. It stands as it happened. We all can look back  –  and then move on.  

     The Civil War ended 140 years ago, and by its end, hundreds of thousands of white American men died to bring slavery to an end in the US. In the current 21st Century dialogue, that fact seems to escape recognition. Did the abolition of slavery mean that the blacks had an easy road to travel?  Not so. For the next 100 years social progress was very slow. There were the Jackie Robinson exceptions, but full citizenship was still an illusion.  Then came the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and since that time the changes have been genuinely remarkable. Now we are being fed the pablum of affirmative action and diversity, both of which can be spelled Q_U_O_T_A_S. That's where I draw the line.

     My ancestors were not slave owners. To the contrary. some of them came to this country as indentured servants  –  just another term for slavery. And some also had to suffer the privations of child labor enroute to adulthood. Who should I sue for reparations –  King George III, Louis XIV, or maybe the Continental Congress? The whole notion of reparations for one segment of our population is enough to light off a firestorm  –  and properly so.

     I don't think I'm a racist. Not now. But there are two guys who could easily turn me into one  — Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Here are two guys who have agendas solidly based on fanning the flames of racism. I think most Americans are willing to accept each other and given the choice would dampen racial or ethnic differences. But these two guys are dead in the water unless they can foment racial conflict. When I watch an NFL or NBA game, should I assume that this is just another example of white guys exploiting black biological accidents, or should I assume that this is the result of talent meeting opportunity? I see black weather guys and newscasters on TV and see nothing wrong with that. But then I see the diversity buffs crying more, more, more  –  without regard to merit. Just cry “racism” and then settle out of court for the equivalent of legal expenses. Just a freebie $500K.

     I enjoy reading the publications of guys like Thomas Sowell and Ward Conerly.  Keep it equal, no more crutches, and dump the notions of affirmative action and diversity (whatever that is).  Conerly now backs a privacy initiative that will soon be on the Califonia ballot. It would forbid the State or agencies in the State from demanding racial or ethnic categorizations of citizens, i.e., Black, Hispanic, Jewish, Aleut, native American, Pacific Islander, Oriental, Caucasian, etc etc etc. We all just become citizens. Naturally, the intellectual elites of academ vigorously oppose it, as do the various interest groups.

     Not this guy  –  I think Ward Conerly  is right and he has my vote right now!!

THE MUSLIMS

     Recently, a prominent magazine featured a story about muslims in the USA and estimated the total population to be between 2million and 7 million. That's a pretty wide range for an estimate. Somwhat unnerving when we think about the millions of people in the US who are invisible. Who are they and where are they? Just imagine the outcry if a demographic study estimated the total population of the USA at 200 million to 700 million  (at last count).

    The aforementioned article also said that the two fastest growing religions in America are the Mormons and the Muslims. Personally, I don't have any doubts about the Mormons  –  I think they are as patriotic and maybe moreso than most Americans. But I don't have the same feeling of comfort about the Muslims. I guess they fall into 2 categories  –  Americans who follow the Muslim faith, and Muslims who happen to be living in America. Big difference. Certainly all Muslims cannot be categorized into the same camp as the Palestinian flag burners or the “Murder for Allah” extremists, but regarding the War on Terrorism I don't see much evidence of them coming forward saying “We're with you George, let's go get 'em”.

      For the older generation, the experiences of WWII are instructive. Before and during the war, the Japanese, Blacks and Indians were shabbily treated (maybe an understatement), but that didn't prevent legions of them from serving with distinction in the US Armed Forces.      NOTE:  I don't have much use for the term Native American. Nonsense, we all came from somewhere else  –  just a matter of when.

      Nowdays, the biggest thing coming from the US Muslims is silence. It is almost as though they are saying (whispering?) “Hey guys, this is your war, not ours. We'd like to sit this one out”. Not a good sign.

RELIGION

     Religion is always a touchy subject. Years back, folks indulging in social dialogue were admonished to stay clear of (or be discreet in commenting about) sex, religion, and politics. Nowadays you have to wade through all three just to get to sports and the weather. Religion is is the forefront now, and it is indicative that the troubles of the US Roman Catholic Church have pushed the “Murder for Allah” guys off the front page.

     The American RC church has major problems  –  bigger that most can appreciate. Now is the time when cries for “reform” might be heard, but not from the current Pope. He is aged, seriously enfeebled and solidly inflexible when it comes to significant reform. That will have to wait for the next guy.

     Priests, Ministers and Rabbis are the recipients of an enormous amount of trust from the members of the flock. For priests to betray that trust and commit such unspeakable acts defies comprehension. It is one thing for such acts to occur, but it is even worse to learn that the incidents were known, the facts covered up, and the victims paid off under a cloak of secretive non-disclosure. That says that several layers of the heirarchy “knew”. So now the high clergy are talking about “one strike and you are out”. In cases of pedophilia, or predatory sexual abuse, that kind of decision is a no-brainer. It isn't a metter of church discipline  –  it's a matter of the law. And withholding or concealing information is also against the law. But it all depends upon how individual acts are “labeled”. What if the odious actions are described as “improper conduct” or “unacceptable behavior” or “actions in violation of church rules”.  Is it “three strikes” or “ball four”  –  a free pass. You would think that the church would understand that the proper treatment of chocoholics is not transferring them to the candy store acoss the street.  Anyway, legal obligations and garish publicity will compel actions on the most serious trangressors.

     But when the RC leaders convene in Texas in June, they will face an even more imposing challenge  — what to do about homosexuality. The Church is four square in opposition to homosexuality  –  since it does not accept, condone or support it in any way. Yet it is there  –  pervasively. Does the church change its stance on homosexuality?  Does it purge its ranks? Does it deny entry? Or does it maintain an official stance and then wink at it? As one former priest has said, “When you are behind the wall of the RC Church, it's like being in the biggest “closet” in the world, and there is no need to “come out of the closet”. Deciding whether there is a link between homosexuality, pedophilia, or predatory sexual abuse begs the question. This is a religious decision of major magnitude for the RCs.

      And that leads to the $64,000 question  –  celibacy. Almost five hundred years ago, Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses on the church door and lit off the Reformation. Maybe this time it will only take someone tacking a short comment onto one Church door, “Celibacy doesn't work”. Consider that over the past 15 years there have been a large number of priests who have given up “the cloth”. The reason cited by 95% of them was “to get married”. I think there is a message there  –  one that should be heeded by the RCs. Change comes about for various reasons, but change occurs. The Church is not immune.  

ANWR

     The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a broad frozen expanse that is the Arctic equivalent to the Gobi Desert  –  or maybe the Kalahari or Atacama. It is the home for a variety of quadripeds –  mostly Caribou  –  who somehow survive, but it also sits on top of a large oil field. George Bush has identified drilling in ANWR as the centerpiece of his progam to make the US more energy independent and less dependent on imported oil  –  specifically from the Middle East. Right now, more than half of the oil we consume comes from Russia, the Middle East and Venezuela. Recent history has shown that US dependence upon OPEC and Middle East oil can be very very chancy. And that is especially true nowadays.

     Yet, the environmental extremists and other loonies of the left are vowing to fight to the death to prevent drilling in ANWR. Just imagine a football field totally covered by snow and ice. Then imagine a small 10 sqft area in the corner of an end zone. That is where the drilling would occur. True, the drilling would be lateral as well as vertical, but the surface area would be quite small. By analogy, the drilling area might consume 1% of an area the size of South Carolina. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand this issue. For example:

     .  We are nowhere near self sufficiency in oil production, and will not be in the foreseeable future

     .  We are dangerously dependent upon foreign sources of oil  –  especially from the Persian Gulf area

     .  The production from the Prudhoe Bay (Alaska) oil field has peaked and is diminishing

     .  ANWR oil will not make us energy independent, but it will offset the diminishing production from Prudhoe Bay and to some extent will lessen the demands for imported oil

     .  Conservation can also reduce the demand for oil, but it can't be the entire answer for US oil needs. Far from it.

     .  The environmental scare tactics are bogus  — just look at Prudhoe Bay when the same wild claims were made.There are now 3 times more Caribou than there were 20 years ago when the drilling began.

     . An interruption in the flow of oil or a major increase in oil prices can have a devastating effect on the economy.    

     . Shortly,  we will be treated to a Senate filibuster by Democratic Presidential aspirants Biden (Del), Kerry (MA), and Lieberman (Conn). There are enough Senatorial votes to pass the measure to approve the ANWR drilling, but perhaps not enough for cloture (to close off debate). So we will see how the Democratic filibuster goes  –  while the Middle east is aflame and terroism is still alive.

     I wonder if the loonies of the left and the environmental eggheads ever thought of the axiom,  ”every little bit helps”. Even if ANWR is not the answer to oil independence, it sure moves us in that direction. Most folks accept that BOTH drilling and conservation are worthwhile. But not the loonies. Sad.

THE ARAFAT DILEMNA

     To the USA and Israel, Yasser Arafat poses a major dilemna. How do we deal with him? The problem is that Arafat is a terrorist. He was 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years, ten years and now. He is surrounded by terrorist henchmen who have no great desire for peace or a cease-fire. He can't be trusted and his handshake is about as useless as a “slow down” sign on a 70 mph freeway. For decades he has existed to kill Jews with the objective of destroying Israel. To most observers, that should come as no surprise. Arafat has never been a builder; rather, he has been a destroyer. And still is.

    So, do we deal with him or not. Is there any such thing as giving him still another chance? Frankly, I think things have reached the point where even if he wanted peace he couldn't deliver. His mad dogs are loose and he can't control them. If he says to Hamas, Hezbollah and Jihad “Hey guys, knock it off  –  let's cease fire, recognize Israel and negotiate for our Homeland”, they will either laugh at him or blow him away. More likely the latter. Funny how Palestinians are martyrs when one of their suicide bombers takes 100+ innocent Israeli civilians with them, but deaths at the hands of the Israeli military are “assassinations”. Everybody got that??

     So in dealing with Arafat, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Problem is that we are compromising our position on dealing with terrorists. The Arafat leopard simply hasn't changed its spots. Truly a dilemna. We will probbably put up a diplomatic smokescreen and negotiate with him some more but don't expect a lot. The real problem is that there will be no peace until both sides REALLY want peace. We can't force the Palestinians and their corps of terrorist-directed suicide bombers to desire peace. At some point in time it will have to come from them either because they think it is the right thing to do or because the price of continuing conflict is too high. The Palestinian leaders can't comprehend the former and reject the latter.

     Remember the old saying, “You never get order out of order”. It is hard to tell how close this issue is to rock bottom. From my vantage point, it is pretty hard to root for the Palestinians  –  whether or not there is substance to their cause.

NORMAN II

     During Desert Storm, we had Norman Schwartzkopf, “Stormin' Norman”, and what a hero he turned out to be. We couldn't have had a better symbol leading our troops. Now, in the Terrorism War, we have Norman Mineta  –  and what a contrast.

     Mr. Mineta has a good track record and is probably a nice guy  –  and he may very well be an able Administrator as Secretary of Transportation for George Bush. But he has a huge blind side. He is still living in the early 1940s when his parents were among the Japanese families (The Nisei) who were were relocated from our West Coast cities to detention camps east of the Sierras and the Cascades. Indeed it was a draconian measure undertaken by the Federal Government. With the blessed accuracy of 20:20 hindsight, all of the current do-gooder social critics and the world of academe roundly denounce the action taken by the governemt in the early days of WW II as a horrible black episode in our history. And Mr. Mineta points to that experience as proof positive of the evils of “racial profiling”. After all, if we won the war, it shouldn't have made a big difference. Ah, the wonders of 20:20 hindsight.

     So, nowadays, Norman Mineta steadfastly refuses to prolfile potential terrorists; instead we “random sample” airport travelers. And we, the public, are held hostage to his personal views.

     Not too many of us can go back to the days of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese envoys, Nomura and Kurusu, were in Washington conning the President and Secretary of State while the Japanese fleet was steaming toward Hawaii. It was an ultimate act of diplomatic treachery. Following the attack, our Paciific fleet was either destroyed or heavily damaged. Our main line of defense of the West Coast was gone. We didn't know where the Japanese fleet was located. We didn't know if an all out assault on the West Coast was imminent. The Phillipines were about to fall and the Japanese were on the move in East Asia. If we were not in a panic mode it was close to it. Then on top of that there was a large Japanese presence on the West Coast and we simply didn't know where their sympathies lay.   Thus FDR and his advisors decided that relocation of the West Coast Japanese was a prudent decision  —-  specifically in the defense and security of the country. At that time, it was not a highly controversial decision. From the perspective of mid 1942, the relocation decision made a lot of sense. Viewed from 2001, there is all kinds of room to second guess.

     We just returned from a vacation where we were joined by a couple from back East  –  both over 70. In their round trip, they were random searched 3 times, courtesy of computer selection. What a joke. What ever became of the basic police approach to pinpoint the likely suspects?? The terrorists must be laughing themselves silly while we zero in on blond Norwegians and 80 year old grandmothers.

     Charles Krauthammer, the distinguished essayist for Time Magazine got it right in the 3/18/02 issue ”The case for proliling”. Here is what he said.”Airport security is not permitted to “racially” profile, but every passenger  –  white or black, male or female, Muslim or Christian,   –  does.We scan the waiting room, scrutinizing other passengers not just for nervousness and shiftiness but also for the demographic characteristics of Al Qaeda. We do it privately. We do it quietly. But we do it. Airport officials, however, may not. This is crazy. So crazy that it is only a matter of time before the public finally demands that our first priority be real security, not political appearances  –  and puts an end to this charade.”

   Amen, Charles. Time to hit the road Norman  –  back to San Jose. I think a big dose of common sense is more appropriate than 50 year old 20:20 hindsight memories.

WHAT'S NEXT?

      For ordinary people, it is almost impossible to enter the mindset of Bin Laden, his fellow fanatics and murderous followers. Who in their right minds could fashion something as horrifying as the 9/11 bombings? But he and his henchmen did. So now, what is their next move.

     In some remote hideout they could be saying, “Look guys, we hurt them badly. Three out of four and we would have settled for one. They've come back and hurt us badly. Our communications are disrupted, they have cut off some of the money flow, our training bases are gone, and they've taken out a lot of our Al Qaeda guys. We are gonna have to back off and re-group, but we are not dead.  Sure we could set up a few car bombs and suicide guys in the USA, but 9/11 put us in the big leagues as far as Big Satan is concerned.  We have to think big. So, let's tell our guys to back off, get lost, stay invisible and “go to sleep”. Just tell them we will be in touch  –  and think about Oct-Nov.

     Right now, we've got them where we want them. They are thrashing about looking for 100% security at airports, bridges, train terminals etc. Spending gobs of money and causing all kinds of domestic problems. All we have to do is float a few rumors and they go ballistic. So let them chase ghosts and waste a lot of resources. In the meantime, let's just stay out of sight and wait.

     The chemical and bio stuff scares the wits out of people, but they are hard to handle and control. Our best big ticket is to nuke them. We have to use the time to get all of the stuff and make a big boomer. We'll make 9/11 look like a firecracker. That's the game plan. Let's go. Allah will lead us!!”

     Far fetched?  I don't think so. In the past, those with nuclear weapons were deterred by the retaliation aspect  -  to say nothing of the humanitarian concerns. But BL and his buddies are a different breed. They are already the walking dead and they could care less what happens in the aftermath. If they think Allah awaits them, why should they care about how they get there? We don't have much choice but to go after them in Afghanistan, The Phillipines etc., but while we dither over the Israelis and Palestinians, and chasing down remnants of the Taliban, I think they will quietly try to get a nuke with every intention to use it. Not a very pleasant prospect   —  and I hope our G-2 is up to the task!

THE CUTTHROAT

     Many Americans can recognize the handsome features of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. He is the handsome, grey-haired, distinguished, grandfatherly looking guy who gets his share of TV time as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Nice guy?  Not quite!

     After Turncoat Jeffords switched party affiliation last year, Leahy, a Demnocrat, became the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Among its duties, this Committee passes judgment on the Judicial Nominees offered by the President to fill vacancies in our Federal Courts. Almost a year ago, President Bush submitted a list of more than 90 nominees to fill at least that number of vacancies that now exist, and there is little doubt that the Federal Court dockets are overcrowded and the vacancies need to be filled.

     It is the entire Senate that has the “advise and consent” obligation when it comes to filling Federal Court vacancies, but the first step is to get past Mr Leahy's Committee. Thus far, Mr Leahy has deignd to allow hearings on 7 judge nominations over the past 6-8 months, saying that his Committee is too busy. And so the vacancies go unfilled. What Mr Leahy is really saying to the President is “if you give me a half dozen picks that I can pass along to my cronies, I'll schedules hearing for more of your nominees”. Otherwise, the Presidential nominees will continue to sit in limbo, the court vacancies will remain unfilled, and the court dockets will continue to be over crowded. Now I am not so naive as to ignore partisan politics, but I think there is an obligation to give the President's nominees a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committe and then vote them up or down in the full Senate. Our Judicial system should not be held hostage by the cutthroat tactics of Senator Leahy. But our dear Senator from Vermont defies the system through his control of the Committee agenda. He simply doesn't schedule hearings for any nominees. Thus, he stiff-arms the President.

     While George Bush is leading our Terrorism War effort and is grappling with other foreign and domestic issues, Senator Leahy is quietly stabbing him in the back  –  or should I say stabbing US in the back. When people get disgusted with our politicians or feel that our Federal Government simply isn't functioning as it should, they need to look no further than Senator Leahy and his kind. Don't let those patrician looks fool you. He is a Congessional cutthroat if there ever was one. But maybe I am too harsh. Maybe he is just a puppet bouncing at the end of the strings being pulled by his New England buddy Ted Kennedy  –  if that makes you feel any better!

     And by the way, while the media gets all excited about Enron, have you noticed any outrage about Mr Leahy and is treatment of our Judicial System??

LET'S ALL SYMPATHIZE

     Those poor Taliban guys on Guantanamo. Basking in that sunshine and balmy breezes (want to try Afghanistan in the winter?) Supported fully by our do-gooder left wingers who are concerned that they be treated in a humane way (whatever that is) . My heart bleeds for them. I wonder if it ever occurred to these citizens of super mercy that these guys cooped up in Gauntanamo have only one mission in life  –  to kill Americans. Kids, babies, old folks, women, soldiers, civilians  –  all of the above. Whoever gets in the way. They don't want our land, money or possessions. They just want to kill. Does it ever occur to our hand-wringers that these are not likely candidates for rehabilitation??

     Personally, I am not too concerned about their confort. My guess is that given the opportunity, the great majority of inmates at San Quentin and Pelican Bay (not exactly in the prison resort category) would say,  ”Send me to Guantanamo”. My concern is what we will do with them  – long range. Do we kill them all?  Lock them up for 50-100 years at untold expense? Or slap their wrists and let them go so they can ply their murderous trade again and again? The courts and military tribunals do not have the the long range solutions for people like these. So what do we do with them?? 

     Nowadays, my sympathy goes more in the directiion of  the time-honored military axiom, “Take no prisoners”.

DUAL STANDARDS

    It takes a while for some things to register but I think I have finally figured out that there are two kinds of money in this country. There are REAL dollars such as those in your pocket, purse, wallett, IRA, 401K, savings accounts, checking accounts, etc. Then there are TAX dollars  –   those that our governments have taken from us in various ways.  According to the National Taxpayers Union, every thing we earn up to about May 20th of each year goes to taxes. Over 4 1/2 months. That's an awful lot of tax dollars.

     But tax dollars are different. If someone takes my real dollars, they face the real possibility of spending hard time behind bars  –  like maybe 2-5 years or even 5-10 years. . They call it theft, robbery, larceny, grand larceny  –  harsh terms.  When somebody steals $1,000 of REAL money from another citizen, it can be a very big deal.

     But with tax dollars, it seems that a different standard applies. When the government takes your real dollars and converts them into tax dollars it's about like taking a bucket of water and dumping it into Lake Superior. The money loses its identity and disappears into that big pool in Washington or Sacramento. Now, it belongs to nobody. It's just……..there. And the terminolgy changes. When persons of authority (or access) decide to dip into that pool to take a bucketful here and there and use it for their own purposes, it's called “missing funds”, “misappropriation”, “mis-use”, or (occasionally) more pejorative terms like “fraud” or “embezzlement”. And the penalties if the perpetrator gets caught are more like 30 or 60 days suspended sentence, probation, or maybe a few months of community service.The prevailing attitude seems to be. “no harm, no foul” since the money doesn't belong to anyone.

     When the money goes to Washington, there are legions who just can't wait to spend it. While some may profess to be cost conscious, that brief delusion simply precedes the overpowering impulse to spent the money. Conversely, there is no real incentive NOT to spend it. After all, it is there, and it belongs to no one.   

     George Bush is right. The only brakes on big time governmental spending  is not to sent the money to Washington in the first place. That doesn't necessarily prevent outright waste or deter deficit spending, but it can force prioritization. Neither will spending limits  eliminate the indifference to mis-use of tax payer dollars. It won't for example prevent the IRS from looking the other way as Jesse Jackson pays for his extr-marital dalliances with tax grants from the Feds.

     The reason is simple. Tax dollars are not real dollars. They belong to no one. Dollars NOT taxed are real  — they are ours.