SamSaid!

PUMP PRICES

     It is only April, but the issues for the upcoming Presidential election are lining up for serious debate. During the next 6+ months, we will be getting a bellyfull of commentary about the Iraqi war, the War on Terrorism, 9/11, exit from Iraq, Roe v. Wade, Gay marriage, Welfare reform, Judicial appoinmemnts, tax hikes, tax cuts, and use of steroids by ball players. Who knows what else, but whatever the issue, it won't be hard to distinguish between George Bush and John Kerry.

     Nothwithstanding all of the above, a pivotal issue could very well be the price of gasoline at the pump. As the prices climb over $2.00/gallon, the Kerryites no doubt will try to pin the “big, bad, oil” label on Geo B and Dick Cheney. But maybe this kind of debate will be of benefit to Americans long range. Oil of course, is a finite resource, and demand is getting higher an higher as the Chines and Indians add to the demand curve now supported by Western Europe, the USA and Japan. Stronger demand and a limited supply means higher prices. And how well the Saudis know that. Also, the US dollar has fallen in value so the Saudis will want more dollars to buy their product. Hence the Saudi decision to cut back production (sort of like an old capitalist trick) to drive up prices.

     All of this reminded me of an excellent lecture offered a number of years back by an eminently qualified academician whose name escapes me. He said the the US would never get serious about a national energy policy until pump prices exceeded $3.00 per gallon. In today's terms, that would be $3.50 per gallon. Only then, he said would we get serious about gas effecient cars, energy conservation measures, mass transit, enhancing petroleum supplies, and developing new energy sources. It was his view that until it REALLY hurts, nothing major will be done  –  just 4 eyed balding egghead professors riding to work on a bicycle urging that we not drill in the Arctic, not drill offshore, not drill in the mountains, and not look for new oil sources. I think he is right. Until the gas prices hit a critical point, the political gamesmanship will continue in Washington. Even now, an ATTEMPT at an energy policy is bottled up in the Senate my Mr Kerry and his buddies on the left side of the aisle.

     I wonder if the mainstream media will point this out?  In 2004?  Come on!

TONTO

     A new term has been added to the lexicon of Presidential Politics  –  a “Kerryism”, or as a variable, “To pull a Kerry”. By definition, a Kerryism is the act of giving directly opposite answers to a simple direct question. A few examples should suffice.

Question:  Senator Kerry, do you support NAFTRA (you voted for it)?

     Kerry:  Yes and No

Question:  Are you opposed to same sex marriage?

     Kerry:  That's a tough one  –  I guess I'd say Yes and No

Question:  Do you support the Patriot Act (you voted for it)

      Kerry:  Well, Yes and No

Question:  Do you support the War in Iraq (you voted for it)?

     Kerry:  Yes and No

Question:  What about Vietnam? You fought in the military and also protested with Hanoi Jane. How do you feel about Vietnam? Do you believe our cause was just?

     Kerry:  Yes and No.

Question:  Do you support capital punishment for captured terrorists?

      Kerry:  Well, Yes and No

Question:  Should we increase taxes?

     Kerry:  Yes and No

Question:  Do you support the :No Child Left Behind education bill?

     Kerry:  For sure, Yes and No

     It is so nice to see Senator Kerry come down squarely on both sides of major issues.

     It is generally conceded that Mark Twain and Will Rogers are America's most renowned homespun philosophers. But not far behind is Tonto, the faithful, loyal – and insightful – sidekick of the Lone Ranger. It was Tonto who coined the memorable phrase, “White man speaks with fork-ed tongue”.

     He had John Kerry's number 60 years ago.

G-2

     I can remember the first time I encountered the word “oxymoron”. The teacher explained that it meant mutually exclusive or contradictory terms. The example she cited was “military intelligence”. Frankly I was a bit miffed by that example because I had spent 18 months in an Air Force G-2 section and I thought we did quality work. Not the super secret cloak and dagger kind of stuff  — just accumulating information to be fed into a data bank, and receiving information disbursed from the same source.We did not regard ouselves as dolts or dimwits. But the GI experiencee whetted my appetite for the spy thrillers from Ian Fleming, John LeCarre, Robert Ludlum,Ken Follett, and Tom Clancy. Powerful reading.

     Spying on the enemy is as old as history, and it probably reached its peak in the Cold War years following WWII. It was the US vs the USSR with their agents and double agents. But many critics decried ”on the ground” human intelligence (humint as it is called)  as unreliable, incomplete, unsatisfactory, and a waste of money. And of course they were able to cite specific high visibility examples since intelligence failures are highly publicized while the successes are downplayed or consigned to dusty files. Then along came the attractive alternatives of electronic surveillance via intercepted messages and “spy in the sky” satellites. What could be better? The CIA was downgraded into relative obscurity.

     In the 2003 Iraqi War,  intelligence based on electronic surveillance and satellites is now being harshly criticized for being incomplete, unsatifactory, unreliable, and a waste of money. Now we complain about the absence of on-the-ground Humint   — and of course, we blame the CIA. There is little doubt that intelligence information was pooled almost world wide before the invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam. All of it concurred that he had to go for very explicit reasons –  and it is true that George Bush acted on the best informatiion that was available to the #1 guy in the world. Hindsight is always 20:20   –  just ask the beltway balloon (or is it buffoon), Teddy Kennedy, who accuses the President of lying to the American people about the decision to go to war in Iraq and depose Saddam. This from a guy who can't drive across a bridge without killing someone.

     Tough lessons are learned in the world of G-2. Electronic survaillence gives us a leg up  but humint is indispensable. The faint hearted have to understand that harsh fact of life in the “underground” world of international relations. Was the decision to take down Saddam a good one? You bet it was. George Bush – or any President – faces a harsh reality. You either wait until we are attacked and then respond, or we head them off at the pass ahead of time. George chose the latter  — and I think he was right. The very thought (Kerry?) that US forces would not be committed anywhere except thru the United Nations is unthinkable. I could never support a leader who would place the security of this country in the hands of the UN. Do we want UN support?  Of course! Are we handcuffed without it?  Never.  

     Intelligence is 90% of the game  — not 100%. And any leader depends upon the best information available. Finger pointing and baseless accusations by the oversized  beltway balloon benefit no one. To suggest that in Iraq we made the right decision for the wrong reason is debatable. But even so, the result is what counts. That's how history will see it.

     How about a Constructive Kennedy? Is that an oxymoron??

SPORTS

     I have been a sports fan all of my life from as far back as I can remember. Marbles, pin the tail on the donkey, quoits, horseshoes, track, softball, baseball, basketball, flag football, darts, volleyball, tennis, ping pong, cycling, soccer, skating, golf  –  you name it. And aside from the thrills of competing, I have witnessed some truly memorable events in the different sports. Along the way, I have attended the World Series, major college bowl games, the NCAA BB finals, big time track meets, tennis tourneys, etc etc. When I couldn't attend, I have been a faithful fan sitting in front of the TV. That very much applies to the  Super Bowls, especially when my home team won 4 times.

     Thus past January I watched the Cats vs the Pats  –  heckuva game (officially, Carolina vs New England). Worth every bit of the pre-game balleyhoo. However, I am proud to say that I did not watch 1 single minute of the half time show  –  and that has been my practice over the past 4-5 years. So to all of you big cats spending millions on half time commercials, I say, “you are wasting your time and money”. I have better things to do than watch nudity and simulated sex while being blasted out of the front room by what is loosely described as music. MTV is not exactly an unknown commodity, and I view with contempt the likes of Viacom's Mr. Karmazin who asks, “what is the definition of decency” , or the NFL's Mr Taglialube saying that “we all were surprised at Janet's bare boob”. Baloney. I tune in to watch a football game, not scurrilous and offensive behavior. Next year, I may just tape the game and Fast Forward thru the scuzzy commencials and the halftime show. I will not sit there at the mercy of scumbags who try to stretch the envelope in so-called entertainment.

     President Andrew Jackson has always been one of my heroes as was Stonewall Jackson, and in more recent times, I liked Senator Scoop Jackson. I even sympathized with the plight of Shoeless Joe Jackson. But of late the good name of Jackson has been badly damaged by Jesse who can't keep his pants zippered, Michael who like to sleep with little boys who aren't his, and Janet who wins the booby prize. What a sad trio.

     The other day I drove by a cemetery and noticed all of those tombstones dotting the lillside. I wondered if maybe a couple of them might have been for the Dodo bird and the Passenger pigeon  –  now long gone. If so, they are probably located alongside two more plots reserved for Decency and Modesty, courtesy of CBS, Viacom and the NFL.

      Oh sure, these kinds of people  will back off and be good boys  —   until the next time. You can bet on it!

READING

     When it comes to indoor sports, reading ranks right up near the top. Maybe not #1, but right up there with the leaders. You can read whenever you want, whatever you want and as long as you want. And you can allow your imagination to wander all over the landscape. But I wonder if nowadays we are being inundated with too much to read. Magazines, catalogs, brochures, fiction, non-fiction, newspapers, notices, and the ever present  junk mail. There is no stopping the avalanche. Face it, there is only so much time for anyone to read, particularly those of us who tend to snooze when the reading gets a little heavy. So what is the solution?  I pick and choose the authors.

     There are many good writers, but many of them are wordsmiths who are not tightly connected to the thought process. And so often they seem to specialize in long paragraphs that substitute for a couple of well drafted sentences. I confess that one of my favorite historical figures is Winston Churchill, but his lengthy prose leaves a lot to be desired. My list of current favorites is not very long. It includes Tom Freidman of the NY Times, George Will of the Washington Post, Rich Lowry of the National Review, Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated, William Buckley of the National Review, and syndicated columnist Michael Kinsley who sometimes writes for Time. When they write, I read. Tom Clancy and John Grisham are pretty good story tellers, but they only make the B team.

     In the midst of the great Techno revolution that envelopes all of us, I am sure that there are some splendid authors. Unfortunately we don't share the same language. So for the time being, when I pick up a magazine or newspaper, I look for my Big Six. And if I miss them, I try the internet. It tougher to take a nap while typing or moving the cursor.

THE GRAND AYATOLLAH

     He goes by the name of Ali Sistani, and he is the Grand Ayatollah of the Iraqi Shiite Muslims. He could well be the most dangerous man in the near term future of the USA.

     There are three distinct groups of people in Iraq  — the Shiite Muslims, the Sunni Muslims, and the Kurds. They don't much like each other ( a great understatement) and all three have decades or centuries of scores to settle. The Shiites, who were massacred, tortured and persecuted by Saddam (a Sunni Muslim), constitute 60% of the Iraqi population and are stomping at the bit for elections  — now. Never mind about a constitution, the rule of law, voter registration, honest vote counting and all of those niceties  — elections now. Their religious honcho, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is at the head of the pack.

     The US and the Coalition countries want a pluralistic government based on a well constructed constitution serving as the foundation of a democratic secular State. Ali Sistani sees a Muslim Theocracy beholden only to the Koran. The great concern is that if the Shiites gain power without controls on government excess, a religion based civil war in Iraq is very possible. While many Iraqis see a democratic future, the Shiites see “payback” time  –  with a lot of scores to settle. If the US stays several more months to allow time for the formation of a government and supervised elections, the pot could boil over. On the other hand, if we leave Iraq too soon and turn the country over to the Shiites, it could easily become another Middle East blood bath in short order. They will not be gentle to their tormentors. We are walking a tightrope.

     I don't disagree with the decision to go into Iraq and topple Saddam. Time was not on our side. It was the right call. And the second guessers from Kerry on down are doing us no favors with their “split and go” comments. War is a messy business that always has to deal with Murphy's Law. i.e., “if anything can go wrong, it will”. And we will always have to deal with those possibilities. Since John Kerry is all wrapped up with the UN and and an International force to intervene in Iraq, I wish George Bush would appoint him as the Major Domo for Internationalization, and say “Go gettem, John –  show us how”. Better yet, maybe he can have a chat with Ayatollah Ali Sistani and tell him to cool it.  

     When a guy voted for the War Resolutuion and now says “I didn't mean it”, I can't give him a lot of respect. But Kerry is not my main worry. Ayatollah Ali Sistani is.

ONLY WORDS

     Not long ago, my wife and I rented a movie and settled down for a quiet evening at home. It was an eminently forgettable movie whose name I can't recall. After 10-15 minutes of crude, vulgar, obsecene language, I hit the reject button and returned to network TV, bland as it may be. I just do not feel comfortable being subjected to gutter language watching TV in my own family room.

     Over the years I have always been impressed by the many men who can successfully manage and use 2 distinct vocabularies  –  one for mixed company and the other for all- male company. It is almost as though they can flip a switch when talking to a bunch of guys or chatting with ladies being present. Maybe it is a vestige of the days of chivalry (if there ever was one) or just the product of good parental training, but the presence of the fair sex has had a great cleansing effect on speech. I can comment from a bit of personal experience here. In addition to being raised in a rough and tumble coal/steel environment, I spent three years in the military and three more years in a college fraternity. Add to that athletic locker rooms and various sports teams. The story was always the same  –  storm trooper language at one place, and carefully used words at the other. At one time or another I think I have heard every conceivable crude, vulgar, obscene term known to man  — in all the various forms, including verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, participles, infinitives, gerunds, etc. etc. And for the most part, with few exceptions, nary a slip of the tongue at the wrong time.

     Now things have changed. The Hollywood elite and the entertainment industry are bound and determined to de-sensititize the public when it come to filthy language. Not only that, it seems that the route to stardom for young actresses nowadays is the ability to use vulgar and obscene language to “emphasize reality”. And TV and the movies have had an unmistakable effect on young people who think it is cool to use gutter language. Personally, I am repulsed by foul mouthed women.

     At a time when using crude language is more and more commonplace with women, the need for a dual vocabulary among men becomes  less and less. Too bad. Loss of a real skill. The last barrier, of course,  is the use of the F— word in prime time TV.  Now it is just bleeped out. Soon it will fall the way of “doggone” or maybe even “hell”. And the entertainment moguls will say, “What the F—, it's only a word” 

     We are only 3 bleep spaces away.

FOR PETE'S SAKE

     There is no shortage of material for headlines these days, from Saddam to the Iowa Caucuses to terror alerts to Jackson's child molestation charges to Kobe Bryant etc., etc., etc. But by far the biggest headline of all is the astounding news that Pete Rose gambled on basball games. Really.

     Most of us had come to that conclusion 15 years ago when he was banned from baseball for life because of gambling. Rose accepted the ban but refused to admit that he had gambled on ball games. Now the issue has re-appeared since time is running out on Rose's eligibility for inclusion in Professional Baseball's Hall of Fame. Let it be said up front that when considering Rose's baseball accomplishments alone, he would be a shoo-in for Hall of Fame status, and there are many current members of the Hall whose accomplishments pale in comparison to his. Statistically, he is the all time leader in career base hits. He stands at the top of the hill in a game that has been played professionally for over 100 years..

      It all started in 1919 when Shoeless Joe Jackson and a couple of other players were banned for life from baseball for involvement in gambling on the World Series  –  i.e., throwing games to win bets. At that time, Jackson was probably the best player in baseball. He was banned from the game for life. As a result of the “Black Sox” scandal, gambling became the #1 “no – no” in baseball and a rule to that effect is prominently posted in the locker rooms and offices of all professional baseball teams. Rose knew that. Now in his later years, he desperately wants to join the elite group of players in the Hall of Fame. With gambling becoming more and more prevalent in our country, there are those modern day people who say “what's the big deal?” In the baseball world, it IS a big deal. Now, Rose has written a book in which he finally admits gambling on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds.    

      In a way, Rose symbolizes a general attitude  too frequently voiced  –  “Rules are good, rules are necessary, and rules should be enforced  –  but not for me.  I am an exception for reasons a,b,c, etc.” He claims that being banned for 15+ years is enough and that a lifetime sentence is unwarranted and too severe. He says is is sorry  — almost. Not really repentent. Sorry Pete, I saw you play on any number of occasions, and you were worth the price of a ticket. You have your records to keep you warm  — maybe in a small booth on the parking lot of the Hall of Fame, but not inside the front door. You made your bed, sleep in it. No sympathy here.

     Best bet? There are enough weasels who will downplay the gambling and upgrade his baseball statistics  — enough to vote him into the Hall  –  which will become a cheapened Hall.

THE CEO

     Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has recently written a book entitled “The Price of Loyalty”, in which he is harshly critical of President Bush. By way of background, when O'Neill joined the Bush Administration it was his second tour of government duty in Washington so he knew full well how government works inside the beltway. O'Neill is a talented knowledgeable man, and was the CEO of Alcoa immediately before joining the Bush Administration as Secretary of the Teasury. On several matters, O'Neill's views differed from those of the President, and as a result he was asked to step down. At those lofty levels, “fired” is a bad word.

    There is nothing wrong with bright people having different opinions, and O'Neill was certainly welcome to his. But somewhere along the line, teamwork becomes a significant factor. It helps to understand a little bit about CEOs and this notion of teamwork. First of all, CEOs of major organizations (especially successful ones) do not like to be told they are wrong. As a matter of fact it rarely crosses their minds that they could be wrong about much of anything. When there is a difference of opinion between a CEO and someone else, someone else is wrong. In the Corporate world, differing with the CEO can be very hazardous. And the concept of teamwork to many CEOs ( i.e., O'Neill) is the role of subordinates saying “You are right, boss, –  whatever you say”. O'Neill is a classic case of a super ego incapable of being a team player in the Big Leagues. Personally, I think his book is a trashy effort to camouflage his own deficiencies. Even if his views were right, his behavior was wrong.

     The people elected George Bush who then enlisted a cadre of people to help him in designated capacities. O'Neill was one of them holding a Cabinet office. When he publicly differed with the President –  repeatedly– it was time to go. Getting 15-20 strong minded people to follow the main theme is not an easy task.  If it were just one gaffe, OK; but 2-3 or more, ongoing, sorry. With time at such a premium, the President has more things to do than correct or rationalize errant behavior or commentary from members of his “team”. Paul O'Neill was not a team player. He deserved his fate.

     There is still a bit of advice we laymen can offer to the big cat CEOs  –  “If you are not going to be a team player, don't take the job”. My neighbor offered me a copy of the book to read. It's about 12th in line.

QUOTES

     Back in my collegiate days, I was required to prepare a term paper on free speech, and one of the research authors was John Stuart Mill, a famous English philosoper and scholar in the 1800s. He said, “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is false opinion, but even if we were sure, stifling it would still be evil”. Powerful message. Just the kind of well turned phrase one might expect from an edudite philosopher. That quote came to mind a few days ago when I noticed another famous quote attributed to the same Mr. Mill. The article that included the second quote was about our military forces in Iraq. He said, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself”. How true! 

     When I see the nine Democratic Presidential midgets, I think of those who would swear by the first quote and ignore the second  –  and that includes Mr. Kerry and Mr. Clark  In their ongoing effort to tear down the President and the Military, they show their colors and make John Stuart Mill look taller than ever. But of course, times like these provide plenty of opportunity for good quotes. One of the harshest and nastiest members of the denizens of the left is Hollywood's own Michael Moore about whom it has been said, “Moore has been dragged out of the gutter, which makes the gutter a cleaner and better place. Take a good look at him and make up your own mind”.  The Moore quote isn't mine, but I wish it were.