SamSaid!

TARGETING

     The Middle East sure is a mess. The Israelis are fighting for the country's very existence, and the Hezbollah are on a crash course to destroy all of them. It is interesting that many of the UN “countries” label Israel's response to the Hezbollah incursion and capture of Israel soldiers as “disproportionate”. Really? Interesting term when is comes to flat out war. Why should world opinion be so strongly critical of the Israelis? Maybe Al Jazzeera thinks the Jews should apologize for being tough on Hezbollah.

     As the 36 day War heated up, Israel depended heavily on air strikes, while the Hezbollah relied on rockets fired at cities. The difference is that all of the Israeli airstrikes were targeted at specific targets  –  military targets. On the other hand, all of the Hezbollah rockets were indiscriminately fired at Israeli cities. Can you imagine 20-40-100 rockets fired at no specific targets  –  just hoping to kill a lot of innocent people? The Israelis want to win the war and disable Hezbollah while Hezbollah is content just to kill a lot of people who have no role in the military contest.  That tells you a lot about the aims and tactics of Hezbollah  –  no other purpose than to kill whoever is unfortunate enough to be in the area where an rocket falls.

     Wars are messy indeed and people get killed. All of them are not a part of the military forces. But to fire hundreds of rockets  — aimed at nothing in particular  —  hoping that they will kill “someone” is a sub human version of “war”. Or at a minimum, a version of war conducted by sub human people.

     Disproportionate??  Hardly!

WATERMELONS

     You've got to hand it to the Brits. It is mind boggling to think that even with erratic leadership, the country on that little island has dominated western civilization for 300years and still has a lot of influence and power in the nuclear age. Don't get me wrong  –  I am not an anglophile. I have long thought that there must be something wrong with a country and its people that would fire Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in WW II. But they do have a way of using the English language. Often times, their phraseology is suble, clever, thought provoking, humorous, and memorable. They simply have a way with words,

     I spotted a case in point the other day, when English journalists described Environmentalists as “watermelons”  –  i.e., green on the outside and red in the inside. How true. With an ultra left agenda that would do justice to the far leftists and communists (State control and big government) they qualify eminently for the Red label —  and the green exterior is just a convenient facade.  Neat phrase  –  the environmentalists are “watermelons”  –  green on the outside and red in the middle. Saves a lot of superfluous words. 

     That goes for you too, Charles! 

UNIONS

     It was in 1960 when President John Kennedy signed the now famous executive order permitting the unionization of public service employes and imposing the obligation to bargain onto public service agencies  –  first the Feds and thereafter the States. Few at that time recognized the enormity of the decision by JFK and the tremendous fallout to follow. Private sector unionization had stalled, and the Exec Order opened up a whole new world of union power. . Nowadays, it is not a matter of striking in the big industries  –  it is bankrupting Municipalities and cities.

     The problem isn't difficult to understand. In the private sector, there is a basic quid pro quo  —  the Union right to strike vs the profit motive of the employers. Not so in the public sector. In these cases, the emplyers (i.e., the taxpayers) are not even present. They literally have no say-so as the union leaders and school administrators loot the treasuries. The Unions have no obligation to quit asking, and the administrators (or lawyers) have no real incentive to say NO. It just goes on and on, and we all pay for it. Now we see retired public service people getting pensions (at age 55) that exceed their salaries at work. And those of us paying the taxes have the dubious distinction of paying people to work at the same time we are paying them not to work. The Union people of course see nothing wrong with that arrangement since it is not their money and they are indifferent to tax consequences.

     When you think about funds for education, think twice about where the money comes from and where it goes. For every dollar that goes to public education, 80 cents goes into the Union coffers to perpetuate their monopoly over the public schools. Do you wonder why they they will fight to the death to prevent school vouchers that would allow education to experience private sector innovations? Just take a good look at those doozies stomping around with the picket signs. Remember, they are “educating” your kids. Not very re-assuring, is it??

     Oh yes. My sister and wife were both teachers in the public schools. They are disgusted at the current chaos of Union corruption and teacher incompetence  –to say nothing of high school kids who can't read or write! Who in his (her) right mind would support the notion of a test to graduate from high school even though the test  is geared to 8th graders?

     The great protectors of the working man. Really??

DECISIONS

     Some decisions are easy to make  –  others are not. And many people who have had experience in leading an organization understand how painfully difficult decision making can be. Consider for a moment what might go thru the mind of George Bush as his day begins. What should we do about North Korea, Iran, Iraq, AIDS, gasoline prices, the health of Social Security, medical expenses, education, military funding, maintaining State Secrets, political races, court nominees, press conferences, International guests, vetoes ……  and the list goes on and on. Amd when the President does make a decision, it often can be “no-win” since the opposing proponents might not be satisfied. But with all of the unpleasantness that may result, the need for a decision does not go away. Some critics will be unhappy if he makes a decision, and others will be unhappy if he does not.

     It is an interesting process, and the road to a decision often runs thru consultants, academicians, experts of one kind or another, staffers paid for recommendations, friends, advisors, gurus, family members, top level aides, etc., etc., etc. The most meaningful comment emanating from this process came from President Harry Truman in the days following World War II. When facing tough decisions, Harry said, “The buck stops here”. How true.

     I had the pleasure of working for a guy who understood this process very well. When crunch time came for decision making, he dispensed with advice and recommendations with a very concise way to cut to the core of an issue. He said succinctly (to his staff of advisors and experts) : “I am not interested in your advice, recommendations or suggestions. I have only one question for you  —  “Specifically, what would you do if you were in my shoes?”   If you ever need to find a way to separate the men from the boys, here is a perfect way to do it. Just don't stand in front of the water fountain or the men's room. People can get trampled that way.

NEW YORK TIMES

     The big question in Washington DC nowadays is whether the New York Times should be punished for divulging highly classified information  –  even after having been requested by the President (and others) not to publish their story. The Times, of course, stiff-armed the President et al and published the story on their front page.

     Several aspects of this story are not in dispute. The voluminous information published by the NYT concerned the US Governmet tracking financial transactions all over the world to get a handle on those who finance the bloody rampages of Al Qaeda, the “home base” of the Islamin terrorists. There is no question that the data gathered has been very helpful in our war against terrorism. By the same token, there is no doubt that the disclosed data is of significant value to the terrorists who are trying to kill all Americans and defeat our efforts in Iraq. There is also no question that the NYT (especially front page and Op-Ed pages) are left wingers opposed to the Iraq war, George Bush and anyone who stands with him, the Republicans, and the entire Bush administration. Translation, anything that is opposed to George Bush is good, and there are no holds barred in disclosing information that is damaging to George Bush.

     With ultra left wing writers such as Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd (wonder where she parks her broom?), it doesn't take a genius long to confirm the radical left ideology of the Times. And their unctuous grey haired leader, Bill Keller,  comes on TV to support their publication of the story based on the flimsy “right to know” premise  — totally ignoring that Americans are being killed by the very people they are helping. When I see the notion of free speech carried that far I am filled with both contempt and shame. As you might suspect, I do not subscribe to the NYT and probably will not subscribe until well after the Pope gets married.

     If indeed Al Qaeda benefits from the contemptible actions of the Times, what should be the remedy ? Treason? Seems to me that the very definition might fit. It would be a real battle in Congress –  CSpan might even get a top rating for a few months. I sure would watch. But maybe a better solution would be to deny NYT press passes to attend White House briefings or Presidential Press Conferences.  Let's say that the ban would not go beyong the end of the Iraqi War(whenever that might be)  — barring any other underhanded stunts by the Times.  And if they don't like it, tough! More than anything, I hope and pray that we will not just pass over the indiscretions of the NYT as being “just another bump in the road”. With Congressional elections coming up in November, I hope that the good guys will regularly beat the NYT drum so that all Americans will know where the Times and their so-called “unbiased” word merchants stand. Since the NYT is so openly hostile to George Bush, is there some reason that we cannot convey our view of the Times and its editorial bias in no uncretain terms?

     Zinging Republicans is one thing: giving aid and comfort to the enemy is something else.  

WHERE IS THE MONEY?

     From time to time I have opined that there is a huge difference between tax dollars and cash money. Cash dollars are in an individual's pocket for individual use, while tax dollars belong to nobody and are in a big reservoir awaiting expenditure by our civil servants for good purposes and some not so good.  No better example can be cited than a recent occurrence at that West Coast Educational Citadel  –  The University of California.

    An independent audit recently (and harshly) found that in addition to $9.3 BILLION dollars paid in salaries, there was an additional $334 MILLION paid in ” additional compensation”  –  including pensions. The examples cited in the audit report are disgusting since they come from the highest levels in our Educational system. Maybe $334 Million won't break the bank, but it isn't chicken feed either. This is not a case of a teen age druggie ripping off a 711 for a handy six and a carton of cigarettes; rather, these ripoffs were initiated and authorized by very highly ranked and paid officials of U CAL.   Somehow it doesn't seem quite right to refer to these items of gross overpayment as poor practices, errors in judgment or decisions that are contrary to compensation policies of the University. Consider, in the year audited, there were 4071 members of the department of Education paid in excess of $168,000 and many of them still benefitted from “additional compensation”  –  which was initiated and approved internally.   

     Cal is budgeted just like any other organization, but obviously, the University brass figure that tax dollars are different and there is nothing wrong in blowing away $344 MILLION dollars improperly and then kissing it off by changing a few policies here and there. I have watched the newspapers for the past month, but I haven't seen any reporting that heads have rolled, indictments have been sought, or any repayment has been demanded. After all, This is almighty CAL  –  not Enron, Tyco, Adelphia or any of the other Corporate miscreants. Should we use the standards of Cal to judge the accused at Enron?  Or is Education fraud and theft exempt from trivialities like the law. Don't expect too much from the Chancellor at Cal, since his pension  was doubled to $395,00 per year  –  nearly twice the pre-existing figure. Think we devote enough tax dollars for education??

     But, what the hell  — it's only tax dollars, so why should we care?

BONDS

     Baseball player Barry Bonds has hit his 715th career homerun, thus eclipsing the achievent of the legendary Babe Ruth. It is a stupendous baseball accomplishment and his ardent fans are delirious over the success of their hero. But there are storm clouds that may throw cold water on what might have been a great day. Now, Bonds is a surly, moody, contrary, ungrateful soul whose personal life is a mess (kind evaluation). Among baseball fans and the general public he will never win the Mr. Congenialty contest. On top of that, he is right up to his chin in a major controversy over his use of performance enhancing drugs during his most productive home run years. The Commissioner of baseball is right on the spot  –  What to do with a baseball giant whose is a druggie?

     One suggestion is to attach an asterisk alongside his record numbers, saying, “achieved while using performance enhancing drugs”. Bonds fears that more than anything else. He would become a druggie with phony records. He fears this more than anything else.

     There is also the baseball Hall of Fame. Based on numbers alone, he would be a shoo-in. But years ago, baseball drew the line on gambling, and in the process banned from baseball FOR LIFE, the best player in the game, Shoeless Joe Jackson. Right now, a truly superb player, Pete Rose, is denied entry to the Hall because he got caught gambing on baseball games. If Rose is the pariah denied entry to the hall, how about Bonds?   Gambling vs cheating on fellow players and the general public? If Bonds enters, Rose says “What about me”"

     If baseball wants to clean up its act and get serious about steroids and comparable perrformance enhancing substances, now is the time. As for me, when someone mentions 715, I figure it is a quarter after seven and time for news and weather. One little asterisk, but sports all over America will notice.

     Nobody forced you to do it, Barry. Nobody made you swallow the pills, and nobody forced you to take the injections. My record books will be better without the sorry chapter you wrote!

BONDS

     Baseball player Barry Bonds has hit his 715th career home run, thus passing the long standing achiement of legendary Babe Ruth. No question about it, Bonds is a great power hitter. He also is a moody, surly, impolite egotist who is more interested in his own individuaal records that any other achievemnts. Bonds will never win the Mr Congenialty award. He is not highly regarded as a person  — aside from baseball statistics. True, he has a cadre of hometown fans, but they have a habit of being fickle when things go bad.

     Bonds wants 2 things. First, that his name will appear at the top of the list of all-time home run hitters, and second, that he be elected to the baseball Hall of Fame. Relying solely on baseball statistcs. he would appear to be a shoo-in on both ambitions. But there are storm clouds hovering about which could have an enormous effect on Mr Bonds. The one thing Bonds fears more than anything else is a small symbol called an asterisk (***) —  which could be placed on his home run numbers, saying “achieved while using performance enhancing drugs”. He would be labelled forever as a druggie and cheater. What a comedown.

     Also there is the Hall of Fame matter. Baseball has an iron rule about gambling, and it dates back more than 80 years. The baseball Commissioner banned gambling and also banned one of the very best players in all of baseball for gambling on the world series. Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned for LIFE.

No Hall of Fame for Joe.

AT LAST

     Zarqawi is gone. Long gone. For good. And the world is a better place today that it was yesterday. Maybe some regard him a a hero, but the plain fact is that he was a fanatical religious zealot and a blood thirsty murderous animal. Nothing more or less. True, someone may try to take his place, but he will be tough to clone, and any replacement with begin with his (her) days numbered.

    Republicans have credited the President for the success of the mission to rid him from the earth. Left wingers (Dems), however, are more inclind to give the story  the ho-hum treatment and observe that there will be a replacement, and the war goes on. Bin Laden and Zawahiri might shrug off the abrupt departure of their henchman Zarqawi as just another casualty of warfare –   Al Queda style. But something tells me that they just may be looking over their shoulders a little bit more carefully, like anyone else on a published hit list.

     In the meantime, I hope that we have a few appropriate medals for the crews of the 2 F-16s who delivered the 500 pounders.

BIG DIFFERENCE

     The current wave of Hispanic immigrants is not the first such experience in our history. In the early 1900s there were millions of immigrants from central and western Europe. But there are significant differences between then and now. The root causes may have been the same  –  poverty, no future and the attractiveness of living in America. But 2 distinct differences are readily visible. The first is that the European imigrants WANTED to become Americans. They were fully prepared to cut the tie to the Old Country. They did not come here to ride a welfare gravy train. Second, they WANTED their kids to learn English. For sure, they kept momentos of their ancestry, but they did not march around carrying a foreign flag and demanding their immigration “rights”.

     A personal recollection is appropo. I was born and raised in the ethnic polyglot of Southwestern Pennsylvania. More than half of the parents of my classmates could not speak English. A friend and classmate was Andy Pasquini whose father, Guiseppe, operated a bakery from their home. As kids came by, he always had a piece of warm bread for us.

     Guiseppe had filed for citizenship, and after a long delay, his US citizenship papers finally arrived. He was enormously proud and happy. At a backyard picnic for friends and neighbors, his eldest son, Mario, raised his glass of wine (Italian, no doubt) and offered a toast  — speaking in Italian. Guiseppe interrupted him and said, “No, No, Mario. No more.  Now I am an American  — we speak English” .

      At the Pasquini home, the American flag flew on the 4th of July, but Guiseppe still cheered for Joe DiMaggio.