SamSaid!

HANOI  JANE

     Jane Fonda has written a book, “My life so far” which will be on the bookstands soon if not already. At an early book signing in Atlanta, the crowd was sparse, but Time Magazine has made up for the absence of early publicity by publishing a feature story on Ms. Fonda in its 4/11/05 issue. Nothing like a huge shot of free publicity. I haven't read the book, but I did read the 7 page Time article which includes a very flattering photo of a 67 year old woman looking like 37.

     To say the least, Jane is presented in a sympathic and otherwise positive light of a person born into privilege and wealth who struggles through all sorts of difficulties including her Battles with Bulemia (otherwise known as ”binging and barfing”), her immediate family spats, her participation in marital depravities with husband Vadim (and others), and the years with Ted Turner. Of course, there is also the matter of the visit to Vietnam and being photographed in a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery  (helmet and all). She terms this a mistake in judgment that she will regret until the end of her life. Touching. The Time article (nor the book, presumably) spends little time on the Vietnam military widows or the fatherless children of the Vietnam vets. In the case of many, the “rest of their lives” came 30-35 years ago. Time didn't point that out.

     Hanoi Jane Fonda has blood on her hands. Neither Time Magazine nor her book can wash it off.

BIG CHALLENGE

     Gotta hand it to Arnold Schwarzenegger  — he is one gutsy politician. The line has been drawn in the sand and the battle lines are formed. Arnold is going to directly challege the labor unions that control and dominate the finances of California.

     Arnold is right. California doesn not have a revenue problem  — it has a spending problem. There is no easy way out of the State's huge multi-billion dollar budget deficit without changing the structure of committed costs. He will get nowhere with the politicos and Union leaders who have a vested interest in the status quo, so his only alternative is to take his case directly to the people  — and that is what he is committed to do. The issues and remedies he intends to pose are not trivial  – they are biggies.

     Consider:  A) Implementing merit pay for teachers, and granting tenure after seven years (not 1 or 2). B) Reducing pension costs currently built into the labor agreements of public employe unions. These plans have benefit escalation formulae that will accelerate runaway costs from now on. 3) redistricting legislative districts that are now formed to vitually guarantee incumbent re-election in “safe” districts for both Democrats and Republicans. How are those for starters??

    The propaganda missiles are already flying, and the exchanges are likely to get worse before getting better. No doubt, Arnold still enjoys popularity among the citizens at large. Thus the Unions have no alternative than to try to destroy him personally. That process is already underway. The newspaper/TV ads are already appearing.

     California's financial problems are very real and very big. A band aid approach will solve nothing, and neither will a strategy based on “buying time”. Delay simply means that the structural problems will continue to drive the budget south. As one citizen, I hope Arnold doesn't back off and that he continues to take his messages directly to the citizens at large. There is nobody else on the horizon who can pick up his shoes when it comes to political conviction and courage.

THE POPE

     At the age of 84, Pope John Paul II has died. What a truly remakable life he led. While his virtues and accomplishments are being extolled in the world wide press, the long process has begun to replace him. It is far too premature to guess who his successor might be, but it is none too soon to think about the major issues and decisions that will confront the new Pope. First, there is the issue of making women eligible to serve as priests, and add to that the declining number of new priests being ordained.  Likewise, the marriage of priests is a growing issue in many countries. Then there is the ever present issue of birth control, plus homosexuality in general and same sex marriage in particular. What to do about pedophiles among priests is still on the Vatican agenda, to say nothing about “right to die” kinds of decisions. The new Pope will probably have to hit the gound running. And not by choice.

VOLUNTARY

     The verbal warfare over the Social Security issue still rages with no end in sight. However, more and more knowledgeable people are speaking out and opining, so there is a chance that John Q Public will be better and better informed as time passes. Even at this relatively early stage of debate,  it is clear that the Democrats are deeply concerned about the “ownership” aspects of the program advanced by President Bush.

     A key element of Bush's proposal is to create private savings accounts for those who wish to invest a portion of their social security taxes in mutual funds or bond funds. Very clearly, investing in these private savings accounts would be voluntary. No one would be compelled to have 4-5% (or any part) of their tax contributions  invested in this fashion. So we might ask ourselves a simple question. Why should the Democrats violently oppose a program that is voluntary? Is there risk? Of course there is. There is risk in anything. Absent reform of the Social Security System, there is a huge risk in retirees getting the scheduled benefits 20-30 years from now. Nothing is risk free.

     Let's concede that the Democrats very strongly oppose tampering with a system that is a bedrock foundation under their welfare state politics. And  also concede that Social Security is the legacy of Franklin D Roosevelt and the New Deal which has been passed down to current leaders from their statist ancestors.  Even so, why should they object to a change that is voluntary. Not mandatory, voluntary. Do they believe that ordinary Americans are too dumb to invest their own funds and watch them grow? Don't they understand that most Americans are familiar with Savings Accounts, CDs, stocks, bonds, IRAs, 401Ks etc etc ?

     I think their real concern is that folks who would invest in the private savings accounts would get up in the morning and turn to the Financial page in the newspaper instead of the Sports page. These hard working people would be able to measure their relative gains week by week and month by month. In short, they would turn into mini-capitalists who rely on investments instead of Federal payments. Is that bad??

     When I run into those who oppose the Bush proposals, I ask a simple question  — what is wrong with a VOLUNTARY choice? Why not let the people choose? Most people understand that establishing  the voluntary private savings accounts will not rescue the Social Security System and restore fiscal balance to a program headed for disaster. But the PSAs are a distinct benefit to individual citizens. Why not give them a choice? 

     I am still looking for a lucid answer from my friends on the left.  None so far.

THE RULES

     Americans like games. All kinds of games. Athletic games, card games, puzzles, mind games, quiz games  –  you name it. Poker, gin rummy, bridge, skill sports, team sports, video games  –  the list goes on and on. These games vary enormously from one to another, but they all have one thing in common. They have rules. Whoever plays a game plays to win  —  by the rules. To be sure there are those who stretch the rules to the limits and even disregard or break them on occasion. But those who break the rules pay a price  –  some sort of penalty.

     Nowadays, the rules are too often ignored  – as though the worst thing about breaking the rules is getting caught. The current steroid flap in major league baseball is a perfect example. Over 80 years ago, the best player in Major League baseball, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, was banned brom baseball for life for his role in “throwing”  world series games. It was the infamous Black Sox scandal over gambling (betting) on the outcome of games  — in this case, the World Series. From time to time there have been efforts to rescind the harsh penalty, even to the point of seeking to make Jackson eligible for entry into Baseball's Hall of Fame. No go. He paid the price.

     Since the Black Sox scandal, gambling on baseball games by players, coaches, etc., has been a “no-no”, much to the distress of Pete Rose who was  arguably one of the 10 best major league players in history. Several years ago, Pete got caught betting (gambling big bucks) on his own team. He knew what he was doing, he knew what the penalty would be if he got caught, he got caught red handed, and he too has been banned from baseball for life. Now he is going to great lengths to enlish support for his powerful desire to enter baseball's Hall of Fame. Absent the gambling matter, he would have been a shoo-in for the Hall years ago. But he sits on the outside loking in.

     The use of steroids (performance enhancing drugs) by players is just another form of cheating  –  breaking the rules. Now we hear all kinds of rationalizations and excuses from those who have broken the rules as a way to gain an unfair advantage. Some are in denial, and others take the Fifth or plead ignorance. Worst of all, the players' Union is seeking to lessen penalties and downgrade the seriousness of the offenses. And they poo–poo the question of records set while using the steroids. Maybe baseball just doesn't want to face into the issue of enforcing the banned performance enhancing drugs. But if they do want to face into the problem and resolve the steroid problem,  the solution isn't difficult.

     Here is all they need to do.  One, categorically ban the use of performance enhancing drugs. No ifs ands or buts. Two, those caught using the banned substances will be banned from baseball for life. First offense. No questions.  Three, all records or statistics for those players will be accompanied by an asterisk saying, “banned drug user”.  Will it work?  Just ask the descendants of Shoeless Joe Jackson. He was an unsophisticated country boy who got caught up in the big time, and what a tremendous price he paid. Who would be a Shoeless Joe for steroid use?  Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire or who?? It will take a big name, and a big lifetime ban penalty. It is long overdue.

     My choice would be Bonds. Then everyone whould know that baseball is serious, and most fans wouldn't miss him.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

     Since the passage of the Patriot Act following the 9/11/01 attacks, the ACLU and other left wing groups have painted (or at least tried to paint) a grim picture of the loss of civil liberties, and have repeatedly urged that the Patriot Act be rescinded  –  at least, the parts of it that they find to be offensive to their concerns. Yesterday. I read an editorial opposing the notion of a Nationl ID card because such a card would be “infringing on individual rights and eroding liberties”.

     Two aspects of such an assertion bother me. First of all, there are  5-10 million people roaming around in the USA without any kind of proper Identification. We don't know who they are or what they are doing. As one citizen, I would feel much more comfortable if we would identify these people   –who they are, where they came from, what they are doing, etc etc. While we express concern over domestic security, these unidentified millions just sort of vanish into the crowd. If we have to accept limits on our “rights”, then so be it. Times have changed. So have priorities.

     The second item of concern is the ominous phrase, “infringing on individual rights and eroding liberties”. The people on the left like to use these kinds of terms — scare terms if you will  — and go no further. In thinking about “infringing on individual rights”, WHAT rights?  Or in “eroding liberties”, WHAT liberties? We never see a specific list or itemization of the rights or freedoms or liberties being threatened. Just the vague and generalized threat. And in the meantime, 5-10 million unidentified people still are at large in the USA.

     I take citizen rights very seriously, and limiting those rights is a very sensitive action to be taken by Big Brother government. But the mindlessness of left wing scare tactics presumes that the status quo is just fine, and all of the 5-10 million unidentified strangers loose in the USA are well intentioned. I have a hard time buying that.

    Before buying the party line of the ACLU et al, I want to know precisely what rights are  being infringed upon and what has been eroding  –  not just ominous vague threats without concrete support.

VACATIONS

     Vacations in the sun and surf have a very good way of restoring persective to a badly distorted world, and even a lot of badly played golf shots do not affect that sense of balance. While in Hawaii I read about a truly horrifying incident where a suicide bomber killed 400 Iraqi Shiites attending a funeral of other Shiites who had been killed by Sunni terrorist suicide bombers a few days earlier. While pondering over a matter of such contempt and disgust, I read another article in which several of our bleeding heart liberals affirm that we should seek and find ways to “negotiate” with the terrorists, and also find ways to include the Sunni terrorists in the new Iraqi government.

     Can you imagine the reaction in the USA if 400 bereaved  friends and relatives were blown to shreds at a funeral of other relatives and friends. Is there anything lower on the scale of human behavior? But of course, if we capture some of these religious raghead fanatics we must observe the Geneva Convention and provide them with lawyers. And of course, we have to court martial our soldiers who treat them impolitely. Yeah, sure.

     Goeorge and Rummy have it right. Find them and kill them. A bullet between the eyes is about the right sentence. No prisoners and no questions. And tell the liberal left wing American do-gooders to stuff it. So far, the Shiites have been very patient, but that patience can last just so long. Until the Sunni leaders point the finger at the terrorists, many Iraqi people will not relax in peace. And if the Sunnis do not point the finger at the killers there will be very tough days ahead. Iraqi Sunni leaders may rue the day when they had a chance to make a big difference. If I were in the Shiite camp, I'd give the Sunnis 3-4 months. After that, the gloves come off.

     In the meantime, we are captivated by the death sentence for Scott Peterson and whether Sammy Sosa used steroids. Gotta stay with the big stories!

OOPS

     Never do anything in a hurry. Good advice  — I think I'll write that down before I forget it.

     In the piece entitled Odds and Ends, I made a colossal goof. I had intended to say that Jacque Chirac had denied that Hezbollah was a terrorist organization, but in the haste of answering the telephone and the front door at the same time, I posted and published the article —  not realizing that I had inserted the word “NOT” where it most certainly did not belong. What a blunder!

     Never do anything in a hurry. I just wrote that down in case I ever forget it! 

ODDS AND ENDS

     The National Hockey League Season is over  — or maybe it isn't. At this point the only people who care are those diehards who know the nuances of the Blue Line and can explain in understandable terms the “offside” penalty. But if the NHL hockey sticks are not active, the Global Warming Hockey Stick is on the front burner.

     The current global warming flap was revved up by the publication of a graph that “proved” that recent global warming has sharply accelerated due to activities of mankind  — primarily burning fossil fuels. That sharp upturn on the graph has been analogized to the shape of a hockey stick. Now, it seems that many reputable scientists and non-scientists have questioned the validity of the findings that produced the graph. Can't you just imagine the anguish in environmental circles?? 

     On another front, the Slimy Frog of Paris, Jacque Chirac, has denied that Hezbollah is NOT a terrorist organization despite its suicide bomber attacks on civilians. That means that Hezbollah can continue to raise funds in France for its nefarious activities. I am reminded that French wine is processed by the body and then discharged with other liquids. I think I will give my body a longer rest when it comes to disposing of used French wine. Our foreign policy can be easily summarized: “First, Iraq  — then Chirac”. And drink California wine!!

     It is fun to watch Larry Sommers make waves with the ossified octogenarians at Harvard. Why should he have to apologize when he is not wrong?? Heaven forbid, he should not pose intellectual questions in an academic atmosphere poisoned by extreme feminists . Are Harvard and Cal Berkely so far apart??

     One of the chanpionship quotes about golf. “The same people who invented golf thought they could get music out of a bagpipe”.  Time for Dewars on the rocks!

SEEING AND HEARING

     As I became more and more aware of earthly events many years ago, I recall some words of wisdom passed along by my mother. She said, “Remember, none are so blind as those who will not see, and none are so deaf as those who will not hear”. I have no idea where these gems originated, but whoever coined them certainly knew what he/she was talking about. In a politically polarized America, they ring very true  –  especially when the subject is reform of Social Security.

     Our Social Security program is structurally unsound. Most politicos of  both parties will agree up to this point. We have an inter-generational  wealth transfer system in which grandkids are paying for the retirement of grandparents. But when it comes to making proposals for change, the water gets very murky. George Bush says we are driving down a road with a cliff at the end; the Dems assume the ostrich position and say “leave our New Deal jewel alone, and let's wait and see”. At least, George has a plan. The Dems do not.  

      Some of the numbers are not in dispute. When the System was implemented back in the 1930s, there were 16 contributors for each person receiving benefits. Now the ratio is 3:1, headed for 2:1 in just a few years. That   –  all by itself –  should set off alarm bells. But of course, none are so blind as those who will not see.  As impressive as those stats are, there is another set of numbers that play even a bigger role in determining how the System should be reformed. Back in the 30s, maybe 5% of Americans invested in Securities  — stocks and bonds. There are probably two big reasons for that. The first  is the Depression of the 1930s in which relatively few people were sufficiently affluent to be able to invest. The second was a great uncertainty about the stock market after the crash of 1929.

     Times have changed. The GI Bill produced an entire generation of better educated Americans. In addition, more and more people became aware of  financial gains thru different investment possibilities including savings accounts, CDs, Bonds and stocks. Now, about 50% of working Americans are stock holders who keep an eye on interest rates, stock prices, dividends and capital gains. The latest big surge in investments has come via IRAs and 401K plans. Even Union members have become mini-capitalists. Recognizing that the stock market is volatile and will have its swings, most investors are prepared to stay the course  —   willing to accept the risks.

     Risk and reward is no longer a bogey-man concept in the minds of most Americans.  It is a well recognized fact of life. Our Social Security Plan attempts to offer reward with no risk — as long as future generations pay the bill. And the rate of return on invested money as abysmally small. Geoge Bush's plan of including private accounts in the Social Security System in a bold proposal indeed. While it represents significant reform, it will not by itself solve the basic structural problem. But it is a step in the right direction, and with adequate explanation will appeal to those who have a basic understanding of simple investment math. The Dems say that the average American isn't smart enough to manage his/her own finances. I think they are riding the wrong horse.

     There is a chorus out there that sings the song of managing their own financial affairs. But none are so deaf as those who will not hear. Better listen up, Dems! Your foresight flunks the test and hearing is just as bad.