SamSaid!

BSLs

     The Blue State Liberals (BSLs) are at it again. Having lost the White House, the Senate, The House, the Culture War, and most everything else, now they have decided to renew their assault against the Boy Scouts and Christmas. And they wonder why they lost in the 2004 elections?

     Their isn't much doubt that the foundations of this country as outlined in our most precious documents were heavily influenced by religion  –  the Deity. All you have to do is to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution plus the writings of our Founding Fathers. True, we hold to the idea of religious freedom,  which originally was based on guarantees against  biases among Protestants, Catholics and Jews. In 1776, nobody gave much thought to Hindus, Bhuddists, Muslims , Indian cultures, or manufactured religions like Scientology.  Nowadays, the BSLs denounce religion and seek equivalence for atheists and agnostics who deny the existence of the Deity  — by whatever name. So now the BSL secularists renew their attack on religion  — especially Christianity  — and all of the symbols that accompany religious belief at Christmas time.

     You have to hand it to Fox News and Bill O'Reilly who champion the cause in opposition to the secularist efforts. Again, the Blue State Liberals  do not want any parts of true democracy that seeks to find the will of the people; instead, they seek the support of left-leaning judges who are willing to impose their agenda on the rest of us. Personally, I am not an overly religious person, but I am a church attender and  I am mightily opposed to the BSL efforts to ban Christian observances at the Holiday Season. To me it isn't “Happy Holidays”, it is Merry Christmas  — and if the seculatists don't like it, that's just tough.

     Come to think about it, if the BSLs really want to advance the cause of Red State –Fly-Over–  America in the Culture Wars, they couldn't have picked a better example than attacking Christmas. Maybe the BSLs should have a big ceremony and celebrate the birthday of Michael Moore  — or maybe Whoopie Goldberg.  All that before stomping on the Boy Scouts.

     From a very early age I was influenced by a WW II saying, “There are no atheists in fox holes”. But the secularists sitting in their comfy offices and homes wouldn't know much about that, would they?

SOCIAL SECURITY

     Without a doubt, the Social Security program is the crown jewel of the American welfare state. Enacted during the great depression of the 1930s, it has endured great success and is “politically” untouchable. At least up until now.

    Social Security is a cash transfer program. Payments (taxes) from those actively employed go in the front door and then are promptly paid to retirees or other beneficiaries out the back door. In the past and currently, there has been a surplus in Social Security funds which has been used for other governmental purposes. Within a few years, the surplus will vanish and be replaced by deficits  –  big annual deficits, calculated in the $trillions. The payment liability will greatly exceed the tax revenues being paid by active workers. Hence, the structure of the SS system will have to be changed. The variables  include higher taxes, lower benefits, older retiremen age, or private savings accounts. George Bush is leading the charge for private savings accounts.

     Gerge Bush can be accused of many things by his detractors (and some supporters), but he is not bashful about making major decisions. While many on both ends of the political spectrum cringe at the inevitability of changing Social Security, Bush is willing to tackle the issue head on. He fully intends to pursue the alternative of private savings accounts in which employes will be given the option of detouring some of their taxes out of the Social Security Fund into the individual savings accounts  — like an IRA.

     Some time back, President Bush talked about an “ownership” society  — referring primarily to home ownership and investments such as 401K plan savings, IRAs, stocks and bonds. The SS Accounts would be another step along the road to an “ownership society”. This is not just another catchy term; rather, it has a lot of substance that will register with millions of Americans. I think George is on the right track. To be sure, during the recession of 2000 – 2003 people owning 401Ks and IRAs saw their investments suffer losses, but with the turn in the market they are on the way back up. Over the long haul – let's say a 20 year time span  –   the investment route will yield a lot more than  Social Security will.

     Because of the great change in demographics, a change in the SS system is unavoidable and will likely require increased Federal debt (borrowing) to keep the system going and satify the promises to older citizens. That is true no matter however the system is changed. But long range, the “ownership society” is the best route to follow for the country and its citizens  –  and the proposed change to private Social Security accounts is a constructive step along the way.

     My guess is that George will start the process of selling the Social Security private accounts to people all across America in his State of the Union Address in late January 2005. A positive public response  would be the best way to provide a bit of backbone to balky Senators and Representatives.

SPORTS II

     The University of California Golden Bears will not be going to the Rose Bowl. Instead they will travel to a second tier Bowl, the Holiday Bowl, in San Diego to play a 4 time loser, Texas Tech. Through a highly suspect ranking system Cal was downgraded at the last minute so that The Univerity of Texas Longhorns will go to Pasadena and play in the much more prestigious Rose Bowl. The season records of Cal and Texas were the same.

     There are three parts to the ranking of Colllege football teams  –  a computer analysis, a poll of college football coaches, and a poll of sportswriters. After the final game of the season (Cal won and Texas did not play), several sportwriters changed their votes and placed Texas ahead of Cal in the rankings. Some of the changed rankings came from Texas newspaper writers (surprise?). In addition to the big bucks involved, Cal fans and their team felt cheated out of the season long goal of playing in the Rose Bowl. Hard to blame them.  

     I guess we can be generous and say that no ranking system is perfect and subjective judgments are made from week to week. But the appalling part of this last minute switch to leapfrog Texas over Cal was the active public campaigning by  Texas Coach Mack Brown who solicited both writers and coaches to change their votes to advance the cause of Texas  –  specifically at the expense of Cal. That doesn't say much for sportsmanship, to say nothing of the impartiality of the ranking system and the selection of Bowl participants.

      Brown's tactics were below the belt and should not have been rewarded. I hope Michigan cleans their clock on New Year's Day.

SPORTS I

     The world of baseball has discovered that some of its big name heroes have been using steroids. Will wonders never cease!  Many of baseball's hallowed records are going by the boards, broken by players who have been transformed from 2X4s into fireplugs in just a matter of 2-3 years. And these remarkable physical changes, of course, are due to diet and exercise  — right? Now everyone right up to the US Senate is clamoring for steroid (chemical) testing of Major League baseball players, most of whom have multi-million dollar contracts.  

     Of all sports, baseball is the one that has a fan base strongly attuned to statistics and records  –  batting average, home runs, base hits, runs batted in, earned run average, strikeouts, etc., etc.,etc. For 60 years or so these records were complied over a season of 154 games. Then the season was stretched by 8 games to be 162 regular season games. When Roger Maris (162 games) broke Babe Ruth's home run record (154) games there was a huge debate over whether Maris's record should bear an asterisk to account for the longer season. I personally think the asterisk was merited, but baseball leadership felt otherwise. So the baseball records and statistics do not differentiate between the shorter and longer seasons.

     Now we will have another hassle over the “asterisk”. Barry Bonds is almost assured to break the all time home run record set by Hank Aaron. But Bonds is an admitted steroids user. Should his eventual total be accompanied by an asterisk to show that he used performance enhancing drugs? Again,I think the use of an asterisk is merited. To me, comparative records should be apples to apples to apples. Without proper differentiation, they become useless. Bonds cheated and broke the rules. Should we just look the other way and “move on”?. I think not.

     And when it comes to drug testing of players, don't hold your breath waiting for Union President Donald Fehr to go to great lengths to uphold the sanctity of the game. While giving lip service to the evils of drugs, he will try to minimize the testing program and reduce any penalties to the lowest possible level. Unless baseball management and Congress are adamant, the whole testing issue will be come a sideshow without great impact. It will result in a slap on the wrist,  “don't do it again”, and ” rehabilitate.

     And no asterisks.

WHICH WAY?

     Over the past year, Americans have been incessantly bombarded with the gory details of the Scott Peterson murder case in California. Peterson has now ben convicted of 1st degree murder in the killing of his eight -month pregnant wife and 2nd degree killing of his unborn son, Conner. All kinds of legalities have been introduced through the publicity conscious lawyers, but one complication that outranks the others is the legal status of Conner, the unborn son (fetus?).

    The fact that a murder2 conviction was returned by the jury clearly means that unborn Conner was a person in the eyes of the law. However, if the termination of the life of Conner had been the result of an abortion, murder2 would not have remotely been considered  –  he would have just been a by-product of “pro-choice”. How can our legal system say that if the pregnancy was terminated by an act of the father, it was a crime at the level of 2nd degree murder, but if  Conner's “life” is snuffed out as the result of an abortion approved my the mother, there is no crime.? In walking this legal tight rope, an unborn eight month old boy is a person, but by another standard, he is just a fetus.

     For sure, abortion is the most contentious of all of the “value” issues that are currently political footballs. Argument at either end of the abortion issue spectrum simply makes the divide even wider.  But one of these days, our Supremes will have to re-consider Roe V. Wade, and it may come down to determining the status of an unborn like Conner Peterson. At eight months, was he a person, or wasn't he?

     Scott Peterson may spend the rest of his life in prison  — if he survives a penalty of capital punishment. But the Conner Peterson case may very well outlive all of the other aspects of this lurid event.  

BLUE STATE LIBERALS

     George Bush is in a really unique position. No matter what happens, his second term will end in January 2009 and he has no worries about re-election. Thus he can tackle an ambitious agenda with no worries about political fall-out. And he does have a full plate. In foreign policy he has to deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation, facing down the dark side of Islam, the War on Terror, a useless UN, preemptive military decisions, and introducing democracy into the Middle East, and an ongoing mess in Iraq.  Then at home, there is the funding (Baby Boomer) issue for Social Security and the looming iceberg of Medicare costs, to say nothing of the worrisome deficit.

     But beyond all of that there is the vexing problem of the social agenda of the Blue State Liberals (BSLs). Matters like abortion, same-sex marriage, “rights” of homosexuals, banning capital punsihment, gun control laws, and eliminating religious references in the public domain. In my mind, all of the preceding can be lumped under the umbrella of the “Battle of the Judges”

    The BSLs would dearly love to see their agenda enacted, but the one thing they dread more than anything else is a vote of the people on these issues. During the 2004 elections, same-sex marriage was defeated by big margins in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Message delivered. The only hope of the BSLs lies with friendly decisions from activist Judges. George Bush has made it known that he does not sympathize with activist Judges who twist and distort the Constitution to “make” new law. To the contrary he will appoint Judges who can be called “strict constructionists”; that is, Judges who will stay with the language of the Constitution and not take long legalistic detours to create new law. The BSL people know that with either popular elections or strict constructionist Judges, their agenda is dead in the water.

     In the next 2-3 years if there is a a genuine political crisis in this country it will be precipitated by rear guard Blue State Liberal  Senators determined to prevent the appointment by the President of strict constructionist Judges. The Battle of the Judges will be joined in the very near future, assuming that it hasn't been joined already. If George Bush prevails, the effects of the Judicial appointments will be felt for decades. If the Blue State Liberals can control the Judiciary, our country will be changed forever. Big stakes here.

ARBITRATION

     The NBA brawl in Detroit this past weekend has made headlines all over the country and the TV sports scribes having a field day. The NBA Commissioner has imposed very heavy penalties on the players, and lawsuits are in the offing from fans who claim injuries of one kind or another. Always go for the deep pockets. The brawl itself was just a case of dimwits fighting dimwits, and some dimwits won and others lost. Personally, I quit watching pro basketball 15 years ago and I have no interest in tuning in another “contest”. To many sports fans, it is just a case where an official blows the whistle and 10 overpaid dummies jump up in the air.

     In the current fiasco, one player was banned for the rest of the year and other players were banned for 20-35 games. The Commissioner did the right thing. For that kind of behavior to be eliminated, the penalty has to hurt  — real bad. But that is not the end of this story. The ever present Players Union has appealed the Commissioner's decision on the basis that it is too severe. The solution to remedy the issue?? Submit the issue to impartial arbitration. Let an “impartial”  person decide on the merits of the dispute and the penalties. Sounds good, doesn't it? Or does it?

     An arbitrator who comes down squarely on one side of a dispute or the other soon becomes an unemployed arbitrator. Thet's why in cases like this he will impose his judgment, pick up his fat check, and walk away, oblivious of the damage he leaves in his wake. He could care less about the long term effects of his decision on league play or player behavior. He has to think about his next case and his acceptability to “the parties”. The penalty issue will go to arbitration sometime in 2005, and the Commissioner imposed penalties will be reduced. You can count on it. It doesn't make any difference how guilty the offending players were, the Union will attempt to justify their actions, find excuses, and seek lesser penalties. And a compliant press will say “sure  — the commissioner went overboard”.

    Were some of the fans out of line?? Yes, they were, and the justice system should indict them. But there is no wishy washy arbitrator involved here. Just a court of law.

      But the Detroit battle in the stands confirms one thing. The National Basketball Association is a waste of time. And the Detroit and Indianapolis hoodlums just confirmed it. But maybe my evaluation is too harsh. I suggest that we all wait and see how an arbitrator goes to great lengths to conclude that boys will be boys and sharply cuts the penalties. What the hell, no one got killed. Right?? Just a matter of sports and competition.

GAMBLE

     From the very outset it has been a big gamble to install a democratic form of governemnt in Iraq. The country has absolutely no history of democracy or political freedom as we know it in the USA. To the contrary, the governemental authority for centuries has been very autocratic and cruel. There are three batches of people in Iraq  — the Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. They have one thing in common. They do not like each other. Their history is one of whose ancestors were killing the ancestors of others. The Sunnis and Shiites are at odds with each other and neither group likes the Kurds. Those long standing fueds do  not enhance the chances of a stable democratic government. On top of all of that, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunnis  — a minority group  –    raped, killed, imprisoned, gassed and other wise came down very hard on the Shiites and Kurds. The Shiites constitute  60  % of the population and may very well be looking forward to “payback” time. That is why the Saddam Sunnis are doing everything they can to disrupt or block the scheduled elections in January 2005. In US terms, the Sunni insurgents may be staging Custer's Last Stand. They will go down fighting.

     A great fear has been that these long standing fuedal differences could result in an Iraqi Civil War. That would be the worst of all worlds for the US since we are desperately trying not to take sides in an overt way. We might hope that the Afghan example will show itself and that Iraqi people will strongly support free elctions and a democratic form of government. It will be a big step  — and that is why the January elections in Iraq are of critical importance. The insurgents no doubt will try to force a postponement of the elections. If the Iraqis really want to achieve freedom and govern themselves, they will have to muscle up against the Sunni insurgents. It may be a case of now or never.

OIL AND CORRUPTION

     It is always interesting to see how the TV networks and the major newspapers and magazines select the stories to “ride” day after day. The Abu Graib prisoner abuse story is a good example and the current flap over the Marine shooting of an insurgent is another. Day after day we get bombarded. But what about stories that can have a major impact? Isn't it odd that they become the 5th or 6th item in a long list of news snippets and not much more. The Oil for Food program of the UN is a current example. Aside from Fox News, no one else seems particularly interested in digging out the facts underlying a story with major implications.

     The Oil for Food program was sponsored by the UN to help needy Iraqis after the Gulf War. The sale of Iraqi oil would be the source of revenue to pay for the program. But the program was bastardized by big time connivers working hand in glove with Saddam to get around the sanctions imposed by the UN after the Gulf War. Now we know that millions and millions of dollars were fed back into Saddam's coffers as well as the pockets of French Ministers, UN officials, and Russian plutocrats, and assorted privateers who were buddies of Saddam.  An investigatory Commission headed by American Paul Volcker was apppointed to find out where all the money went, but at this point Kofi Annan is stonewalling efforts to get the documentary evidence needed to trace the money trails. Annan's son is directly implicated in the whole scheme. The total sale of Iraqi oil under this program is over $11 Billion, and only a fraction of the money ever found its way back to the needy Iraqi people.

     So why does Kofi Annan refuse to produce the audits and related documents from the UN files in NY City? Obviously, he is protecting a lot of people who are very much at risk. A factual declaration could be exteremely embarrassing to UN leadership, the French Government and the Russian leaders as well.   Yet our big time newshounds sort of pass off the charges as ho-hum. This is the kind of stuff that can bring down a government or the UN leadership, but ABC, NBC and CBS downplay the whole messy affair as just another case of pilfering  — not much more. They evidently prefer to editorialize on trivia.  US taxpayers put up the money to support the UN  — a highly disproportionate amount of the cost to keep that outfit going. Yet we are not entitled to very pertient information about a program conducted right under our noses in New York City? And at the moment, we are letting Kofi Annan get away with it while he is bad mouthing our efforts in the middle east. My beef is not solely with Annan. It is primarily with the major news outfits who look the other way instead of making a big deal out of a program that is little more than a perfidious sham.

     Fox should not have to go it alone. Brokaw, Rather and Jennings should go after the UN and Kofi Annan in a big way and force him to cough up the documentary evidence that will disclose the massive corruption he is attempting to conceal. We are not talking about nickels and dimes here or a program that is at the periphery of Iraq. It is big bucks and directly relates to the perfidy of our European “buddies”. As Americans who are footing the bill, we have every right to know the details of the unprincipled thievery of the UN and high level French officials who have pocketed huge sums. Is anyone in the media interested or concerned??  Just watch the network news  — back burner. 

CONDI

     As the newly appointed Secretary of State, Condileeza Rice now ranks as one of the most important women in the country. Her appointment will be confirmed because the Democrats just don't want to fool with this lady  — for good reason. Now the press is jumping on her as being captive to the thinking of Pres Geo Bush. Somthing wrong with that? Do they suggest that George should appoint someone with whom he is at odds? Are we better off when the Prez and the Secy of State do not see eye to eye on foreign policy?? What kind of Neanderthal thinking is that?

      But now is the time to speculate. Just imagine that Ms. Rice performs very well in the next 4 years. Could that set the stage for a Condileeza Rice vs Hillary Clinton race for the White House in 2008? Stranger things have happened. Wouldn't that pose a dilemna for the femininsts infatuated with the idea of the 1st woman President? Who would they pick? I think the answer is obvious  — that they would back Hillary and her left wing solutions to big issues. But I wouldn't sell Ms. Rice short. I think I would look forward to a good cat fight!