SamSaid!

COLIN

     When the dust has finally settled on the current Iraqi/Saddam flap, I wonder how history will treat Colin Powell. Make no mistake, Mr. Powell is a great American success story, and a solid good guy from a national leadership standpoint. He has a lot of talent, amd I am glad he is on our side.

     But in 1991, as the Gulf war was winding down, his was one of the strong voices urging that we call off the assualt and not pursue Saddam into Baghdad to take him down and remove him from power. Granted, he was not alone since GW Bush(I) and Norman Schwarzkopf concurred. But as our #1 soldier, his input was not insignificant. If letting Saddam off the hook in 1991 is seen (by hindsight) as a mistake, Colin Powell  has to carry a lot of the blame.

     Now we are mired down in the swamp of the UN in March 2003, and Mr. Powell has been  the strongest voice arguing that we go the UN route rather than just go after Saddam and take him out. We have surrendered the advantage of world opinion, domestic opinion, and UN support. Also, we have given Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction more and more time to prepare for combat. There is little doubt that we are worse off today militarily than would have been the case a month ago  –  all due to the delays of UN manuevering. At this point it seems that UN support is no longer even a factor and we will have to proceed alone with just a few friends.

     Maybe it was worth the effort at the UN. Maybe.  But if things go wrong and the long delay results in higher casualties for our guys and the Brits there will be a storm of criticism directed at Geo W Bush.  Colin Powell is a military man, but not a military hawk. He prevailed in the strategic argument to pursue the support of the spineless UN. That has not succeeded and in fact has backfired. No doubt, Geo W will take the hit. But upon reflection, I wonder how  our hindsight experts will view the role of Mr. Powell five years from now?

POLLUTION

     Since I regularly read a variety of well known publications, I do not lack the opportunity to see the world through left wing eyes. But to keep matters in balance I also subscribe to the National Review, the voice of conservative America.which was founded and supported by William Buckley whom I regard as a truly superior intellect. He is well informed, highly articulate, and thought provoking. However, there are other excellent writers on the magazine staff as well. The other day, I ran across an article that gave me a new slant on environmentalism and pollution.

     Up until the arrival of the automobile  in the early 1900s, the two main forms of transportation in the country were the railroads and the horse. Few would argue that the horse was not directly involved in the growth of the US. By 1900, there were an estimated 20.4 million horses in this country, millions of which were in the cities and towns. The average horse consumed about 39 pounds of food per day  –  5 tons per year. In turn, that resulted in 12,000 pouns of manure and 400 gallons of urine per horse per year. And there were millions of acres specifically devoted to growing the food for the horses. Naturally, much of the excrement from the horses found its way into the lakes, ponds, rivers and streams of the country  –  polluting them badly. Disposing of horse piles was a major problem in big cities. Then along came the automobile which literally put the horses out to pasture (no pun intended). Now they can muck-up a pasture or man made pond, but for the most part, horse-generated pollution is gone  –  thanks to the automobile.

     To many of the “green” mentality, the automobile is regularly castigated as a polluter  –  not granting due credit for eliminating horse generated pollution many many years ago. I am sure they would gag before conceding that automobiles have reduced pollution and benefited the environment. Of course, all of this data is verifiable, so readers can confidently view the preceding as scientific observations rather than so much horse manure. But for environmental skeptics, I'd just offer that as the fly said as he crawled across the mirror, “that's one way of looking at it”.

THE FACTOR

     A year or so ago, I casually changed the channel to watch Bill O'Reilly on Fox news. In the following months I watched more often and nowadays I view his newscast  every day. When it comes to standard TV news, I am still loyal to NBC. While I am not much enthralled by Katie Cutie or Queen Jane Pauley, I like Tom Brokaw and Matt Lauer. But the big three network news presentations are bland pablum –  politically correct vanilla  –  compared to O'Reilly who really is a different cat.

     O:Reilly is fast-talking, direct, candid, opinionated, assertive, argumentatative, confrontational, occasionally nasty or rude, insensitive, impatient, and challenging to those who may differ with him. He may not the best TV Jounalist on the air, but he is entertaining and he gets his messages across. From time to trime I differ with him and then fire off Emails. But he has generated an amazing following in just a short period of time. He is not a slick salesman with a well packaged product to sell; rather, his message hits the core, heart, or guts of millions of people who feel just as he does but generally confine their thoughts to just a few others. For years they have awaited a spokesman for THEIR causes  –  now they have one.

     Bill does not invite guests so that they can make planned speeches in response to lollipop questions. He asks tough questions and demands direct answers. Woe to the unwary who might try to weasel word their way out of a tough question from Bill.  No equivocation. I like that. And he doesn't hesitate to take on the IRS, politicians, the RC Church, the Hollywood elite, or black leaders. Actually, I chuckle every time he throws political correctness out the window. It is a treat to watch him expose Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as the charlatans  they are. More than anything else, it is a joy to watch him stick the needle into Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Tom Daschle, Martin Sheen, Ted (the balloon) Kennedy, and other leaders of the left  for refusing an invitation to appear on his program.   

     When it comes to aggressive interviewing, he has no peer. And I say, more power to him. He says things that need to be said. If the left-wingers want to refute him, I say “good luck, guys”. Last month Dan Rather got worldwide publicity by interviewing Saddam Hussein. I watched Mr. Rather quietly pitch the pre-approved softball questions to The Iraqi madman who deperately wanted (and got) respectable worldwide press.

     Can't you just imagine Bill O'Reilly interviewing Saddam??

BELIEVING

     Most people believe what they want to believe. Maybe that is a cynical view of my fellow man, but I think it is true for a distressingly large percentage of people. Over the centuries some of the finest intellects have devoted enormous amounts of brain power and energy to rational thought, logic, deductive reasoning, data acumulation, analysis, fact-finding, etc., all in an effort to reach decisions and conclusions devoid of wishful thinking and emotion. Sadly, it all comes down to that tongue-in-cheek phrase, “Don't bother me with facts”.

     There is no better case that the Iraqi Madman. Saddam's track record is hardly that of a State secret. He has attacked Iran and Kuwait; he has gassed the Iranians and Kurds; he has killed and terrorized his countrymen, he has fired missiles into Israel, he has thumbed his nose at the UN and has refused to disclose the whereabouts of bio weapons.  But in the view of some, that isn't enough evidence. To most people with IQs over 50, that should be pretty convincing. But for people who choose not to believe the obvious, it is not enough evidence and will never be enough. They just do not want to believe what is plain to see.

     George Bush I, Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell are not lightweights. Given the chance to dispatch Saddam once and for all, they stopped short  –  believeing that he could be controlled by sanctions and the UN. They very badly wanted to believe that they were right. They were wrong. Saddam doesn't respond to typical pressures. He only knows force  — and he knows it well. At this stage it is senseless to refer to historical precedent involving appeasement, diplomacy and/or normal reasoning. Far too many folks, here and abroad, WANT to believe that there are other ways to deal with Saddam. They simply follow the pattern of believing what they want to believe  –  “don't bother me with facts”.

     If we don't take him out now, I believe that we will rue the day. But then, maybe I am like all of the rest, I believe what I want to believe. But I think the facts are on my side.

A BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK

I clearly remember that classic 1950s Spencer Tracy movie and the title that became a term of folklore for a couple of generations. If it is a bummer and all goes wrong, it is a “bad day at black rock”

I was awakened this morning by our little dog with a cold nose on my arm and a little woof that meant “It is time for my pre-breakfast walk, and I am hungry”. By the time I had dressed, the early reports of the Columbia tragedy were on TV. I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach because it is hard not to expect the worst when something goes wrong in a small capsule traveling at 17,000 miles per hour at 200,000 feet above the earth in an immediate environment of incinerating heat. Within an hour the tragedy was confirmed — that the Columbia had disintegrated and the 7 crewmen did not survive. However, the extent of the tragedy did not hit home until the portrait of the 7 was shown — 7 real people whose lives were snuffed out in a matter of seconds or minutes. That really got to me. Here were seven highly intelligent, well educated quality people with so much to offer — all gone. No body ever said that life was fair, but it shouldn’t be that unfair.

A few days ago I sat in the familty room and watched thugs and hooligans trash the streets of Oakland because the Raiders lost in the Super Bowl. The week before, these same dimwits trashed the streets when the Raiders won and qualified for the Super Bowl. I thought then that we would all be better off if a big tidal wave washed them all out to sea — one way. Keeping this sad bunch is not a very good trade for the Astronauts we lost this morning.

Will the space program continue? Sure, as long as space is out there, courageous people will visit and explore. And they will do so with the full knowledge of the dangers involved. Some people will say that they died doing what they wanted to do, but that really understates the tragedy since these fine people will not be able to enjoy and share an entire generation of experiences with friends and family. As people age, they come to accept the inevitability of mortality — some stoically and some grudgingly. But they will die with a lifetime of memories — not one abruptly shortened in their primes.

There were two women among the seven. I guess in days of gender equality, that’s par for the course. But I must be an old male chauvinist because seeing the death of those two young women bothers me. I simply am not comfortable with mothers dying that way.

In thinking about this tragedy, I keep seeing the image of the portrait of the seven in their space suits flashing across my mind. I don’t think I will sleep very well tonite.

It was a bad day at black rock.

STRAIGHT-TALK

     No matter what critics may say about George Bush, he is a gutsy guy. Early on he was dismissed as a guy who wasn't the brightest light on the boulevard, and he clearly struggled in some of the campaign appearances 2 years ago. By comparison, he will never match the eloquence (glibness?) of Slick Willie  –  and maybe that is not all bad.To most people, he comes across as a straight-talking guy who can look you in the eye. He is believable    

      Confronted by the now famous Michigan Law School affirmative action case, Goerge didn't duck it . He faced it squarely and described it for what it is  –  a preferential quota system. No doubt, some of his advisors voiced nervous Nellie opposition to his stance, but there was no weaseling from George. Viewed from a political perspective, maybe he figured that the only votes he would lose were the ones he wouldn't get anyway. And we might concede a margin of safety since we all know that the final decision will come from the Supremes. But his direct approach using unmistakeable language was impressive  — and laudable.

     Then we come to the State of the Union Address which by all accounts was very well delivered. The 1st half of it may have been politically motivated –  covering a lot of bases;  but the second half assuredly was not. By US standards, we have the classical face-off where someone is going to blink. I have no idea how Saddam's mind works, but I have a hard time believing that George is going to blink. For a rookie in dealing with international relations, it seems to me that he has done pretty well in nuetralizing the nay-sayers and getting allied support. Can't you just imagine Al Gore in that role??  If we do have to go to war, maybe Barbara Streisand will go to Tel Aviv to bash George stage a fund raising concert for the Palestinians

     Anyway, I trust George to tell it like it is.

READING

     The other day, we had the pleasure of baby sitting our 5 year old granddaughter. Pretty good duty. She is right at the point of learning how to use a pencil, learning about letters and numbers, and starting to read. When you think about it, the process of learning to read is astounding. Here is a young mind that can translate marks on a piece of paper into a grouping called “words” and then visualize objects, names, persons, feelings etc. by putting some of these “words” together. Amazing.

     I went through 12 grades in the Public School system. Everyone knew how to read and write. Sure, some better than others, but it was inconceivable that anyone in our classes would flunk because they couldn't read or write. Yet we now have huge percentages of kids in the secondary schools who can't do either. And lot of them are blacks. Personally, I don't think the big issue for black leaders is an extra 20 points to get into the Michigan Law School. Not while 30-40% of kids in some high schools can't even read or write. Sad commentary on what has become of our public school system  –  and the priorities of so-called leaders.

     Speaking of reading, in retirement years there is a lot of opportunity to read, and I enjoy it. Unfortunately, my reading span is about 20 minutes before running into an unplanned nap. But I can work my way thru an occasional best seller, the local newspaper, Sports Illusttrated, Time, an occasional issue of the Economist and the Wall Street Journal. I don't really devour the financial data in the WSJ but I am convinced that it has the best editorial page in the USA. An excellent example is “If Saddam Survives” which appeared in this morning's Journal (1/27). It employs the simplest of logic in re Iraq, i.e., “What if we do” and “What if we don't”. Nowadays we are hearing more an more from the anti-war folks with scant attention to the opposite side of the coin. What are the consequences if Saddam gets off the hook?  Every thoughful American should read the aforementioned editorial before locking into a position.  It's worth 5 minutes of anyone's time.

AFFIRMATIVE DISSENT

     I have never been a great fan of affirmative action, which is really a code word to disguise preferential treatment and quotas. Equal opportunity is one thing, and most folks don't argue against that. But proponents of diversity want no parts of equal opportunity  –  they want guaranteed results. So-o-o, they find ways to tilt the playing field.

     Over the past 10 years or so, the courts have been increasingly unsympathetic to racial, ethnic, or gender preferences since the US Constitution simply doesn't privide for that kind of disparate treatment. But the social architects keep trying to twist the Constitution around to supporting their views. Granted, slavery was despicable  — and the Civil War wasn't just a fraternal spat. But the face of our society has changed dramatically since the Civit Rights Act was passed almost 40 year ago. If EVER there was a justification for affirmative action  those days are gone. Now, what had been a  policy matter has been transformed into a legally supported demand for preferential treatment. The supporters casually ignore the fact that for each person receiving preferential treatment, another is denied fair treatment.

      This spring the US Supreme Court will rule on a case that is right on point. In determining admission to the Univ of Michigan Law School, blacks, hispanics and indians are given an extra 20 points in a scoring system based on points.  The justification offered by the Michigan Law School is that achieving diversity is desireable and the bonus points are warranted. They don't deny that they have discriminated against the better qualified applicants.  Translation  –  more qualified applicants are rejected so that less qualified “diversity” candidates may be accepted. Two outstandingly qualified women have contested their denial by the Law School. And the Law School doesn't deny their superior qualifications. Currently, there are conflicting affirmative action decisions in the Circuit Courts, so the Supremes can't duck this one. Do they bow to political and social pressure, or do they rule on the Constitution?

     I have no use for this diversity hogwash. In an academic environment we should encourage excellence and achievement. Affirmative action is an effort to legitimatize a special form of discrimination. It deserves to be dumped into a trash can, and I hope the Supremes pull the plug this June.