SamSaid!

MARINES

     A few months back, we were treated to the efforts of the mass media to transform the Abu Graib prisoner abuses into a full fledged military scandal reaching up thru the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense. Night after night were were exposed to the graphic pictures. After investigation, it turns out that a handful of GIs were at fault at the lower levels of the military heirarchy and there was no policy directive supporting or encouraging that kind of behavior. They were appropriately punished.

     Now, we have another episode to invigorate the anti war wusses. This time it is a Marine who shot and killed a wounded insurgent in the battle of Fallujah.  No question  — he killed him. So now, the bleeding hearts want this young marine to stand trial for a “war crime”. And the graphic photos become the lead story on the evening TV news. Just imagine  — as a 20 year old, you were wounded the prior day in the tough house to house combat by insurgents who would sooner die than surrender. Marines were being killed by booby trapped bodies of fallen insurgents. The terrorists waved the white flag of surrender to trap Marines and shoot them. Behind every door there is a motivated assassin just waiting to kill an American. Car bombs go off every day  — frequently. And so what is your mind set?

     I don't know about you, but my foremost rule this this dirty war with suicidal fanatics is to shoot first and ask questions later. When an insurgent makes a questionable move, you just don't refer the matter to Committee. You act. This Marine acted and shot the guy when he made a move. I can relate to that. We didn't go into Fallujah to persuade mis-guided youth to amend their ways. We went there to kill them  — the only sure way to handle suicidal maniacs. That was the mission of the Marines, and that is what this Marine did. So why should he have to stand before these bleeding heart do-gooders who righteously cite the Geneva Convention when we are at war with terrorist fanatics who don't know the difference between Genva and Geronimo.

     War is a messy business, and very often the front line guys do not have minutes or hours to make a decision. It may be just a matter of seconds to determine the life or death of your comrades. He did what he had been trained to do. The sum total of his actions is one less terrorist.

     How easy it is for some slimy lawyer or network word merchant to sit in New York and pass judgment on a young man acting under the greatest of life and death pressures. Is he entitled to the benefit of the doubt? He is in my book. Like I said, in combat the basic rule is “when in doubt, shoot”.    You got a better idea??

PETERSON

     At last  –  maybe at last  –  we will be spared the daily recitation of the tragic and horrifying events of a year ago when Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and dumped her body into San Francisco Bay. But the Murder I and Murder II jury verdicts will no doubt spawn a series of appeals and charges of trial irregularities that will continue for years. Personally, I have no ongoing interest in all of the gory details of the killings or the legal entanglements that assuredly will make scurrilous lawyers more wealthy. But the one aspect of this entire saga that intirigues me is the status of unborn son, Connor Peterson.

     The verdict of Murder II for the killing of unborn son Conner clearly establishes that the unborn infant was a “person” in every sense of the word. If the fetus was not considered a person, then there would have been no case for Murder II. But with the verdict of Murder II now rendered, it is firmly established that Conner, unborn, was a person in the eyes of the law. We might compare this with a case of a woman, eight months pregnant, who decides to abort her pregnancy.  Under Roe v. Wade, she may abort, with no penalty.

     Under our complex set of laws, it seems to me that we can't have it both ways. If a fetus aborted at the decision of the mother , regardless of the pregnancy duration, is not a person (legally), then how can that fetus be considered a “person” if the pregnancy is terminated for other causes? I keep reading these articles (the pro-choice folks) claiming that a fetus is not a living human being. That's what these people keep telling us. But if that is so, how does the killing of a fetus (see Scott Peterson)  suddenly qualify as Murder II?

     Make no mistake, I have no sympathy for Scott Peterson, and from what I know of the  case he is guilty as sin. But totally aside from his guilt or innocence, I think the legal system has to come to grips with the status of an “unborn”. Maybe there is a simple explanation of this paradox; but if so, I sure haven't seen it.

     Is a fetus a person or not? Is that so difficult to determine?? Evidently, it is.

GAVIN

     Out here on the Left Coast, there is a persistent story making the rounds to the effect that the biggest culprit in the loss of the Presidential election by the Democrats is SanFrancisco's featherweight Mayor, Gavin Newsome. It was Newsome who chose to defy California Law and authorize same-sex marriages in San Francisco  — the Capitol of the area that has become known as the land of fruits and nuts. Up until he made his fateful decision ( it was later reversed by the Courts) same sex marriage was a peripheral issue on the back burner of the political range. Mr. Newsome's adventure transformed it into a major national issue that clearly energized the traditional value folks all over the country. Eleven states had ballot issues to ban same sex marriages and all eleven passed  — by big margins.

     As the story goes, the suddenly activated conservatives (called religious fanatics or right wing extremists by the elitist left)  voted in droves to support the ballot measures and also, George Bush. Hence, the heavy voter turnout that added to the Bush vote talley can be placed at the doorstep of Mr Newsome  — back in San Francisco. The Democrats claim that the huge turnout of conservatives in Ohio made the difference. There just may be something to this version of post election analysis.

     There is no doubt that many people voted their convictions, and the Republicans won the culture war. If the country is deeply divided , it won't be bridged easily as long as the “losers” keep condescendingly referring to “stupid red-neck morons” in the Red states. And you wonder why there is such a divide??

     Maybe Gavin wasn't the main culptrit. Any party that has Michael Moore as its image isn't going to appeal to most adult Americans.

NANCY

     Nancy Pelosi is the Minority Leader in the US House of Representatives. She is a nice person, a good mother, and her children love her dearly. She is also a San Francisco Democrat, standing firmly at the far left fringe of the political spectrum. This past Friday, she appeared on NBC's Today show and talked about the 2004 Presidential election.

    Ms.Pelosi referred to a deep political divide in the country and averred that Prez Bush had an obligation to reach across the aisle to Democrats to bridge that divide. I think that Nancy got it all bass-ackwards. If the Ds want to have a voice in how the nation is governed in the next 4 years, THEY are the ones who have the obligation to reach across the aisle. Does she really believe that in order to pacify Democrats George Bush should repudiate the constituency that elected him and alter or compromise his position on matters such as taxes, terrorism, Iraq, appointment of judges, same-sex marriages, abortion, gun control, social security, medicare, education, etc., etc., etc.? Nancy would do well to think about the old adage that “Winning Generals do not seek truces”.

     For the past three+ years, the Democrats have been the obstructionists in Congress, and it was that persistent obstructionism that cost Tom Daschle his South Dakota Senate seat. To astute political observers, that singular event should not go unnoticed.

     George Bush's political clout is as strong now as it ever will be. He should set his priorities and move on them  …. now. If Nancy Pelosi persists in getting in the way she just might get run over. Her choice.

TOUR

     The Tour d'France is the most prominent sporting event in France. The International teams of Cyclists ride for miles and miles (three weeks) throughout France, through the Pyrenees mountains and finish in the heart of Paris. If there is one thing that rankles the anti-American French it is the sight of an American wearing the yellow shirt of victory in “their” race, but that is exactly what Lance Armstrong has done for 6 consecutive years. Now, the French are desperate for a winner  — of most anything. Imagine their mindset. Napoleon lost at Waterloo, Bismarck creamed them in the Franco Prussian War of 1870, they had to have the Brits and Americans to bail them out in WWI, they were crushed by the Germans in the “pitiful 14 days ” of WWII, and they surrendered to the Indochinese at Dienbienphu (Vietnam). And this is just a partial list.

     So guess what they want to do about the Tour d'France? They want to eliminate the Pyrenees Mountain laps which are the most difficult part of the race. This is the part that separates the men from the boys. This is where Lance Armstrong has said “bye-bye guys” and pedalled up the mountains on his way to victory in Paris. The French say that they want to change the race so that others would have a chance to win. Anyone except that insufferable American.

     I don't know how far along the proposed change has gone. Maybe it is just a trial balloon. After all, they just want to be fair to the other contestants (sure!). It is one thing for us to look upon them as a bunch of losers. It is something else for them to prove it. If they make the change, I don't think we should boycott the race. Just publish the name of the race in small print.

THE DAY AFTER

     The marathon campaigning has mercifully come to an end and the November 2004 Presidential election is history. I am very pleased that George Bush will still occupy the White House; and I am enormously pleased that John Kerry will not. At a minimum, we will have a First Lady for 4 more years. Had John Kerry won, we would have had a First Female, but not a First lady. And had John Kerry won, the breakfast meal of choice in the White House would probably have been the waffle.

     I think it is important that our military people respect the President as the Commander-in-Chief. Bush has that respect; Kerry does not.

     In a thousand years I would never have guessed that the Republicans would keep the White House, and also gain seats in the House and Senate. And neither would I have ever guessed that Bush would win with a 5 million vote margin in the popular vote. The Democrats have to be crushed because this is a scenario they never envisioned. Maybe they should send Terry McAuliffe on his way. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

     It is hugely gratifying to see that mainstream America has throughly repudiated the efforts of scumbags like Michael Moore and others of his ilk. In addition, the obvious bias of the major media outlets as shown by endorsements, recommendations  and slanted news did not pull the wool over the eyes of most Americans. Very reassuring.  

     Three or four Justices on the Supreme Court are in poor health or are failing. Adding new Justices and selecting a  Chief Justice are front burner issues. The battle of the Supremes is just around the corner.The real issue is whether the left wing Democratic Senators ( i.e., Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, etc) will try their closet filibuster trick again. We'll see just how far bi-partisanship will go.

     Today (election day + one) the campaign for the 2008 Presidential Primaries began. No doubt, Hilary Clinton has her tentative schedule pretty much in place, and Rudy Giuliani can't be far behind. But considering the make up of the “Red” states, Hilary doesn't have all that much more appeal than Kerry or Gore did, and Giuliani may not have the appeal that Geo Bush had. I wouldn't discount the appeal that Jeb Bush has  –  if he decides to make the effort. And of course, if the rules change, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a helluva campaigner. There will probably be no shortage of high octane candidates willing to spend huge amounts. Another try at reform of camapign funding in prospect?? Better ask John McCain.

     I didn't get a lot of sleep last nite. Tonite I will sleep very peacefully.

SUMMER

     The 2004 baseball World Series is now underway and the games offer a delighful respite from the constant campaigning for the Presidency. I was born in a family baseball environment at a time when the World series was the sporting highlight of the year. My Dad was a good player and also managed the local team for a few years in which I learned the game as a batboy and scorekeeper. Baseball was always known as a summer game  — as a matter of fact one of the best baseball books ever written was entitled, “The Boys of Summer”. Now the 154 game season has been extended, playoffs have ben added, and TV is in command of the post season scheduling. Baseball starts in the early spring with frost on the grass and ends just a few weeks short of Thanksgiving. It really isn't fun to sit all bundled up for 4+ hours to watch a baseball game at 40-45 degrees.

      Anyone who has played the game knows that baseball is a warm weather sport. Throwing and catching a baseball in cold weather is like tossing a rock back and forth. And it is easy to get pulled muscles or other injuries in colder weather. Somehow, it doesn't seem right that baseball draws to an end when the football season is 2 months underway. TV has its place, but it shouldn't dictate the playing of the World series. There are many things awry in baseball, but I won't start down that path. Let it suffice to say that a summer sport played in the summer is much better than stretching the season into 7 months. Snowballs, bone-chilling rain and ice patches just are not in tune with baseball.

     If the Redsox win, maybe they will be called the Boys of Autumn.

MISTAKES

     Much has been made over George Bush's refusal to admit to mistakes. Has he made mistakes?   Sure! Even as a Bush supporter I would say, “Yes, he has made mistakes”. Admitting that he has been wrong on occasion might be an act of courage or contrition. But imagine the feeding frenzy of the left-wing Bush haters of he were to do so. Can't you just imagine the juices flowing in Terry McAuliffe and the editorialists and commentators of the mass media —  “Bush admits to major blunders”. Or worse.

     I like to put matters in a proper perspective. Did FDR admit to a mistake in the failure to give advance warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Or did John Kennedy admit to a mistake in the Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco?  Not hardly. Take Jimmy Carter  — a fundamentsally decent man. Did he admit to a mistake in sending an expedition to its death in the ill-designed rescue mission intended to free the hostages held in Iran? Not that I recall. And,  there was no media lynch mob looking for Carter.  

      For George Bush to publicly acknowledge a mistake woud be about like throwing a full grown salmon into a pool of piranhas. The feeding frenzy would make the water boil. Often times in a civil setting, errors in judgment are offered when gracious acceptances are given in response. Not with the salivating left wingers. If George Bush makes 10 decisions and nine are good ones, the results are swept aside by the tenth decision as long as there is a basis for any kind of criticism. Disagreement with a decision doesn't make it a mistake. Difference of opinion, yes. Mistake?  No.

     If I were in GW's position, I would concede nothing in the face of rabid, irrational opposition. Would you?? Oh yes, has Kerry admitted to a mistake in turning his back on his Vietnam war vets??

BIN LADEN

     The campaign rhetoric continues to amaze me. Kerry keeps up the George Bush criticism that Bin Laden was cornered by US Special Service troops and we let him get away. Kerry says that Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora and we turned over the hunt to Afghani war lords who let him escape. The insinuation is that the warlords were less than skilled or dedicated and that we couldn't be sure whose side they were on. Conclusion: George Bush's fault.

    Both Kerry and Edwards were members of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the years following 9/11. Dick Cheney chaired that Committee. During that period, any number of Intelligence Committee meetings included confidential agenda items about the whereabouts and search for Bin Laden. Both Kerry and Edwards were absent from 70% of the meetings of that Committee. Not 50%  –  70%. Does that strike you as being Presidential? Or as being a wartime leader? Or conscientiously representing your constituency? With that kind of track record, it is a bit sanctimonious for Kerry to pontificate about letting Bin Laden “get away”. But in a larger sense it is understandable that Kerry wouldn't know too much about the search from Bin Laden since he didn't even bother to show up at most of the Intel meetings.    Kerry has yet to comment on his own absentee record. Wonder why??

    The more I think about it, maybe the Senate Intelligence Committee functioned better with Kerry and Edwards being absent. Just a thought.

EVASIVE

     Last time, I chided Mr Kerry in Debate #3 for evading s direct question from Bob Schiefer about flu shots  — and Schiefer let him get away with it. But Geo Bush did the same thing. His direct question related to the minimum wage, and he spent all of his time talking about education. Schiefer was useless again. That's why the term “debate” is laughable. Wouldn't it be fun to allow the candidates to go at each other  — face to face  — and actually debate? Not a chance  — the handlers of both men prepared 5-6 scripts with the instuction to make those pitches regardless of the questions trhat were posed. And thus the farce unfolded..

     For all voters, it would have been much more instructive to allow Kerry and Bush to really debate  what to do about Social Security. Most Americans (regrettably) think that they really DO have a Social Security account, while the truth is that their current contributions come in the front door at the Treasury Department and immediately go out the back door to pay current recipients. They have zero  — nada  — nothing, except a promise. Demographics say that within several years, the outflow of dollars will greatly exceed the inflow  – meaning that balancing the cash flow will be a serious crisis. Bush says he would privatize a portion of Social Security taxes  — on a voluntary basis. Kerry says he will NOT privatize any part of Social Security. So what does he propose  – if anything?

     This is not just an academic exercise. The status quo is admittedly unacceptable. So the very real question continues  — what should we do? I think that a frank exchange of ideas and proposals would have been very revealing about the two candidates. But Schiefer didn't ask the question or pursue the issue.

     When I think about my 401K and IRA, I am very impressed with the idea of personal savings  — as contrasted to a government program based on questionable premises and promises that ignore the harsh realities of economics. What do we do  — cut the benefits, extend the age of retirement further, or raise taxes  — or maybe all three?? I'd love to hear the 2004 candidates debate the matter when their feet are held to the fire and they can't run and hide. . Fat chance  – Kerry won't come within 20 years of touching  Social Security.

     This isn't Boston's Bunker Hill. It's more like Mt. McKinley. And Kerry just pretends it isn't there. The issue isn't simple  — but ignoring it and doing nothing about it won't solve anything. Don't hold your breath if Kerry wins.