SamSaid!

FULL DIVERSITY

     A few days ago I read an op/ed piece by Mr. Richard Atkinson. President of the University of California system. It was entitled, “Full Diversity: UC System not there yet”. Of course, his purpose was to support Affirmative Action in college admissions and to urge the US Supreme Court to sanction Michigan's practice of granting bonus points to black and minority applicants. That got me to thinking, “what is full diversity, and who ordained that concept as an operating goal for a huge tax-supported Educational  bureaucracy”? I guess I hold to a possibly Neanderthal view that Educational institutions exist for education, not social realignment. Was there a law passed to elevate diversity to priority status? Was there some kind of edict, and if so, from whom? And mind you, not just diversity  –   FULL diversity, whatever that is.

     Our US population is the greatest example of diversity known to man. Diverse from the standpoint of skin color, eye color, hair color, height, weight, affluence, ethnic origin. religion. race, smarts, sexuial orientation (with all of its eccentricities), political views etc., ad nauseam. The country didn't start off that way; rather, diversity evolved from the interaction of various segments of the population over time. Some of it did not come easily. But it occurred. And it is occurring now. But there is a huge difference between a natural evolution toward diversity and adopting a policy of “diversity for diversity's sake” which is what Cal and other parts of the world of academe now support. It is a sham. Now that the courts are ruling against quotas and race conscious admissions policies, the big guys in the ivory towers and their social elitist companions extoll the virtues of “the richness of diversity”. If I hear that term again, I think I'll barf.

     They just won't admit the inevitability of the math. With a finite sized body, if you shoe-horn 5 less qualified applicants in the front end of the bus, you shove 5 more qualified applicants out the back door. They just don't like that logic, and the preferred answer nowadays, is –  diversity, diversity, diversity. Mr Atkinson says that minorities are underrepresented at Cal, i.e., not enough blacks and Hispanics. Translated, that really means that there are too many whites, Jews and Asians. Solution??  Easy. Find a way to get around the academic credentials and reduce the count of whites, Jews and Asians. And that gets us back around to the current sacred cow  — diversity. Ah yes, the Atkinsons of the world turn to the the richness of diversity. Baloney. Cal is just saying to us, “we will accept who we want and teach what we want. Just keep sending the money (and by the way, we need more)”.  

     Our Constitution is color blind. I hope the current court doesn't buy the notion of making it technicolor. Mr. Arkinson should be ashamed to renounce academic standards right in the heart of the California system. But academicians are very good at “spin”. I wonder if he relies on diversity to explain why half of the Cal football team is black? What would be wrong with 135 pound Korean defensive tackles??

     Mr Atkinson should stick to academic matters. Diversity isn't one of them.

SWISH

    Last week I attended an NBA game. It was the first pro basketball game I have attended for about 20 years. I was not impressed. Fortunately, the price was right  –  a freebie ticket.

    As a school boy, I always looked forward to the seasonal transition from one sport to another  –  football to basketball to baseball/softball. Our school didn't have sports like swimming, golf, tennis, wrestling, volleyball, etc. I was a bit scrawney for football, but played basketball and baseball respectably. If basketball was a favorite, it was likely because I was over 6 feet tall and enjoyed a bit of an advantage over my diminutive companions.  

     My first exposure to pro basketball occurred while working in Boston for 2 years. That gave me the chance to see the Celtics play on the parquet floor in the old, rickety, smoky Boston Garden. I became a Celtic fan all through the dynasty that stretched from Cousy, Sharman, Russell, the Joneses, Havlicek, Cowan, Bird, Mchale, et. al. After the Celtics fell by the wayside, pro basketball became a victim of my “delete” key.

     When Dr.Naismith invented basketball, he clearly de-emphasized the physical part of the game and put the basket above the reach of the players. He did not intend to create a variable of football played indoors without pads on a hardwood floor. But all of that has changed. Now pro basketball is a very physical game dominated by big powerful men. Very big. Are there skilled shooters and passers? Sure. But they are role players to the big guys who dominate the game. Dancing is described as a contact sport;  basketball is a collision sport. And new generation people ooh and aah over the althletic gyrations that precede a “dunk” which in my view is the antithesis of basketball. It may be entertainment, but hardly basketball. The game has changed dramatically from the rules to the players, but the basket stays at 10' above the floor  –  right where it was 100 years ago.

     All sports have their characteristic sound logos. In baseball it is the crack of the bat, in football it is the thunderous “touchdown”, in soccer it is “g-o-o-a-a-l”, and in basketball it is “swish” –  the sound of the perfect shot that hits nothing but the net. For me, the NBA sound logo is a faint click – the sound of changing the channel.

     Every 20 years may be a good interval to review change. Who knows, maybe by the then the basket will be at 12' where it belongs for the biological accidents plying their trade on the hardwood.  

     Come to think of it, “fore” offers a much better sound nowadays.

TROUBLESOME DEBT

     The media folks estimate that Saddam's worldwide debt is about $400 Billion  –  which is a lot of money no matter how measured. A good chunk of that debt is owed to Russia for a lot of military hardware, equipment, training etc., that was shipped to Iraq over the past 10- years or so despite a series of UN Resolutions that banned it. Considering the shaky status of Russia's economy, they obviously would like to be paid out of Iraqi oil revenue  –  or anything else. But something tells me the Russians are walking on eggs or are pussy-footing around the debt issue. Maybe they won't “forgive” it, but they will not huff and puff to get paid  –  at least not near term. They do not want that issue on the front burner.

     From all outward appearances, Mr Putin and George Bush got along famously down in Texas. I don't know whether Putin is a neo-capitalist or fully pro-USA, but he surely realizes that Russia is better off as a friend of the US rather than an adversary. As a practical leader, he had to support his crusty old warriors of the Cold War in arming Saddam. Those old birds still seeth over losing the Cold war to the Americans, and looked upon arming Iraq as a “payback” for the help the US gave the Afghanis until the Russians had to withdraw in humiliation. Now that Saddam has been squashed in 3 weeks, Putin is in a stronger position with his old style Generals by simply saying, “I told you so  –  go back to your drawing boards”.

     One of these days, the Iraqi oil will flow out again, and revenue will flow in again. There will be all kinds of demands on the large (but limited) funds. I think the Russians will be content to wait their turn.

     France is a different story.

AN IRAQI DIVIDEND

     Long before the bombs started to fall on Baghdad, the Arab Street issued dire warnings that an attack on Iraq by the US would throw gasoline on the flames of terrorism and would spawn “hundreds” of Bin Ladens. One might argue about the math, but the prospect of heightened terrorism cannot be taken lightly. Of course the opposite side of that argument is that terrorism would recede or go away if we did NOT attack Saddam, and most reasonable people would agree that that is very specious reasoning. Yet among all of these rainclouds there may be a ray of sunshine.

     For the first time in many moons, the US now has a sold base of support from a lot of middle east muslims. They are, of course, the anti-Saddam Iraqis who look upon the US as a benefactor, friend, and maybe even a saviour. These folks will enthusiastically help us in tracking down Saddam's henchmen who have fled the country with their booty, and I think we also will be able to count on them to put the finger on would be terrorists and their cells. If we have to face the prospect of an ongoing war on terrorism, I think the pro-US Iraqis will be most helpful. And I also think they will blunt the inflammatory rhetoric coming from other Arab/Islam countries  –  especially after Saddam and sons are exposed for what they are and have been.  

     Maybe the searches will be like those which pursued the Nazis who escaped from Germany after WWII. Some were caught and brought to justice in well publicized trials. It is in our interests that the actions of these War Criminal Iraqis be shown to the world. Even Al Jazeera can't stop that. Of course, in other instances, these bad dudes will be located, apprehended, and then sort of ….  disappear – permanently. That's the way business is conducted in the “spook” world.

     All of this says that we need 6 months post-Saddam to get our teams identified, assembled, trained and focused, and we don't need the UN, France, Germany or Russia to participate We probably won't read about this sort of thing  –  at least I hope not –  but it will quietly go forward as a solid dividend from the major investment we are making in a new Iraq.

     Already, some of the arab “rogue” countries are a little bit nervous or uncomfortable that they may be on our hit list. As far as I am concerned. we should keep them thinking that way. Our new Iraqi friends might help them to think and act differently. Nothing like first hand evidence. 

MY TAKE

     As long as our troops remain in harm's way and hostile gunfire continues, it is both premature and unwise to say the the Iraqi War is “over”. But it is fairly certain that Saddam and his henchmen are history and a new day is dawning. Most wars have a specific end date, but maybe the 2003 Iraqi war will not since it may just transition into the next phase of the war on terrorism. But at this stage, this is my take on what has happened.

    1.  The War Plan   —-   despite the nay-sayers, fault-finders and knee-jerk critics at the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post, the plan devised by Rummy, Gen Franks and the Pentagon was first rate. Drive right at Baghdad in all haste and get Saddam on the run. If we had plodded thru the Euphrates/Tigris river towns and cities, we would still be there creeping up on Baghdad. Give credit where it is due. Rummy, Franks and the Pentagon were right.

     2. Basrah  —  Big miscalculation here. The Planners had every reason to expect that the Iraqi Shiites would turn on their long time tormentor as soon as the Coalition troops arrived. But they didn't. After having been burned in 1991, they played it cozy until they could see who was going to win. Can't blame them, but their hesitance tied up the Brits and cost us 2-3 weeks in controlling the country. No awards here, but at least we saved the oil fields.

     3. The Republican Guard Divisions  –  frankly, I think they could have been a very formidable opponent. Better trained and equipped, they would have been very difficult to dislodge, and the 3rd Infantry, the 101st Airborn and the Marines could have been tied up for weeks with very heavy casualties. But the Iraqis just didn't count on the tremendous power of the USAF, the Navy and the whirlybirds. The Guards had to mass to some extent to maximize their firepower, but when the did so they became sitting ducks for incessant bombardment by GPS, radar and laser guided bombs.  Hour after hour, day after day, high level B-52s and lower level fighter bombers. By the time Saddam's Republican Guard Divisions  had been reduced to hamburger, there was neither the will nor means to fight. They probably never knew what hit them.  Credit the air war  –  big time.

     G-2   –  we probably won't read much about it for a few years, but we must have had super “on-the ground” intelligence to direct the military strikes and keep the Iraqis on the run. The CIA and Pentagon are special whipping boys in the Press, but they did a good job here.

      Now we need 6 months to set up a national infrastructure and a new Iraqi government. And the one thing we do not need is the UN. Certainly, not now!

A LETTER

Dear Mr. Chirac:

     I can't tell you how pleased we were to receive your letter in which you offered the services of your Government in the rebuilding of Iraq in the aftermath of ridding that country of its despotic leader and his thuggish comrades in the Baath party. We have a monumental task on our hands and can use all the help we can get from all quarters. It is particularly gratifying to have the support of a country like France, with all of its rich legacies and traditions bequeathed to modern society by such giant thought leaders as Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and of course, LaFayette. Creating a free, open, democratic government from the ashes of a terrible war will be a task of no mean consequence, but we are confident of success.

     At first blush, it strikes us that France can be beneficial in building a country from the rock bottom base of a crushing military defeat. As you know, the USA has no personal experiences along that line, never having experienced one; however, France seems to be well qualified based on its own military experiences over the past 150 years. On the opposite side of the coin , the USA seems better equipped at nation building since it has done very well in South Korea, Japan and Germany. Maybe it is not a stretch to say the the USA knows the view from top down while France knows the view from the bottom up.

     As you know, US taxpayers are being asked to spent $80-100 Billion to depose Saddam and then re-build the Iraq. While lots of late-comers have quickly volunteered to tackle the post-war project, there are millions of Americans who are inclined to say that if we spent the money, took all the  risks and made the big sacrifices, we should have the biggest say-so in how the whole show is run after the last shot is fired. I'm sure you can understand that simple logic. And I would urge you not to ignore the young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice and will not be coming home to loved ones. Of course if your thinking was not affected by the 100,000 Americans buried in your soil, we have little reason to believe that the position of your government would be affected by a smaller number staying in Iraq.

     One of our main objectives in establishing a Post-war Iraqi Governement is instilling values into the political system  –  such as honesty, intergity, and popular welfare. To be perfectly honest, some Americans are bothered by the willingness of France to aid and abet Saddam thru lucrative contracts  –  oil and military supplies  –  for 12 years after Gulf War I. It seems to us that your country materially and knowingly aided Saddam in perpetuating his reign of terror. And in re your UN behavior this past March, you obviously saw no reason why he could not indefinitely continue in his dictatorial ways while futile weapons searches continued. We really have a problem in presenting these kinds of unprincipled actions by France as the kinds of values to underly a new Government. Is this the kind of conduct we would have a new Iraq emulate?

     Certainly, we must be big enough to overlook these trivial differences betwen your country and ours. So it's a lot of money and a few dead soldiers. We must keep matters in perspective. With that in mind, you may be assured that we will keep close at hand  your generous offer to help re-build Iraq now that the war is over and Saddam is gone. And, of course, we appreciate the immense sacrifices the French Government is willing to make in order to bear your full share of responsibility (or is it opportunity?).

     All of this brings to mind an American saying with which you may or may not be familiar, “Don't call us, we'll call you”!

                                              Regards,

THE WAR

     Since I am temporarily incapacitated, I have had plenty of time to watch the Iraqi war on TV and also read about it in the newspapers and periodicals. Trouble is that I get the idea that I am watching one war and reading about another

     A study (un-refuted, by the way) awhile back showed that 85 % of US journalists and media people are either registered Democrats or describe temselves as liberals. However, they stoutly insist that they are “professionals” and that their political inclinations have no effect on their objectivity in reporting. Everybody got that?  Sure! But back to the war.

     TV clearly shows the tremendous successes of the US military on the ground and in the air as it smashes the defenses of the Iraqis. In less than 2 weeks they are in Baghdad and the highly touted Rebublican Guard of the Iraqis is in tatters. But while the highly effective, hi-tech bombardment continues and the army advances 15-20 miles a day, the left leaning press such as the NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post carry articles saying “Pentagon Plan flawed”, “War Plan fails, “Iraqi resistance greater than expected”, “Suppy lines over extended”, “More casualties reported”, “Not enough ground troops” etc., etc., etc.  They seem to be saying that if we can't report something BAD we won't report anything. It is almost as if they WANT to find something where they can find fault and point a finger of blame or ineptness at the Pentagon and the White House.(wonder if they ever think about Saddam and the UN).

      Anyone with a political IQ over 20 knows that most of the press is not supportive of George Bush, his top staff and Administration, the Military establishment, the Republicans, and the decision to go to war to eliminate Mr. Hussein. It must truly gall them to see the war effort going well. And they must be infuriated to see that 70-75% of Americans support the Prez and the war effort. No doubt we will be treated to vast coverage of protests in Indonesia, Japan, Mecca, LA, San Francisco and other left leaning bastions around the world. Maybe even some re-runs of old Martin Sheen movies.

     There are almost 220,000 Americans risking their lives in Iraqi  –  we can see that on TV. But the editorial radar of many of our journalists is pointing somewhere else. In bygone years they may have been able to get away with their slanted reporting. Two things have changed that  –  the on site TV coverage of the war via “embedded” journalists, and Cable News outlets.

     The bias has been there. It's just a bit easier to see now. It is certainly a perverse way to exercise the 1st Amendment.

CHAUVINIST

     When it comes to the USA, I confess to being a chauvinist  –  no apologies. Maybe I was born under the Zodiac sign of Stephen Decatur. In my lifetime I have been fortunate  to travel extensively around the world  –  Western Europe, Scandanavia, Northern Africa, North and Central America, the Middle East, Japan, The SW Pacific, Australia/New Zealand,etc. etc., but I have always had a great warm feeling upon getting “back home”. The USA is a truly special place, and it is marvelous to be an American.

     I spent three years in uniform  — the USAF  — and I wore the uniform proudly. Nobody shot at me in anger, so far as I know, and I was not recalled to active duty as some of my comrades were. But I was ready to go. Even now, I recite the Pledge of Allegiance, sing “America the Beautiful” and fly the flag at my home.

     When it comes to the First Amendment, I do not hesitate to express my views. We all can do that. But when I see a mob of degenerate scumbags “demonstrating” in San Francisco my blood begins to boil. Since when has the First Amendment sanctioned rioting and damage to property? When has it been authorized to defy the law and ignore the rights of law abiding others? I can support free specch  –  utterances  –  but not the wilfull defiance of law and order. Maybe the ACLU thinks that's OK, but not me. So now we have a system where the courts say that actions like that are improper  but they fall short of doing anything about it. And so the rioters get away with it. Scott free.

     With alerts at a high level to prevent terrorist actions, why do we have to re-assign hundreds of policemen and firemen to control the rioting behavior of “protestors?”  And these are the kinds of protestors who would happily kiss the fanny of Saddam Hussein if he walked down Market Street. I recall one TV interview of a “protestor” who couldn't even find Iraq on a map.

     It is pretty much conceded that another terrorist attack will occur – somewhere, someplace. If I had a loved one on active military duty in the Gulf and had to watch the disgusting performance of  SF “protestors”, I would be seriously tempted to paint a big bulleye in the center of San Francisco so that our losses to terrorism would not be significant.

     As I watch thier performance, I am caught between disgust and contempt. Tough choice.

THE FRENCH

     France and its leaders are already taking a pounding from much of the US media and also the internet. Something tells me that the internet traffic has just begun, and the treatment of the French will not be very complimentary. Quite the opposite. And we are just seeing the beginning  –  at least judging from some of the Emails coming my way.

    But considering the behavior of the French leaders in the current Iraqi affair, maybe the appropriate question should be “Should we expect anything else?” While I prefer California wines and eating popcorn instead of snails, I wouldn't want my personal biases to ignore history.

    In the last millenium, France hit its high water mark with Napoleon about 200 years ago. The came the retreat from Moscow, Waterloo, the exile of Napoleon, The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and Mr. Bismarck,  WWI and the failure of the Maginot line, WWII and the “Pitiful 14 days” that led to Vichy France and the collaboration of Pierre Laval,  Vietnam and Dien Bien Phu, Algeria, and now the French $$$ Connection to Saddam. With that kind of legacy, is the behavior of Mr. Chirac and his aides so surprising? As I said, “What should we expect”? 

     None of us can be sure of what will come of the Iraqi incursion. It will not be pleasant. But there are enough Americans with long memories who will caustically label the French as long as they live. Betrayal is a good word here. It fits.

THE AZORES

     With the advent of TV, a favorite “catch-phrase” of the broadcasters has been “eye witness to history”. It has a nice sound to it. Nowadays, with 24 hour on-scene TV coverage, we all can be eye witnesses to history while dozing in our own family rooms. Who knows?  Maybe the Azore Summit will command a lot of attention from historians. I think it should.

     When you think about it, an awful lot of effort was put into a 1 1/2 hour meeting called at the last minute. Consider the distances, the entourages, the media people from all over the world, the security, the preparations and communications, etc etc. Bigtime logistical effort. For an hour and a half. The important feature of the Azores Summit wasn't what was said or done  — or who was there. The really important matter was who was NOT there. None of the old Euros or the UN. George, Tony and their Iberian buddies took center stage. Viewed from either a diplomatic or tactical standpoint, I think it was a master stroke. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. The message to the UN Security Council and Saddam is unmistakeable.

     If I were in charge of the SAC base in Jefferson City, MO., I think I would be telling the B-52 pilots to start their engines.