ROTC

     I attended college on the GI Bill of Rights. Without it, I would never have gotten there. At different campus affairs, the ROTC cadets marched and made their appearances and were respected if not applauded. They were certainly not looked upon with disdain nor contempt. Several of my classmates were ROTC cadets, and while we may have kidded them on occasion, we never disparaged them nor discredited the uniform. Now we have some of our “big name” academic institututions that are banning ROTC from their campuses.  What a helluva note.

     Universities are special places, and there is a lot to be said for academic freedom. But it seems to me that these colleges and universities exist for the opportunity of students to learn. And they even recruit the brighter students. Somehow, the cart is in front of the horse. Now we have students who are saying, “Now we are here, and we'll tell you how to run this outfit”. And our mealy mouthed spineless academics respond  — “Sure, OK, whatever you want”. If ever you want to see an example of the inmates running the asylum, just go to UCal Berkeley, or Columbia. Those two for starters. Is it too much to expect that the Trustees and Directors of Universities simply say to students. “ROTC is here and will stay here, and if you don't like it that's just too damned bad”. These under classmen Cadets are young men and women ready to put their lives on the line to defend these hapless windbags, and all they get is the back of the hand from scumbags who wouldn't cross the street to defend this country from anyone. If they want to to protest, let them. If they want to debate, let them. But the answer is not to ban ROTC from the campus. And I don't give a ratzass about hassles over homo's (gays, queers) in the military.

     The military exists to protect this nation and its citizens  — not to placate academic windbags and their student cohorts. Somewhere, somehow,  someone has to set the rules. ROTC is but a small part of a major undertaking. And when we see ROTC banned from college campuses, shouldn't we ask, “Is anyone in charge here?” Does anyone have the guts to stand up and be counted?

     As an Alumnus, I contribute to my University. When they ban ROTC, they will have gotten my last dollar.

COMPROMISE

     They called it a compromise, but as I see it the Democrats won. When an adversary is in a defensive position, the best sucecess short of capitulation by the other side is to buy time. And buying time is exactly what the Dems did. At the small price of coughing up 3 judicial nominees, they kept the filibuster  — which amounts to a veto right over proposals and nominations from the President. The three Circuit Court Judges don't amount to a hill of beans, but the coming battle over the next Supreme Court Justice is the real ball game. All you had to see was the smirk on the face to NY Senator Schumer to know how the game turned out.

     Majority Leader Bill Frist was clearly sandbagged by a half dozen spineless Republican colleagues. Assuredly, he was abandoned at the last hour and simply didn't have the votes. That is a sad commentary on a “majority” party (55 Rs) that simply doesn't know how to use its political muscle. When the battle lines are drawn next time, it will be the Republicans who are on defense  — and the attack dog Democrats won't budge an inch.  Justice Rhenquist will step down soon due to ill health, and the razor thin 5-4 balance on the Supreme Court will then hang in the balance. After the 5/24 surrender, where is the backbone to face down the Dems and confirm a conservative nominee?

     The Democrats are celebrating tonite, and well they might. The Republicans picked their issue at their time on their home court, and lost. Disgusting.

THE BATTLE

     Earlier today, the Senatorial debates over Federal udicial nominees began. Majority Leader Bill Frist put the ball in motion and the speeches began. In many ways, the exchanges between Rs and Ds were like many other debates over controversial issues. The two nominees, Judges Brown and Owens, were both praised and dissected. Prior to the beginning of the Senate session, the Senate Democrats had a publicity meeting on the steps of the Senate Office Building and invited some of their House associates to attend, including Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House.It was Ms Pelosi who labelled the 2 nominees as being outside the “mainstream” of American life. Considering her far left posture, I think Ms Pelosi knows about as much about “mainstream USA” as a pig knows about Sunday.

     The pattern was set early on. The Repuiblicans presented George Bush's nominees is the most favorable light, stressing educational accomplishments, judicial credentials, exemplary records, civic involvement, etc etc etc. No surprise. On the other hand, the Democrats nit-picked into their judicial decisions to find fault on all sorts of issues. Again, no surprise. To the impartial observer, it was hard to tell if they were talking about the same persons. As an aside, I really dislike watching 2 well educated and accomplished people being bad mouthed as they were. If it were me, I'm not sure I would want to go thru all of that pain and anguish, and I am sure the many potential nominees would withdraw before subjecting themselves to such treatment.

     In all fairness, Sen. Murray of Washington and Sen Durkin of Illinois made very good cases why neither nominee should be confirmed. And of course, they basked in the idea of open debate on the merits, or lack thereof,  of Judges Brown and Owens and they seemed to relish the chance to bad mouth both of them. But considering the real issue involved, the detailed trashing of the 2 Judges by the Democrats misses the point. The issue at this stage really isn't whether the nominees should be confirmed; rather, it is whether the 100 members of the Senate should be allowed to vote on the nominees. Murray and Durkin made good cases why Senators should cast a ”no” vote, just as Sen Hatch and others made fine cases for voting “yes”. And so what is the result of all of this debating?  Like virtually all forms of debate, it comes down to a decision or a vote. But the Democrats are saying. “Oh, no! We don't like these judicial nominees. Therefore, we will NOT ALLOW A VOTE  — by the entire US Senate”. That's right, no vote! So what is the purpose of debate when there will be no vote on the issues or persons?? Just keep on debating forever??

      There will be more and more jousting and manuevering over the next several days, but the bottom line decision is whether the full Senate will be able to vote — up or down  — on the nominees. If the Democrats adamantly refuse to end debate and allow a vote under current Senate rules, then the the Senate rules will have to be changed. Not much middle ground here.

     Hang in there, Bill! 

WORTHLESS

     It is not without good reason that Barbara Boxer has been dubbed Senator Worthless of California. Her latest stunt has been to put a “hold” on John Bolton's nomination as US Ambassador to the United Nations. That means that by this sneaky little ploy, Bolton's nomination cannot be debated or voted upon by the US Senate.

    Bolton is a controversial figure  — to be sure, and his nomination was voted out of the Senate Committee without approval. No quarrel. But now, Senator Worthless has taken it upon herself to say to the entire US Senate “I am not going to allow you either to debate or vote on John Bolton's nomination”  This notion of a “hold” is an archaic rule of the Senate that is not in any way related to the US Constitution or law. It is a so-called “privilege” extended to individual Senators.  It is nothing more than a Senate Rule. There may have been a time when such a courtesy (rule) was acceptable , but not in this day and age. Senators are voted into office to conduct the nation's business, and there is no valid reason why the entire Senate should be stymied by one Worthless Senator.

     A few years back, during a Senate hassle over a nomination, it was Senator Worthless who said, “Let the Senate vote”. Not now. Let's just shut down the Senate. Isn't that pathetic??

MEXIFORNIA

     The imigration issue is heating up on the airwaves and in Congress. It is hard for most people to accept that there are 12 million illegal aliens in this country, and some of our great minds (??) don't see anything wrong with that. Not only that, these “visitors” continue to stream across our southern borders by the thousands day after day.

     Generally speaking, I am a supporter of George Bush because he is not hesitant to accept major challenges and make major decisions. But I confess that we part company on the immigration issues. I just don't think that any country can be secure when we have 12 million illegals running around loose. Do I think we should have universal ID cards?? Yes, I do  — and I am not impressed by all of these privacy issues that form  the core of the ACLU opposition.  And photo ID Drivers Licenses?? You bet.  Why not? These minor impositions do not affect law abiding citizens  –  they only pose a problem for the illegals. Should we have severe penalties for employers who hire illegals? For sure  — and make it hurt. I simply do not buy the argument that illegals contribute more to our economy than they take from it. Baloney! 

     A critical point of vulnerability is often called the “Achilles Heel”. And in the USA we certainly have one  — stretching all the way from Brownsville Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Mexifornia? Fiction? Figment of someone's imagination? Not at all. Just look at the numbers. It would be nice to see light at the end of the tunnel, but it is not there. Do we REALLY think that they will stop coming when wages, schools, and medical care are so enticing? What kind of foolish reasoning is that??

VOTING

     The propaganda drums are beating over the filibuster issue in the US Senate, and time is running short for a decision. The Democrats are desperately trying to twist the argument around into a matter of principle — but the wrong principle. This is not a matter of issues, it is simply a matter of voting. In the USA we have a Republic in which we the citizens vote for representatives who cast votes in the House and Senate. These people may go to Washington DC with lots of credentials, degrees, money, experience, friends, supporters and connections; but in the last analysis, all they take with them is one vote. In the Senate, one vote out of 100. We may not always agree with how they cast that vote, but they vote — on the record. And that is as it should be .

     But now, the system has been bastardized. The Democrats are saying to the 100 person Senate, “SORRY, GUYS, WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO VOTE”. Oh, they couch the argument in different terms, but that is the main message — WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO VOTE. Or to paraphrase, as long as we do not like the issue, we will NOT ALLOW YOU TO VOTE At the moment, the burning issue is the Judicial appointments of President Bush, but it could be anything else. Say the Democrats, “if we don’t like it, you can’t vote”. And this is democracy? Out in front we have the Dem’s Senatorial thespian, Joe Biden whose political ambitions years ago were seriously damaged when he was found guilty of plagiarism, which is stealing someone else’s words. I don’t have any quarrel with the opposition of the Democrats, and they can make all the accusations they like. But to say to 100 Senators “YOU CAN”T EVEN VOTE” is a bit much. And as you might expect, not one of them has the guts, character or integrity to stand up in front of the full Senate and say “We will not let you vote”. They prefer to hide behind clever rhetoric.

     As citizens of the country, ask yourself this question : if we send Senators to Washington to cast votes, and they are denied the opportunity to vote, why are they there?? I guess the only answer is that they will have time for crucial matters like steroid use in baseball. Make no mistake, a filibuster is a way to prevent a vote by the Senators we elected to cast a vote. And you wonder why voters all over the country are turned off? .

     .

HARVARD

      Larry Summers is the President of Harvard University. In academic circles, that is a big job. He has recently come under fire from much of the Harvard faculty, and particularly its feminist component. A month or so ago, Summers was speaking at a luncheon and at one point commented about the disparate male/female ratio in the Engineering and Science Schools where the males outnumber the females by about 3:1. He offered several explanations for the ratio, and even inferred that there might be a genetic difference between males and females that would account for the disparate numbers. Following this comment, one distraught feminist faculty member arose and left the meeting lest she become ill over such a suggestion. Then the storm broke. (At this point I might digress. It might serve Harvard well to install a rule requiring those who barf on the campus to clean up the mess themselves. It might do wonders for intellectual tolerance). The incensed Harvard faculty went after Summers’ scalp (failed) and sought a “no confidence” vote (succeeded). He is still in office. The haughty Harvard faculty is made up of ossified fossils (Deans) who are resistant to change. They glory in running their own little fiefdoms and insist that no changes be made without their individual consent. Summers on the other hand, was hired to undertake some major projects/challenges — i.e., to make waves. Classic standoff. My household is far from a male chauvinist sanctuary. With a lovely wife (college grad), three daughters (college grads) and a female dog I am only too aware of the female point of view on most matters. However I have very little use for feminist extremists — like, for instance, that poor soul at Harvard). Even so, I have not adopted Rush Limbaugh’s favorite term, “femi-nazi”, and I have generally abstained from using the term “broads” out of deference to female sensitivities. With all of this flap, since when is it out of bounds to debate issues where the data is not final or compelling? Isn’t that what academia is all about? Does mighty Harvard allow only one point of view to be expressed? Is Harvard in the business of supressing intellectual inquiry? I do not necessarily support any genetic explanation of male/female ratios, but is the issue beyond debate? Think about it this way. Much of academia has looked the other way while a dimwit like Ward Churchill (Colorado Univ) spouts his contemptible venom at campuses across the country. All we hear is “free speech”, and “first amendment”. But at Harvard? Ah, no. Let’s appease or pacify the feminists and muzzle debate. Larry Summers has abjectly apologized for his comments — unnecessarily in my book. Perhaps this is his way of being “broad-minded” (pun intended). The more I think about it, “broad” is a useful word — figuratively and physically. It is back in my vocabulary.