SamSaid!

HYPOCRITE

     The Michael Kinsleys of the world are having a field day over the disclosure that Bill Bennett is (was) a big time casino gambler. Bennett, of course, is the conservatives voice of high moral behavior and family values. He has authored a whole string of books including The Book of Virtues, Moral Compass, The Educated Child, Vice and Virtue, etc., etc. Among his devastating themes are the effect of single parenthood on children, the high rate of out-of-wedlock births, the decline of marriage as an institution, the high divorce rate, alcoholism, the collapse of our public education system, the prevalence of drugs, etc. He was secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan and Drug Czar under Prez Bush I. His credentials are most impressive, and he frequently appears on TV news/talk shows.

     Bill has confessed to losing millions of dollars in casinos in recent years. Frankly, I was very disappointed to learn of that side of him. But he has acknowledged the fault and renounced it. It has been pointed that while he lost a lot of money, he could afford it and he did not harm anyone else  –  family or otherwise. But Kinsley et al immediately pounced upon him as being a hypocrite  — i.e., preaching moral behavior while gambling for big stakes. Plausible argument. But from his critics, I could buy the downside argument (gambling) if they would accept the positive side of his thoughts and actions.But that is too much of a stretch. They prefer to beat up on Bill Bennet without conceding the value of his thoughts and works.

     Bill Bennett is a big boy  — literally and figuratively  –  and it will take a lot more than Michael Kinsley to keep him quiet. As the years go by, his observations receive more and more credence. His books continue to sell, and he remains a hot item on the lecture tour. Don't expect to see much of him on CBS with Dan  –  better to try Fox.

     He is not perfect, but hypocrite goes a step too far.

ERRATA

     Last time (NUMBERS) I tried to make the point that we are all bombarded by so many numbers that we tend to skim over them like so much trivia. How true! I can offer my own proof. In the prior message I referred to comparative statistics regarding oil well production and costs in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the US. The relative differences were startling. But in whizzing by the related numbers, I overlooked one teeny little detail –  just a teeny little one.

     The study that inluded the production/cost data was taken in 1979, and following that study there have been 3 wars and UN sanctions that no doubt affected the numbers.  

     I guess I could reason that even if the numbers were affected by 20%, the basic point would still be valid, i.e., if managed properly the Iraqi oil industry could be a huge (if not dominant) player in the internation oil business. Can you imagine what would happen to the economies of Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi, Iran, etc., if the world was awash with cheap Iraqi oil?

     Oh well. Humble pie isn't all that bad if not eaten too often.

NUMBERS

     Woe be unto the poor souls who do not like numbers, relate to numbers or understand numbers because we are increasingly bombarded by numbers coming from all angles. It's not much wonder that people are indifferent to statistics and numbers. When I see a very large number nowadays I wonder if it is one of those with “000 omitted”. Trillion dollar budgets do that to the casual observer. Just think about it  –  interest rates, income tax rates, gross national product, earned run averages, batting averages, free throw averages, divorce rates, Dow Jones averages, Nasdaq averages  —  etc., etc., etc. Numbing numbers.

     The ability to skim past the numbers has become a new reading skill. But a few days ago, I spotted a few numbers that really caught my attention. Time Magazine carried an article about oil in Iraq. Of course, many war protestors claimed that the war was all about oil. There is little doubt that in most of the last century, US foreign policy was heavily influenced by oil  — middle east oil. At a minimum it goes back to the days of  President Roosevelt before and during WW II. The numbers  which I noticed in  Time make it clear that oil is a really big deal in the Middle East and Iraq. A big deal for lots of countries, not just the US.

     The standard measure of oil production is the barrel  –  40 gallons. Actually a barrel contains 42 gallons –  2 extra to make up for evaporative loss. The abbreviation is bbl, but I am at a loss to figure where the second “b” comes from. Even with its oil facilities in bad shape and poorly maintained, the average Iraqi well can produce about13,700 bbl per day. The comparable figure for Saudi Arabia is 10,200 bbl/day. The average US well produces 17 bbl/day. Also, while the average cost to get a barrel to the surface in the US is about $10, the comparable cost in Saudi Arabia is about $2.50  –  and in Iraq, less than $1.  Those are pretty impressive numbers. I don't know whether the Time Magazine authors suffer from the same disease as the NY Times reporter who recently resigned over his preference for writing fiction, but assuming those numbers are right, we can see why the Russians, Germans and French and others get very nervous about getting their hands on Iraqi oil. 

     I don't see anything wrong with the US trading for Iraqi oil. Where we have surpluses in our country we trade them  –  timber, technology, agriculture products, etc. I do not believe that the US or anyone else should ripoff the Iraqis with so much at stake. Considering the huge US demand for oil and the fact that the French and Germans don't have very much, the Iraqis will not hurt for customers. Frankly, I have more faith in US integrity than I do for those “old Europeans” (as Rummy called them). That's why I hope we can  get Iraq back on its feet so that it can manage its own affairs productivley and constructively. Was the war all about oil? I don't think any fair minded person could say so considering the gruesome disclosures left from Saddam's tyrrany  –  to say nothing about a lot yet to be found. . But there is no doubt that oil is the biggest chip on the table now.

     Just look at the numbers.

LOCAL

     Tip O'neill was an old curmudgeon if there ever was one. As long time Speaker of the House, he often said that “all politics are local”. Regrettably, he was probably right. One of his contemporaries (whose name escapes me) quipped “never spend al lot of time on major issues when you can waste hours on trivia”. Now there is a guy who knew what he was talking about. And I don't have to look to Washington or Sacramento to make that case. Local politics makes the point clearly.

     I live in a nice community that had a rock solid economic base a couple of years ago. Now, the City faces a budget deficit measured in the millions (long story  — some other time). I watched a recent City Council meeting at which I expected to see in-depth discussions on what to do about the huge deficit. After all, that had to be the elephant in the living room. Wrong. Instead, the Coucil wasted an ungodly amount of time hassling about a 10 year old wrought iron fence showing sign of rust. Imagine  — ten years old — wrought iron  — and showing signs of rust. Will wonders never cease. And on top of that, an audit to find possibly non-existent paperwork about the fence, going back a decade. Now here are REALLY public minded citizens. Honest  — I'm not kidding.

     This isn't a case of Nero “fiddling while Rome burns”; instead it is a case of a few inept souls “piddling while the tsunami approaches”. Local politics can prevail  –  if you drive down your street and there are no potholes, things must be OK. And if there are 'biggies” on the agenda, punt while we haggle over trivia. Pathetic. Not much wonder most citizens hold politicians in low esteem.

     Is there some reason why we just can't paint the fence and get back to the deficit? Or is that too simple?

A RADICAL IDEA

     The Congressman from my district is a chap named Richard Pombo. I do not know Mr. Pombo  –  never met him or talked to him, and did not contribute to his campaign. A few days ago I noticed his name in the local newspaper in an article reporting that a left wing organization from (where else?) Berkeley had given Pombo an “F” grade for his Congressional performance. At the same time, this Berkeley outfit awarded glowing “A”s to a Bay Area Democratic delegation generally viewed as being about 100 yards to the left of Karl Marx. That started me thinking about terminology in the media.

     The article referring to Mr. Pombo was intended to disparage him  –  and it did. “A” is good, and “F” is bad. Got it? But the choice of words is critical. Let's think of the layout of a baseball field. Both liberals and conservatives want to present themselves as occupying center field. The liberals concede a slight tilt to the left and the conservatives a slight tilt to the right. As a factual matters, the liberalleftwingradicals (one word) occupy the territory in the area best suited to catch foul balls  — well to the left of the left field foul line But nobody refers to them as liberalleftwingradicals (one word). It is almost as though there is an editorial commandment, “thou shalt not….”  But if a conservative edges toward right center field he is immediately labelled as a conservativerightwingextemist (one word). Right wing extemist, OK; left wing radical, ah, no! Can you visualize  Peter Jennings or Dan Rather calling ANYONE a liberal left wing radical? Not a chance!

     In the newspaper article to which I made reference, can you imagine the reader response if it read, “Berkeley liberal leftwing radicals give “F” grade to Pombo”. Most readers would conclude that Pombo must be doing something right. The broadcast jounalists and print media folks have had their way for a long time. Nowadays, the radio talk show hosts have levelled the playing field —  and the denizens of the left don't like it. Liberalleftwingradicals  –  it has a nice ring to it.

     I think I would like to meet Mr. Pombo. From what I can see he is guilty of using a lot of common sense  –  a scarce commodity nowadays.

WEATHER

     I am just about convinced that the Red Chinese are fooling around with the jet stream. I can't think of any other explanation of the aberrant and bizarre weather we have been experiencing this spring. They probably stole the secret from the Soviets back when the Evil Empire was falling apart.

     Ordinarily we worry about the effects of El Nino as that huge pool of warm water drifts eastward in the Pacific. Alternately we have to be concerned about La Nina although I'm not sure what might come from the little lady except Fickle Fahrenheit. The third alarm bell comes from the space cadets who point to sunspots. But we have heard very little from these 3 meteorology  sources in the past year. If nothing else, the absence of warnings here gives support to the Chinese jet stream theory.

     Spring is a very nice time of the year in Northern California. Except for a shower here and there, it is a season of high blue skies, warm sun, and cool air. Tough to beat. It is especially welcome since spring comes to this part of the country a couple of months before other areas. Locals flee to Mexico, SoCal, and Hawaii in winter months to seek warm temperatures, but they generally stay at home in April/May since it is so nice here. Not this year. April was monsoon month with 19 days of rain and the other days were cloudy, overcast, grey, cool, chilly, cold, and blustery. As late as May 8 the evening weather forecast mentioned a wind chill factor. Here  –  in May! The Mountain reservoirs are full to the brim, some spilling water, and the big runoff from the melting Sierra snowpack (deep) has barely begun in earnest due to the cold nights. It is a sad state of affairs when I consider swapping my pre-dinner martini for a cup of hot chocolate, and my wife observes that some of my turtle necks and sweatshirts are getting ragged after 6 consecutuve months of wear. And of course, all of this sounds trivial compared to the waves of tornadoes that are tearing the midwest apart. Something is definitely wrong with that meandering jet stream.

     Maybe I am a bit unfair in pointing the accusing finger at the Red Chinese, but at least for the moment, that's my slant on things.

HARRY

     Harry Truman was never accused of being a high brow intellectual. To the contrary his critics were fond of describing him as a “two bit ward-heeling politician from Kansas City”. However, historians include Harry among our greatest Presidents even though he entered the White House at a distinct disadvantage. Seems that Franklin D. Roosevelt hadn't briefed him on many of the State secrets in war time dealings with Winston Churchill and Joe Stalin. Things like winning WWII and what to do after the war.  

     During his years in office, Harry had to make some major decisions  — like dropping the A-bomb to end WWII, The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and even firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur. He scored an “A” on all of them. I became a Harry fan when he called a New York Music Critic a sonofabitch for his caustic comments about the singing skills of Harry's daughter, Margaret. Harry never backed off, and this incident contributed to the saying, “Giv'em hell, Harry”. My kind of guy.

     Considering background and education, it isn't easy to compare George Bush with Harry, but some comparisons are right on. George is not highly articulate, but he is a straight talker and relates well to the man in the street. He is light years away from “Slick Willie”. Like Harry, George doesn't shy away from big decisions like the Iraqi War and he has no hesitation in challenging issues such as the abolition of death taxes and the termination of double taxation on dividends. Similarly, he is willing to tackle the Social Security sacred cow by urging individual accounts. Maybe Congress will shoot down these efforts, but not withoput a fierce contest from George.

     Virtually everyone I have encountered in recent days gave a big “hoo-ray” for George landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Now I see that Sen. Robert Byrd of WV has described the landing as a flambouyant publicity stunt. Tough words from the Senate's King of Pomposity. If I were George's Campaign Manager, I would show both film clips in one ad  –  George's landing and Byrd's intemperate comments  –  followed by a short political dig, “Thanks, Bob, for keeping us on the front page”.

WMDs

     The search is on in earnest to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or at a minimum find solid evidence of either their destruction or transshipment to other countries. In the weeks and months ahead, the searches will no doubt intensify. On one hand, the Bushies (George, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, et. al.) can hardly wait to say “We told you so” and then add to their polical capital. On the other hand, the anti-war folks and the Democrats salivate at the prospect of saying, “See, there were none. We were misled by Bush into fighting an unnecessary, costly war”. Target –  2004. At this point it is hard to tell whether the UN wants to find WMDs or not.

     One thing is for sure. With the continuing disclosure of the unspeakable atrocities committed in Iraq during the past 12+ years, Saddam and his two sons clearly qualify as WMDs  –  on their own people. At this point, I'm not sure whether we want to find them dead or alive. But if they are still among the living when we find them, I have an idea that will serve justice. Why not get three old electric chairs, strap in these 3 gents, and then sell lottery tickets internationally to see who gets to flip the switches. Think of the enormous benefit to the recovering Iraqi economy. Not a bad idea, but France would propbably veto it.

      On a related matter, I have a problem with the acronym “WMD” since I am not sure how “mass” is defined. Maybe a better acronym would be GGNs, for “gas, germs and nukes”. At least we'd know exactly what we are talking about.

CHIX

     The Dixie Chix are back on the concert trail and I wish them well. I like good country western music and I think they are good entertainers. I don't know that I would travel 100 miles to see them in concert, but if they are on TV,  I'll watch. But their public appearances nowadays are an uphill climb after one of them popped off in London, saying that she was “…ashamed that Our President was a native of Texas”. It is doubtful that her remarks were premeditated. I think that as she stood there before a noisy supportive crowd in an anti-war environment, she just shot from the hip knowing that whatever she said would be greeted by applause. Then to make matters worse, she later offered a half-vast (did I spell that right) apology for her choice of words. The Dixie Chix will still sell tapes, CD's etc., but the damage to their reputation will linger and they clearly have alienated a lot of fans in THEIR part of the country.  That's too bad, because they are a real success story in the music industry. I guess they understand now that free speech works both way. Sorry, ladies —  no free lunch.

     In thinking about the Chix, I am reminded of a recent article that pointed out the academic/intellectual accomplishments of some of the prominent anti-war protesters in the entertainment industry. These are the loud-mouths that are the most vocal critics of the current admimnistration. And what do they bring to the party?

   . Barbara Streisand  —       High school                    

   .  Cher      —   9th grade drop out

   .  Martin Sheen   –  flunked college entrance exam

   .  Jessica lange   —   freshman college drop out

   .  Alec baldwin  –  Geo Washingon U. dropout

   .  Julia Roberts  –  high school

   .  Sean Penn   –  high school

   .  George Clooney  –  Univ of Kentucky dropout

   .  Michael Moore  –  Univ of Mich freshman dropout

   .  and the list goes on

     There are leadership decisions with which I disagree, but I have a lot more confidence in the combined mental capabilities, experience, and academic status of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condolizza Rice than the Hollywood dimwits listed above. When they try to extend their entertainment popularity into national and international affairs because of their easy access to the media, I draw the line.

     Maybe the Dixie Chix learned a tough lesson. I hope so. These other people are beyond recall.

TWO-FACED JACK

     Chicago will be forever known for “Scarface” Al Capone. For a long long time to come, France will be known for “Two-Face” Jacque Chirac. His UN duplicity in sandbagging George Bush and Colin Powell will not vanish or be forgotten any time soon. But recently, Two face Jack has made a magnanimous offer in the UN  –  i.e., to suspend the UN sanctions that were imposed on Saddam Hussein way back in the 90s. Suspend, mind you, not rescind. Now, why on earth should sanctions imposed on Saddam be held over the heads of a new Iraqi government sans Saddam? Maybe so the suspended sanctions could be reinstated if the New Iraq does not accommodate Chirac's bidding via the UN Lilliputians?  Does anyone really think Two Face would stoop that low? My vote is “Yes, indeed”.

     Obviously Mr. Chirac wants to find a way to get the UN back on the front burner so that he can enhance his chances of getting his mitts on Iraqi oil under favorable circumstances and also prevent the disclosure of trade records showing how the French defied (evaded?) the UN sanctions for years in arming and supporting Saddam.  And now Two Face  has support from Russia's Mr. Putin who seems to be his lapdog.  My, how the mighty have fallen.  But Chirac must be dreaming if he thinks he can forestall disclosure of very damning documentation. Our guys have already accumultaed tons of data and are getting more every day. In addition, there are Iraqis included in the famous deck of cards who will be very willing to spill their guts to save their fannies. The old rule is still valid  –  “unprincipled people stay unprincipled”.

     I feel confident that George and Colin will have their day  –  in private and/or in public. At least I hope so. And it will indeed be a treat to see good old Two Face swing in the wind. By comparison, maybe Scarface Al wasn't all that bad.

     The NY Times and LA Times will probably pooh-pooh the motives of Two Face and his buddy, but the Times op/ed people haven't conceded that the war is over yet. Must be journalists embedded with each other.