SamSaid!

WHICH WAY?

     Over the past year, Americans have been incessantly bombarded with the gory details of the Scott Peterson murder case in California. Peterson has now ben convicted of 1st degree murder in the killing of his eight -month pregnant wife and 2nd degree killing of his unborn son, Conner. All kinds of legalities have been introduced through the publicity conscious lawyers, but one complication that outranks the others is the legal status of Conner, the unborn son (fetus?).

    The fact that a murder2 conviction was returned by the jury clearly means that unborn Conner was a person in the eyes of the law. However, if the termination of the life of Conner had been the result of an abortion, murder2 would not have remotely been considered  –  he would have just been a by-product of “pro-choice”. How can our legal system say that if the pregnancy was terminated by an act of the father, it was a crime at the level of 2nd degree murder, but if  Conner's “life” is snuffed out as the result of an abortion approved my the mother, there is no crime.? In walking this legal tight rope, an unborn eight month old boy is a person, but by another standard, he is just a fetus.

     For sure, abortion is the most contentious of all of the “value” issues that are currently political footballs. Argument at either end of the abortion issue spectrum simply makes the divide even wider.  But one of these days, our Supremes will have to re-consider Roe V. Wade, and it may come down to determining the status of an unborn like Conner Peterson. At eight months, was he a person, or wasn't he?

     Scott Peterson may spend the rest of his life in prison  — if he survives a penalty of capital punishment. But the Conner Peterson case may very well outlive all of the other aspects of this lurid event.  

BLUE STATE LIBERALS

     George Bush is in a really unique position. No matter what happens, his second term will end in January 2009 and he has no worries about re-election. Thus he can tackle an ambitious agenda with no worries about political fall-out. And he does have a full plate. In foreign policy he has to deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation, facing down the dark side of Islam, the War on Terror, a useless UN, preemptive military decisions, and introducing democracy into the Middle East, and an ongoing mess in Iraq.  Then at home, there is the funding (Baby Boomer) issue for Social Security and the looming iceberg of Medicare costs, to say nothing of the worrisome deficit.

     But beyond all of that there is the vexing problem of the social agenda of the Blue State Liberals (BSLs). Matters like abortion, same-sex marriage, “rights” of homosexuals, banning capital punsihment, gun control laws, and eliminating religious references in the public domain. In my mind, all of the preceding can be lumped under the umbrella of the “Battle of the Judges”

    The BSLs would dearly love to see their agenda enacted, but the one thing they dread more than anything else is a vote of the people on these issues. During the 2004 elections, same-sex marriage was defeated by big margins in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Message delivered. The only hope of the BSLs lies with friendly decisions from activist Judges. George Bush has made it known that he does not sympathize with activist Judges who twist and distort the Constitution to “make” new law. To the contrary he will appoint Judges who can be called “strict constructionists”; that is, Judges who will stay with the language of the Constitution and not take long legalistic detours to create new law. The BSL people know that with either popular elections or strict constructionist Judges, their agenda is dead in the water.

     In the next 2-3 years if there is a a genuine political crisis in this country it will be precipitated by rear guard Blue State Liberal  Senators determined to prevent the appointment by the President of strict constructionist Judges. The Battle of the Judges will be joined in the very near future, assuming that it hasn't been joined already. If George Bush prevails, the effects of the Judicial appointments will be felt for decades. If the Blue State Liberals can control the Judiciary, our country will be changed forever. Big stakes here.

ARBITRATION

     The NBA brawl in Detroit this past weekend has made headlines all over the country and the TV sports scribes having a field day. The NBA Commissioner has imposed very heavy penalties on the players, and lawsuits are in the offing from fans who claim injuries of one kind or another. Always go for the deep pockets. The brawl itself was just a case of dimwits fighting dimwits, and some dimwits won and others lost. Personally, I quit watching pro basketball 15 years ago and I have no interest in tuning in another “contest”. To many sports fans, it is just a case where an official blows the whistle and 10 overpaid dummies jump up in the air.

     In the current fiasco, one player was banned for the rest of the year and other players were banned for 20-35 games. The Commissioner did the right thing. For that kind of behavior to be eliminated, the penalty has to hurt  — real bad. But that is not the end of this story. The ever present Players Union has appealed the Commissioner's decision on the basis that it is too severe. The solution to remedy the issue?? Submit the issue to impartial arbitration. Let an “impartial”  person decide on the merits of the dispute and the penalties. Sounds good, doesn't it? Or does it?

     An arbitrator who comes down squarely on one side of a dispute or the other soon becomes an unemployed arbitrator. Thet's why in cases like this he will impose his judgment, pick up his fat check, and walk away, oblivious of the damage he leaves in his wake. He could care less about the long term effects of his decision on league play or player behavior. He has to think about his next case and his acceptability to “the parties”. The penalty issue will go to arbitration sometime in 2005, and the Commissioner imposed penalties will be reduced. You can count on it. It doesn't make any difference how guilty the offending players were, the Union will attempt to justify their actions, find excuses, and seek lesser penalties. And a compliant press will say “sure  — the commissioner went overboard”.

    Were some of the fans out of line?? Yes, they were, and the justice system should indict them. But there is no wishy washy arbitrator involved here. Just a court of law.

      But the Detroit battle in the stands confirms one thing. The National Basketball Association is a waste of time. And the Detroit and Indianapolis hoodlums just confirmed it. But maybe my evaluation is too harsh. I suggest that we all wait and see how an arbitrator goes to great lengths to conclude that boys will be boys and sharply cuts the penalties. What the hell, no one got killed. Right?? Just a matter of sports and competition.

GAMBLE

     From the very outset it has been a big gamble to install a democratic form of governemnt in Iraq. The country has absolutely no history of democracy or political freedom as we know it in the USA. To the contrary, the governemental authority for centuries has been very autocratic and cruel. There are three batches of people in Iraq  — the Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. They have one thing in common. They do not like each other. Their history is one of whose ancestors were killing the ancestors of others. The Sunnis and Shiites are at odds with each other and neither group likes the Kurds. Those long standing fueds do  not enhance the chances of a stable democratic government. On top of all of that, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunnis  — a minority group  –    raped, killed, imprisoned, gassed and other wise came down very hard on the Shiites and Kurds. The Shiites constitute  60  % of the population and may very well be looking forward to “payback” time. That is why the Saddam Sunnis are doing everything they can to disrupt or block the scheduled elections in January 2005. In US terms, the Sunni insurgents may be staging Custer's Last Stand. They will go down fighting.

     A great fear has been that these long standing fuedal differences could result in an Iraqi Civil War. That would be the worst of all worlds for the US since we are desperately trying not to take sides in an overt way. We might hope that the Afghan example will show itself and that Iraqi people will strongly support free elctions and a democratic form of government. It will be a big step  — and that is why the January elections in Iraq are of critical importance. The insurgents no doubt will try to force a postponement of the elections. If the Iraqis really want to achieve freedom and govern themselves, they will have to muscle up against the Sunni insurgents. It may be a case of now or never.

OIL AND CORRUPTION

     It is always interesting to see how the TV networks and the major newspapers and magazines select the stories to “ride” day after day. The Abu Graib prisoner abuse story is a good example and the current flap over the Marine shooting of an insurgent is another. Day after day we get bombarded. But what about stories that can have a major impact? Isn't it odd that they become the 5th or 6th item in a long list of news snippets and not much more. The Oil for Food program of the UN is a current example. Aside from Fox News, no one else seems particularly interested in digging out the facts underlying a story with major implications.

     The Oil for Food program was sponsored by the UN to help needy Iraqis after the Gulf War. The sale of Iraqi oil would be the source of revenue to pay for the program. But the program was bastardized by big time connivers working hand in glove with Saddam to get around the sanctions imposed by the UN after the Gulf War. Now we know that millions and millions of dollars were fed back into Saddam's coffers as well as the pockets of French Ministers, UN officials, and Russian plutocrats, and assorted privateers who were buddies of Saddam.  An investigatory Commission headed by American Paul Volcker was apppointed to find out where all the money went, but at this point Kofi Annan is stonewalling efforts to get the documentary evidence needed to trace the money trails. Annan's son is directly implicated in the whole scheme. The total sale of Iraqi oil under this program is over $11 Billion, and only a fraction of the money ever found its way back to the needy Iraqi people.

     So why does Kofi Annan refuse to produce the audits and related documents from the UN files in NY City? Obviously, he is protecting a lot of people who are very much at risk. A factual declaration could be exteremely embarrassing to UN leadership, the French Government and the Russian leaders as well.   Yet our big time newshounds sort of pass off the charges as ho-hum. This is the kind of stuff that can bring down a government or the UN leadership, but ABC, NBC and CBS downplay the whole messy affair as just another case of pilfering  — not much more. They evidently prefer to editorialize on trivia.  US taxpayers put up the money to support the UN  — a highly disproportionate amount of the cost to keep that outfit going. Yet we are not entitled to very pertient information about a program conducted right under our noses in New York City? And at the moment, we are letting Kofi Annan get away with it while he is bad mouthing our efforts in the middle east. My beef is not solely with Annan. It is primarily with the major news outfits who look the other way instead of making a big deal out of a program that is little more than a perfidious sham.

     Fox should not have to go it alone. Brokaw, Rather and Jennings should go after the UN and Kofi Annan in a big way and force him to cough up the documentary evidence that will disclose the massive corruption he is attempting to conceal. We are not talking about nickels and dimes here or a program that is at the periphery of Iraq. It is big bucks and directly relates to the perfidy of our European “buddies”. As Americans who are footing the bill, we have every right to know the details of the unprincipled thievery of the UN and high level French officials who have pocketed huge sums. Is anyone in the media interested or concerned??  Just watch the network news  — back burner. 

CONDI

     As the newly appointed Secretary of State, Condileeza Rice now ranks as one of the most important women in the country. Her appointment will be confirmed because the Democrats just don't want to fool with this lady  — for good reason. Now the press is jumping on her as being captive to the thinking of Pres Geo Bush. Somthing wrong with that? Do they suggest that George should appoint someone with whom he is at odds? Are we better off when the Prez and the Secy of State do not see eye to eye on foreign policy?? What kind of Neanderthal thinking is that?

      But now is the time to speculate. Just imagine that Ms. Rice performs very well in the next 4 years. Could that set the stage for a Condileeza Rice vs Hillary Clinton race for the White House in 2008? Stranger things have happened. Wouldn't that pose a dilemna for the femininsts infatuated with the idea of the 1st woman President? Who would they pick? I think the answer is obvious  — that they would back Hillary and her left wing solutions to big issues. But I wouldn't sell Ms. Rice short. I think I would look forward to a good cat fight! 

MARINES

     A few months back, we were treated to the efforts of the mass media to transform the Abu Graib prisoner abuses into a full fledged military scandal reaching up thru the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense. Night after night were were exposed to the graphic pictures. After investigation, it turns out that a handful of GIs were at fault at the lower levels of the military heirarchy and there was no policy directive supporting or encouraging that kind of behavior. They were appropriately punished.

     Now, we have another episode to invigorate the anti war wusses. This time it is a Marine who shot and killed a wounded insurgent in the battle of Fallujah.  No question  — he killed him. So now, the bleeding hearts want this young marine to stand trial for a “war crime”. And the graphic photos become the lead story on the evening TV news. Just imagine  — as a 20 year old, you were wounded the prior day in the tough house to house combat by insurgents who would sooner die than surrender. Marines were being killed by booby trapped bodies of fallen insurgents. The terrorists waved the white flag of surrender to trap Marines and shoot them. Behind every door there is a motivated assassin just waiting to kill an American. Car bombs go off every day  — frequently. And so what is your mind set?

     I don't know about you, but my foremost rule this this dirty war with suicidal fanatics is to shoot first and ask questions later. When an insurgent makes a questionable move, you just don't refer the matter to Committee. You act. This Marine acted and shot the guy when he made a move. I can relate to that. We didn't go into Fallujah to persuade mis-guided youth to amend their ways. We went there to kill them  — the only sure way to handle suicidal maniacs. That was the mission of the Marines, and that is what this Marine did. So why should he have to stand before these bleeding heart do-gooders who righteously cite the Geneva Convention when we are at war with terrorist fanatics who don't know the difference between Genva and Geronimo.

     War is a messy business, and very often the front line guys do not have minutes or hours to make a decision. It may be just a matter of seconds to determine the life or death of your comrades. He did what he had been trained to do. The sum total of his actions is one less terrorist.

     How easy it is for some slimy lawyer or network word merchant to sit in New York and pass judgment on a young man acting under the greatest of life and death pressures. Is he entitled to the benefit of the doubt? He is in my book. Like I said, in combat the basic rule is “when in doubt, shoot”.    You got a better idea??

PETERSON

     At last  –  maybe at last  –  we will be spared the daily recitation of the tragic and horrifying events of a year ago when Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and dumped her body into San Francisco Bay. But the Murder I and Murder II jury verdicts will no doubt spawn a series of appeals and charges of trial irregularities that will continue for years. Personally, I have no ongoing interest in all of the gory details of the killings or the legal entanglements that assuredly will make scurrilous lawyers more wealthy. But the one aspect of this entire saga that intirigues me is the status of unborn son, Connor Peterson.

     The verdict of Murder II for the killing of unborn son Conner clearly establishes that the unborn infant was a “person” in every sense of the word. If the fetus was not considered a person, then there would have been no case for Murder II. But with the verdict of Murder II now rendered, it is firmly established that Conner, unborn, was a person in the eyes of the law. We might compare this with a case of a woman, eight months pregnant, who decides to abort her pregnancy.  Under Roe v. Wade, she may abort, with no penalty.

     Under our complex set of laws, it seems to me that we can't have it both ways. If a fetus aborted at the decision of the mother , regardless of the pregnancy duration, is not a person (legally), then how can that fetus be considered a “person” if the pregnancy is terminated for other causes? I keep reading these articles (the pro-choice folks) claiming that a fetus is not a living human being. That's what these people keep telling us. But if that is so, how does the killing of a fetus (see Scott Peterson)  suddenly qualify as Murder II?

     Make no mistake, I have no sympathy for Scott Peterson, and from what I know of the  case he is guilty as sin. But totally aside from his guilt or innocence, I think the legal system has to come to grips with the status of an “unborn”. Maybe there is a simple explanation of this paradox; but if so, I sure haven't seen it.

     Is a fetus a person or not? Is that so difficult to determine?? Evidently, it is.

GAVIN

     Out here on the Left Coast, there is a persistent story making the rounds to the effect that the biggest culprit in the loss of the Presidential election by the Democrats is SanFrancisco's featherweight Mayor, Gavin Newsome. It was Newsome who chose to defy California Law and authorize same-sex marriages in San Francisco  — the Capitol of the area that has become known as the land of fruits and nuts. Up until he made his fateful decision ( it was later reversed by the Courts) same sex marriage was a peripheral issue on the back burner of the political range. Mr. Newsome's adventure transformed it into a major national issue that clearly energized the traditional value folks all over the country. Eleven states had ballot issues to ban same sex marriages and all eleven passed  — by big margins.

     As the story goes, the suddenly activated conservatives (called religious fanatics or right wing extremists by the elitist left)  voted in droves to support the ballot measures and also, George Bush. Hence, the heavy voter turnout that added to the Bush vote talley can be placed at the doorstep of Mr Newsome  — back in San Francisco. The Democrats claim that the huge turnout of conservatives in Ohio made the difference. There just may be something to this version of post election analysis.

     There is no doubt that many people voted their convictions, and the Republicans won the culture war. If the country is deeply divided , it won't be bridged easily as long as the “losers” keep condescendingly referring to “stupid red-neck morons” in the Red states. And you wonder why there is such a divide??

     Maybe Gavin wasn't the main culptrit. Any party that has Michael Moore as its image isn't going to appeal to most adult Americans.

NANCY

     Nancy Pelosi is the Minority Leader in the US House of Representatives. She is a nice person, a good mother, and her children love her dearly. She is also a San Francisco Democrat, standing firmly at the far left fringe of the political spectrum. This past Friday, she appeared on NBC's Today show and talked about the 2004 Presidential election.

    Ms.Pelosi referred to a deep political divide in the country and averred that Prez Bush had an obligation to reach across the aisle to Democrats to bridge that divide. I think that Nancy got it all bass-ackwards. If the Ds want to have a voice in how the nation is governed in the next 4 years, THEY are the ones who have the obligation to reach across the aisle. Does she really believe that in order to pacify Democrats George Bush should repudiate the constituency that elected him and alter or compromise his position on matters such as taxes, terrorism, Iraq, appointment of judges, same-sex marriages, abortion, gun control, social security, medicare, education, etc., etc., etc.? Nancy would do well to think about the old adage that “Winning Generals do not seek truces”.

     For the past three+ years, the Democrats have been the obstructionists in Congress, and it was that persistent obstructionism that cost Tom Daschle his South Dakota Senate seat. To astute political observers, that singular event should not go unnoticed.

     George Bush's political clout is as strong now as it ever will be. He should set his priorities and move on them  …. now. If Nancy Pelosi persists in getting in the way she just might get run over. Her choice.