SamSaid!

BOGUS

     After 2 weeks, Dan Rather and CBS have finally fessed up to running a news article based on phony documentation. Rather is a long time experienced reporter and he knows very well that sources of “news” items need to be authenticated. And that should be especially true when the story itself is attackiing the President of the United States. Yet Rather and CBS squirmed and wiggles on a skewer for two weeks before concededing that they were wrong. Notice that they say that they can't confirm the authenticity of the documents  –  not that the documents were bogus.

     The documents referred to are letters referring to Geo Bush's service in the national Guard many years ago. And it is clear that the letters are copies  — bogus copies made specifically to discredit the President. It isn't difficult to break the code in Rather's reporting. Having the chance to run an exclusive story that bashes George Bush, Rather just couldn't resisit the temptation to rush ahead  –  shortcutting the process of investigation and authenticating. Rather believed the authenticity of the documents because he WANTED to believe that they were genuine. Rathrer's tilt to the left is well know, and his antipathy to the Bushes (#41 and 43) is likewise common knowledge. Having the chance to discredit George Bush was simply more than Rather could handle and and he probably salivated over the prospect of sticking a voodoo pin into George's hide.

     Is the big media (Rather et al) biased?  Is the Pope Catholic? Did Dan just make a “mistake”? 

     Sorry Dan, I just don.t buy this innocent “mistake” idea. You just tripped over your own bias !

100

     Circa 1980, an author named Michael Hart wrote a book entitled “A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History”. His list is comprised of 100 famous people in all of the major disciplines worldwide  –  Religion, Military, Political, Medical, Philosophy, Education, Science,  the Arts, etc., etc. To give you an idea, Einstein ranked 10th, Martin Luther 23rd, Alexander the Great 33rd, Julius Caesar 65th, and Pablo Picasso 98th.  Benjamin Franklin and Leonardo Da Vinci were no better than runners-up. It is interesting, however that the first five were Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Isaac Newton, Bhudda, and Confucius. Such is the power and influence of religious thought and leadership. Four out of the top five.   Hart's choice as # 1 was Muhammad, and this reasoning was based on the founding of a great religion, the authorship of the Koran, and the secular leadership of an empire that would eventually stretch from Indonesia to the Atlantic Ocean. Hart's judgment and evaluations are not based on “greatness”  — only on “influence” on the course of human events over 3000 years.   

     Without passing judgment on Mr. Hart and his thought process, it is safe to say that Muhammad would roll over in his grave if he were to become aware of the actions of his modern day Imams, Mullahs, Ayatollahs, etc., and what they are doing in his name and the name of Allah and Islam. Most certainly he would not sanction the mindless slaughtering of innocents by the suicidal fanatics presuming to act in his name. Make no mistake, modern day terrorism is being carried out in the name of Islam. And until the modern day Muslim religious leaders quit teaching violence, murder and suicide, religious terrorism will not cease. We cannot persuade them of a different course, and neither can we threaten those to whom death is some kind of glorious event. Foreseeably, we don't have to many options. As long as the terrorists keep coming our only real choice is to “catch'em and kill'em”. Our bleeding heart left wing do-gooders rationalize some sort of “dialogue and compromise”, and in so doing they prove that their collective heads are buried very deep in an ostrich sand dune.

     Some Islam clerics and lay persons have spoken out to condemn the killings and terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, but they are but a straw in the wind. It will take the big dogs in the middle east to throw cold water on terrorism, but that doesn't look too likely forseeably.

     George Bush is criticized for his “take no prisoner” attitude toward the terrorists. But no one with a functioning brain has come up with a better idea considering the opposition mind stet and the well spring of more terrorists supposedly acting in the name of Muhammad, Allah and the Koran. Indeed it will be a long battle.  We may as well accept it.

JOBS

     With just 2 months to go, three issues have taken the forefront in the Presidential campaign  –  the Iraqi War, taxes, and jobs. To be sure, there is an assortment of cultural issues, but these are the big three. The War can be an emotional matter to many and taxation is the classic battle over bigger and bigger spending by the governemnt. But “jobs” is a very personal matter to many Americans.

     When our candidates  — Kerry and Bush — talk about jobs, it sounds as though they plan to wave a magic wand and thus create more jobs, or, alternately, wave the wand to prevent the “loss” of jobs. The plain fact is that they can't to either one. They can put policies in place that will enhance job creation by stimulating the economy, but that's about the extent of it. Bush has placed his bet on reducing taxes so as to stimulate spending and investment. Kerry leans toward raising taxes and using the money on government projects of one kind or another. Taking tax money to spend on government projects is not creating jobs. It is more like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Pure and simple, job creation is a function of the private sector  — and that is where tax policy becomes of critical importance. Economists may argue hot and heavy over the effects of tax policy and interest rates, but one thing is for sure  —  successful businesses hire people, unsuccessful businesses do not.

    The Democrats raise a major fuss over “out-sourcing” which is just a different version of subcontracting. If they can legislate against out-sourcing, what about “in-sourcing” where foreign owned businesses increase employment in the US? Does it only work one way?

     Our economy is enormousely complex and is far beyond the control of any individual. Job creation is the by-product of sensible economic policy. Any self-serving declaration of “creating jobs” is a sham. When people are concerned over a potential job loss, it is unconscionable to falsely assure them of a safety in a political refuge.

GREATNESS

     The eloquent speakers at both the Democratic and Republican conventions dearly love to use the word “great” or some derivative. Great father, great leader, great president , great American,  —  great, great great. Frankly, I have a hard time applying that term to either John Kerry or George Bush. It seems to me that “greatness” is something that comes along once in a while, and only time will tell whether the label fits.

     Every time I hear a reference to a great President, I think of Harry Truman. Most historians will say that Harry ranks in the top five of the 43 Presidents of the USA. Harry was not an accomplished or eloquent speaker, and neither did he qualify as an Ivy League intellectual with an IQ high enough to qualify for Mensa. But Harry qualified as a “Great” President because he made some very big decisions, and almost without exception he was right. Harry made decisions that changed the world. Not bad for a mediocre politician who was a last minute pick by FDR to replace the discredited Henry Wallace as VP. In this day and age, the hotshots in the mass media would have a field day lampooning and discrediting the plain talking man from Missouri.

     George Bush is not a great speaker and is not some kind of high brow intellectual. But he is a leader and decision maker. While I stop short of equating George to Harry Truman, I would say that a lot of the media spokesmen couldn't spot a great leader if they tripped over him. It is amazing how so many of them are enamored with John Kerry whose most decisive word is “maybe”. He reminds me of the Chairman who calls a meeting of 10 people to make a decision. If the vote is 10-0, he will manfully rise to the occasion and make the decision; if the vote is 9-1 or 8-2, he will squirm, wiggle, equivocate and then check with Ted Kennedy.   

     I think George is made of sterner stuff.