SamSaid!

IRAN

     This nuclear hassle in progress between the West ands Iran is a matter of truly major major concern. It is not so much the ability of the Iranians to build a bomb (politely termed a nuclear device) but also the control of such a weapon by some very unstable people. Iran is not just another two-bit banana republic making a lot of noise. It is a huge country  — a third larger than Texas  –  with a substantial number of well educated people.  While the population of 45+ million is muslim (Shiites), they are not arabs. Also, their language is Farsi not arabic, and their numbering system is different even at the elementary level of 1 – 10. Of great concern should be the open antagonism (i.e., religious based hatred) aimed at both Israel and the USA. For years, the Iranian leaders have funded terrorist organizations whose efforts have been and still are aimed at Israel.

     The Iranian leaders may make accommodations with other Middle East regimes, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are part of a unified Arab bloc.  Under the leadership of Ayatollahs and Mullahs, they champion the cause of Islam, but still march to their own drummer. There are a substantial number of younget Iranians who orient toward the west, but they are caught right under the thumb of the Clerical leaders of the Iranian givernment. Thus, there isn't much of a chance of another upheaval in Iran.

     If it appears that Iran will get the “bomb”, there are military hawks who would say we should bomb the facilities, i.e., “take them out”. Anything to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power. That is a bit more difficult than it might seem. Just think of locating 10-20 underground facilities in Texas. At the moment, Geo Bush has deferred to the European nations (Germany, France and Britain) to pressure the Iranians to forego their nuclear ambitions. Personally, I have little confidence in the persuasive skills of the Euros. But the real question is, “What do we do if Iran gets the bomb?”  –  and that decision sooner or later will fall to the White House. Nobody else will make it  — and the UN is worse than helpless.

    Nuclear North Korea is a threat, but NK is surrounded by countries that can bring a lot of pressure to bear. Not so with Iran. Their religion fueled hatred of the west is something that we can't solve by mere rhetoric. When the Iranians go nuclear, we all have a lot to worry about. Theirs is the type of irrational thought that could lead to someone pressing the big button. We will never be safe until the government of the Ayatollahs falls.

WARM, OR HOT

     The debate over global warming is heating up  — no pun intended. Looking at all of the evidence at hand, it appears that there is indeed a global warming trend. That's not monumental or unprecedented news because the earth has experienced warmer and colder cycles throughout thousands or millions of years. That helps to explain why ice ages come and go. It also seems clear that fairly small temperature changes can have major results, meaning that a 1 degree change globally –  on average  –can be a very big deal.

      Scientists are pretty smart guys when it comes to research and generating numbers. But pinpointing causes may not be their strongest attribute. While many scientists may agree that a warming trend can be verified, they are all over the lot when it comes to explaining why. On one side of the argument are those who want to pin the blame on man for polluting the air and causing the elevated global temperatures (see Kyoto accord). Others contend that there is no evidence that that is the case, and that anything man has done in the last 200 years is marginal at best. The earth is a pretty big place, and there are a lot of natural causes of air pollution that far outweigh the by-products of 19th, 20th, 21st Century activities of man. Similarly, many of the so-called air pollution remedies are very questionable considering the magnitude of the forces at work in our atmosphere and oceans. There has been a lot of air pollution on earth long before man started walking on 2 feet.  

     If strong remedies are needed, it seems to me that the proof of the need should come first. If scientists are smart enough to verify global warming, they should be able to prove what is causing it. Absent that proof, it is hard to justify stringent measures to “fix” it.  Maybe we all should be fans of “clean” air. Basically that notion appeals to me and probably does to most other folks. But even in pursuit of that goal, I hesitate at the drastic measures that may not even be related to the problem,  much less solving it. It stretches the imagination that there are so many well educated scientists who differ sharply over whether man is responsible — all or in part  –  for global warming. Somehow, that sets off an alarm bell. It seems to me that there are too many of these high brow types who declare that man is responsible for global warming and then take the next giant step to say what we should do about it.   Moreover, they seem offended that their conclusion that man is the culprit should even be questioned. That is not a very good way to gain concurrence.

     Let's take it one at a time, guys  —  in this order. . Make the case, prove the point and then let's talk about remedies. Who knows? We may have to levy a stiff fine against the sun for throwing off flares or sun spots.

BIG GOVERNMENT

     California is a big state, whether measured by population, geography, revenues, expenses, automobiles, or fruits and nuts. It goes without saying that its bureaucracy likewise is huge  –  those thousands and thousands of public servants who control and spend our tax dollars. Earlier this week I spotted a newspaper article that boggled my mind.

     The State of California owns 70,000 vehicles  — cars. trucks and other vehicles. Anything that moves on wheels. There is a state agency, the State and Consumer Services Agency, whose job it is to keep track of these vehicles. Everything from purchase, to use, maintenance and inventory. The idea sounds OK, but then as I was reading on, I was astounded to learn that the Agency cannot account for 30,000 vehicles  — 43% of the total. Can you imagine buying 70,000 vehicles and not knowing where 30,000 of them are??

     Assume for a moment that the average purchase price of a vehicle is $30,000  — a fairly modest price nowadays. That means that in recent years, California has spent over $2 BILLION dollars for vehicles and no one in the State Government knows where  half of them are. The newspapers and politicos are generous in using terms like “loose administration” and ”poor records” to explain where almost a billion dollars of tax dollars went. Who is driving 30,000 State vehicles for which there are no records? Can you visualize Microsoft, Chevron or H-P buying 70,000 cars with stockholder money and then losing 30,000 of them?? Think heads would roll?

     This is the year when lots a corporate giants in the private sector are paying a stiff price  – lots of jail time  –  for misuing and misappropriating other people's money. And of course, the left wingers gleefully trot out the old slogans like greedy capitalists, dishonest industrial leaders, fat cats, corporate crooks etc., etc. And in some cases those terms might be appropriate. But tax dollars are different. Nobody owns them  — they are sitting there waiting to be spent, and why bother with records. Thirty thousand cars disappear, but it is nobody's fault, and we should just chalk it up to poor records (or none at all).

     The solution, of course, is to make some rules changes (likely sperficial) and sweep the whole affair under the rug. Above all, just don't get excited over 30,000 missing cars.After all, it's only tax money (about a $Billion), and the big objective is to make sure it won't happen again. Sure.

     Big government  –  and the only guy who seems interested in changing things is the Guv  — Arnold.

'ROIDS

     Will the steroids scandal ever end?  It has reached all parts of competitve athletics  — football, baseball, basketball, track, cycling, swimming, gymnastics, and probably TV poker as well. The most recent example, that of a Latino baseball player with Hall of Fame credentials, has now reached Congress and perhaps has pushed the Iraqi War off the front burner for a few days.

     Generically speaking, steroids are performance enhancing drugs, and there are clear (physical) examples to be seen in all athletic quarters. The statistical evidence is overwhelming and the physical dimensions of the users are similarly obvious. How otherwise to you explain a slender swift sprinter who turns into a Green Bay Packer defensive tackle in 3 years.

    There are two aspects of steriod use that command the most attention. The first is the serious damage that excessive steriod use can do to the human body  — and the health problem is tied directly to famous professional athletes who serve as models and idols of youngsters who aspire to athletic excellence. Steroid use strongly fuels the desire to win at any cost  –  starting at an early age. The steroid based fancy numbers and bulging muscles send the wrong message to kids who are so tempted to emulate the famous.

     The second issue is that of the records set by players using performance enhancing drugs. By using these drugs, the offenders are clearly cheating in order to get better record setting achievements. This isn't so much a matter of legal misbehavior as it is taking advantage of others by cheating  –  knowingly. So, what do you do about the astounding record setting numbers?? Ignore them and say :”boys will be boys”, ban offenders from the sport, ban them from post season play or all star appearances, or place a big bold asterisk by their names   –  *used performance enhancing drugs. I favor the latter  — the indelible asterisk.

     Let's say, arguendo, that it is impossible to stop all steroid use. That doesn't mean they we shouldn't try, but it DOES mean what when a culprit is caught, the penalty should be very severe. Not just suspended for 10-15 games  –  a full year would be more like it. . A slap on the wrist will not deter much of anything.  Baseball invoked its severe gambling rule — a lifetime ban in baseball  –  based on cheating. Steroid use deserves the same kind of severe penalty. Let's show an entire country and 2-3 generations of young people that cheating is not the way to success. Make it hurt! Maybe there is even a bigger issue than athletics at stake here. Who knows”

     Personally. I'd feel the same way about cheating if it were a chess match or a bunch of smarties trying to boost their ACT scores. Don't even think about cheating. The price is too big to pay!

THEORIES

     The forces of evolution and religion crossed swords back in the 1920s in the Scopes trial in Tennessee. In the last 8 decades, evolution has largely prevailed and is part of the curriculae in most elementary and secondary public schools. Evolution, of course, theorizes that man gradually evolved from sub-human species over the past thousands or millions of years. Many or probably most scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution is taught for the most part without objection nowadays. Even so, it is still labelled as a theory.

     But in recent years, another theory has emerged  — one called Intelligent Design  — ID for short. The theory of ID maintains that the incredibly complex world of human existence could not possibly have evolved from  millions and millions of random events over millions and millions of years. Rather, to produce the enormously complex form of human life, there must have been an Intelligent Design  — somewhere, some way. The evolutionists scoff and demean  ID as a program of religion although its supporters prefer not to call it that. While the ID people do not dismiss Divine origin, neither do they necessarily hang their hat on that possibility alone.  They lean heavily on the laws of probability.

     Back in the 20s, the argument was over free speech. Now it is transformed into the “Church vs State” scenario. Right in the front rank is the Ameican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which is bound and determined to erase all espects of religion from public life, notwithstanding the strong beliefs of a clear majority of American citizens. So the ACLU says it is just fine to reach the theory of evolution in the public schools but not the theory of Intelligent Design due to the reliance upon religion. They say, in effect, ”it is OK to teach our theory, but not their theory”.

     Theories are theories  — not indisputable facts. Some theories may be more believable than others. Some may have a broader base of proponents than others. Some may have a broader “fan base” than others. But in the last analysis, they are theories. So when it comes to the public schools, most people would agree that it is dead wrong to teach theories as facts. But as long as evolution and ID are both presented to students  as “theories”, what is wrong with teaching both evolution and ID  without brain washing the kids? Is there something wrong with presenting the theories as theories and letting it go at that??

     The ACLU knows it will never win the support of the American public to quash its efforts to pevent teaching ID in the public schools  –  even as a theory.  That's why their preferred route is through the Judicial system where they hope to  find a receptive secular left wing Judge who will rule their way.

     The ACLU is in the front line of organizations trying to radically change the culture of the USA. And they intend to do it thru the Judicial System rather than the the legislative route (Congress). Need any better example??  Hello, Judge Roberts!!

PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE

     George Bush used his Constitutional authority to apppoint John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN. When Congress is not in session (recess), the President has such authority, and it has been used hundreds of times by recent Presidents Reagan, Bush, Sr., and Clinton. As a matter of fact, Clinton made 140 recess appointments during his 2 terms in office.

     Bolton's recess appointment will last for about 16 months. Then he either will have to be confirmed by the Senate or step down. When Bush announced his appointment of Bolton, the Loud Losers in the Senate immediately labelled Bush's action as an “abuse of power”. That was the line offered by Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and California's Senator Worthless (and others).

     So where does the abuse of power come from? If Clinton makes recess appointments, that's OK; but if Bush uses his Constitutional authority to make recess appointments, that's an abuse of power. Presumably, there is no abuse of power as long as the Noon Balloon, the Pugilistic Plagiarist and Barbara Worthless approve of the nominee.

     But what about the abuse of authority in the Senate when a group of Democrat Senators say to the full body of 50, “We are not going to allow you to vote. We don't care whether you like the President's nominee or not  — we don't care whether you would vote YES or NO –  we are not going to let you vote  — PERIOD. Reasonably impartial people might regard that as a flagrant abuse of power. Doesn't that raise the question, “who is abusing whom”?

     As the hassle continues, it is useful to observe that the Constitution grants the President the right o make recess appointments. That same Constitution does not give groups of Senators the right to deny nominees a vote on the Senate floor. That goes for Ambassadors   —-   as well as nominees for Justices of the US Supreme Court. If Kennedy, Biden, or Boxer (Worthless) want to see a clear cut case of abusive behavior, all they need is a mirror.

     In their frantic desire  to bash Bush, these people could care less about rules or sources of authority. Maybe they should think a bit more about the UN. If ever there was an outfit that needed someone to make waves, it is the UN. We need John Bolton at the UN  — and while they won't admit it, the UN itself needs him even more.

     Go get 'em, John.