Opaque Lucidity

Metaphysical Earning Power

It would seem that Elvis is worth more dead than he was alive. Irvin Berlin? Bob Marley? Wow.

Black Tuesday

75 years ago today, the New York Stock Exchange essentially bottomed out, causing thousands of investors to lose billions of dollars. History would record this day as the beginning of the Great Depression.

The post-World War boom years of the 1920's saw stock speculation explode in this country. While only a small percentage of the population actually owned stock (compared to over half of Americans today), the stock market reached values thought unattainable even a decade before. There was talk that the boom was inexhaustible, and there was evidence that this was true: industries were increasing production exponentially, unemployment was low and the world was, for the most part, at peace.

By the summer of 1929, there were signs of a slowdown. Unemployment was up and the nation as a whole had racked up more debt than ever before (back then, you could buy stock with very little money up front; you could pay for the rest of it with the divedends). As a result, much of the market was overvalued, some sectors dangerously so. But the band played on.

The stock market did not actually crash in one day. The slide began in September and continued into October. What makes the 29th important is the volume of trades which occured on that day. After that Tuesday, stocks actually gained a little, since they no place to go but up. But the damage had been done. Investment houses went broke, nearly half the banks in the country went under because they were sitting on defaulted loans which could not be liquidated, and unemployment began to soar. By 1933, 30 percent of the American workforce was unemployed.

If you talk to people who lived through those times, their memories are generally of sacrifice and deprivation, but also of unity. My grandmother (my mother's mother) told me once that they always had Sunday dinner with the entire extended family because it was easier and cheaper to feed everyone if the pool of people who brought food was bigger. My father, born in 1933, said that he remembers always having guests in the house for dinner. Sometimes, it was a friend of the family who was going through tough times. Occasionally, it was someone that his father had picked up on the side of the road (imagine doing that today). They always had an uncle and aunt or cousins living with them.

From and economist's standpoint, the depression did not end until America entered World War Two at the end of 1941. The boys and girls who came of age during the 30's became the men and women who fought and won that war. Most of them had only known sacrifice and hard work in their daily lives. My dad, talking about being a young man during the war, once told me, "Rationing was no big deal to us. We didn't have anything before the war." I have always thought that the hardship endured by those young people prepared them to be the greatest force for freedom the world had ever known.

5

I want this election to be over. I am passionate about it, yet I look forward to knowing the outcome. I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that we will not know the results by November 3rd; like 2000, the election results may be an early Christmas present (or a lump of coal, depending). Barring any huge stories, today is the last day I will comment on the election until after November 2nd. I want to be at full steam by the time the election season is over.

By now, you know the story of the 380 tons of explosives missing from Al Qaaqaa (I love that name). Despite the fact that embedded journalists saw with their own eyes that the items were gone by the time the 101st Airborne arrived on the scene, the Kerry campaign is trying their best to make this story their last-minute surprise. Judging by how hard they're beating this dead horse, I can not help but believe that this is the last round in the magazine. It also seems unusual that the NY Times and CBS both had stories crafted around this which were carefully timed to the Kerry push. But I digress.

We have heard much in the past 18 months about the mistakes made in Iraq. "They" say that logistical planning for the invasion was poor, there was no plan for an occupation, there was no plan to battle an insurgency or terrorists from other countries, or that there is no exit strategy. Having been in one of the branches of our military, I can definitely say that there were and are plans for all of these things; the question is in how or if the plan is carried out.

During the summer of 1944, the Allies were in an unexpectedly good situation in Europe. The Normandy invasion was successful, Paris was liberated and most war planners imagined that the war could be over by the end of the year. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, was executing a "broad front" offense. Instead of making jabs and thrusts towards strategic points on the continent, the armies were pushing on one front across France towards Germany. General Patton and Field Marshal Montgomery, who both had egos the size of large buildings and despised each other, wanted to circle around large parts of the German Army and drive right to Berlin. Montgomery was allowed to make an attempt at this by pushing into Holland, but the attempt failed at the cost of many American paratroopers and an entire British division. This reinforced the idea that Eisenhower, while moving slower, was doing it right.

As November turned to December that year, the Allied armies neared the German border. In the Ardenne forest, there were inklings of some sort of buildup on the German side. But the planners, confident of quick victory, claimed that the Germans did not have the resources left to mount a major offensive. The Allies were stretched thin up and down the continent, but it didn't seem to matter.

On December 16, 3 German armies (that's 29 divisions, or nearly 300,000 men) broke through the 106th Division lines. The 106th could've guarded four or five miles of front with their equipment and manpower; they were guarding 21 miles. The Germans were trying to drive to Antwerp, the largest liberated port in Europe. They were also trying to drive a wedge in relations between the US and Britain, a relationship that was, despite what we now think, very rocky at times.

When it was all over, the Battle of the Bulge finished the German Army and was a disaster for the Allies. 80,000 Americans were killed during the offensive. It was the largest land battle of the war. The generals, sensing victory, had gotten it wrong. In modern terms, it would be the equivalent of the US invading Iraq only to find that the Iraqis had a 2-million man army with thousands of new tanks and aircraft.

So who was held responsible and punished? No one. Eisenhower went on to become a successful President. General Patton, probably the only man in Europe who knew what was going to happen before it happened, was eventually fired for makeing anti-Soviet comments and died from injuries he recieved in a car accident in December, 1945. On the homefront, life went on. As morbid as it sounds, Americans had come to understand great loss of life as necessary for the preservation of freedom. Grim determination won the day.

So why is our reaction to mistakes in war so different now? I believe there are several reasons. First, we have to come to expect our wars to be virtually bloodless and without cost. We can often accomplish with a cruise missle what used to take a seaborne invasion. Our military is so well trained compared to the armies we fielded in previous generations that they make it look easy (witness the first Gulf War). When they do run into difficulties, it is easy to see it as failure.

Second, our media has more access to military operations than ever before. Claims of censorship during the early days of the Iraq campaign would be laughed at by the reporters who covered World War Two. Then, every report and photograph had to pass muster before it was released. It was not just for military reasons, either; until 1944, no newspaper was allowed to carry pictures of dead Americans. A more involved media means that we are closer to the action, so much so that it is sometimes possible to follow operations almost step-by-step. It's hard to spin mistakes when they happen on live TV or in front of the press corps.

Third, and more sadly, military deaths are treated as political tools now more than ever. Witness the firestorm surrounding the 1,000th American death in Iraq. It was a nice, round number to be thrown about, as if the 999th American to die wasn't quite as significant. John Kerry has made it a habit throughout this campaign to refer to our military as "kids". This ignores the fact that the men and women in our military, while mostly young, are all volunteers who act professionally and are the best in the world at what they do. Calling them "kids" is demeaning and, to my mind at least, denotes a sort of naive ignorance. The fact that the Army is exceeding its re-enlistment goals tells me all I need to know.

And so that's it. When you vote on Tuesday, please try to remember actions instead of words, voting records instead of stump speeches. Our next President will not only be our leader, but the leader of the free world. The next four years may present us with challenges we haven't even begun to imagine; please choose wisely.

Equality of Opinion

I had an interesting debate with some friends last night and the point was made that both sides in this campaign are guilty of dirty tricks of one kind or another. While this may be true to some degree, it's not completely accurate. One doesn't have to look very hard to see example after example of Democrats openly trying to cheat in places like Florida, Ohio and Michigan by flooding the precincts with phony absentee ballots, suing over imagined "bullying" and on and on. You can accuse the Republicans of dirty tricks (and you can probably find some), but they do not rise to the level of fraud we are seeing at the DNC.

I have never claimed to be impartial; it's natural to assume that I am going to point out Democratic flaws whenever I find them. But I believe that well-meaning people making the claim that "both sides do it" continue a dangerous trend: they unwittingly further the idea that all opinions and positions are equal on moral, ethical and realistic terms.

Here's one example to which some of you night owls can relate. Art Bell and George Noory have guests on their Coast to Coast AM who discuss all variety of paranormal/extraterrestrial theories. No idea is out of bounds, even if it seems unlikely or even fraudulant on its face. Take orbs. Orbs, for the uninitiated, are the globes of light seen in many photographs taken in and around supposedly haunted sites. The orbs are spirits who are hanging around, waiting to be freed (or, in Chicago, to vote in the next election). Even a casual photographer will recognize these orbs as moisture caught inside the body of the camera and lens assembly. I can create orbs at will with a cheap 35MM camera and a rainy night. But on C2C, orbs are treated as a real phenomenon worthy of our attention.

Every once in a while, George or Art will have a skeptic on the show. If you only caught portions of the interviews, you would think that these skeptics are advocates of cannibalism, starting with children. They are treated with a certain amount of disdain and their proven facts are treated with no more respect than the vague theories put forth every other night on the show. Why? Because the skeptics' opinions tread on lesser opinions. Different opinions? No...lesser.

My long-winded point is that political correctness, once limited to the arena of the college campus, has grown to the point where it is beginning to affect things that matter in all of our lives, including politics. It requires us to treat all statements and positions on all issues with equal respect, a concept that would've been considered laughable a generation ago. Our forefathers understood that some people and their ideas do not merit serious consideration. This may seem cruel or insensitive, but it kept the serious, thoughtful people in office while the fringe elements stayed at home or preached in the pubs. And before you say it, I understand that many commonplace beliefs held today started out as fringe ideas. The difference is that people (like abolishinists) convinced large numbers of people of the rightness of their cause, thus making their ideas mainstream.

Today, the Left in this country embraces the fringe and seeks to make their ideas mainstream (like gay marriage) not through convincing people, but by forcing it down our throats via the use of lawyers and judges. The Dems are even willing to thwart the electoral process by going to the courts for perceived problems. They will have their opinions heard and made into law, even at the cost of democracy. So when people say that "both sides do it" or that "we have to give the same weight to all opinions", they are demonstrating a certain type of intellectual laziness. History has shown, over and over again, that some views are simply worth more.

Last Night

I've received a few e-mails concerning my post last night; let me say that everything's OK. Some of you who are new to my ramblings may not know that I sometimes use this blog to vent on personal issues. I understand if you want to skip over that stuff, but I really am curious as to your thoughts on faith. Now I return you to regular programming.

Got Faith?

I've written before about my problems with faith, both my own and how other peoples' faith shapes our world in both good and terrible ways. An event last week has me once again questioning myself on this issue, something that I grow increasingly less comfortable with.

Megan died in a car wreck last Tuesday. I didn't know her, but she was essentially a daughter to one of my co-workers. She was 19, in college and died because the front seat in her Ford Escort folded back and threw her head against the back seat, killing her instantly. Just like that. It could've been you.

I draw comfort from the fact that there may be a wise being in control of the universe, who knows that a butterfly in Africa causes a hurricane to come ashore in Floriday. He would say that Megan's death is part of a wider plan and that it has some sort of meaning from a cosmic perspective. The grieving are consoled in the belief that she is in a better place and that they will see her again.

Really? A loving, caring God allows this to happen? Innocents are aborted by the thousands every day, children step on landmines in countless places, evil men prosper while good men starve, and I'm supposed to believe that it's all for some great reason? IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN FUCKING DO?

My Catholic upbringing taught me that evil exists because of original sin, which created a sinful nature in man. So let me get this straight: I'm being punished for the sin of someone who lived thousands, perhaps millions, of years ago? A loving God feels the need to pass this stain of error to every human so that we have war, famine and the like?

Now, and not for the first time, I feel abandoned by the Church in which I was raised. It was bad enough when the Bishops of the Church shuffled pedophile priests around, but now they refuse to at least admonish a Catholic running for President who opposes every Church teaching of significance. He wears it like a thorny crown, and my Archbishop in Indianapolis is silent. They don't have to give an endorsement, which would threaten their tax excemption-----just remind us all where the Church stands on abortion, stem cell research, cloning, etc. Are you so afraid? Or are you just too comfortable? Maybe the moneychangers run the temple now.

So I need to know something from you as I sit here tonight: why do you have faith? What is it that you believe in that makes you willing to take something on the hope that it is the truth? What am I missing? Or why DON'T you believe?

You can use a fake name if you want, but I really hope you write something.

Ahhh, the Stench of Desperation

While I was in class yesterday, the Dems tried, for the 50th time in the past month, to make something out of nothing. This time, it concerned some explosives which are missing from Al QaQaa (pronounced Kaa-Kaa), an old Iraqi ammo dump. The NY Times breathlessly reported that up to 380 tons of the bad stuff is missing, presumably stolen under the nose of the hapless US occupation forces.

This would be worthwhile ammunition for the Kerry wonks, except for one little problem: the explosives were gone when 101st Airborne secured the area in April, 2003. NBC News had an embedded reporter with forward units of the Screaming Eagles and was an eyewitness to the missing goodies. Go figure---NBC News calling one on the NY Times. Look for the Four Horsemen any moment now.

So what will come of this? Nothing. The Kerry campaign is shotgunning now, trying to make something stick in this last week before the election. They will reload and try something else before the weekend. And, as has been the case for the last thirty years, stupid, uninformed people will buy into the lie. Hey, it worked for Goebbels.

Blue Monday

I have an all-day class tomorrow, so there probably won't be any posting. I'm sure that every day this week will contain serious campaign news, so I'll do my best to catch up on Tuesday.

Therezzzzza and Washington's Version of The 400

I hate to subject you guys to this, but it's Friday afternoon, it's been a very long week, and I'm in sort of a mood. I came across an article in the Washington Times (yes, I know it's owned by the Moonies) about Theresa Heinz-Kerry and what kind of First Lady she would be. Instead of linking to it, I thought I'd do some running commentary:

Federally funded Botox clinics. Diamond pickle pins. Fish stew for state dinners, followed by green tea and Portuguese pound cake. Pre-nups and private Gulfstream jets. Hermes bags, aromatherapy, homeopathic remedies and $4,000 Chanel suits. No more twin sets. No more twins. Blowsy hair, brassy mouth and bossy boots.
Is mainstream America ready for Teresa Heinz Kerry, a woman who radio host Don Imus wonders might be "too crazy to be first lady"?

If Don Imus wonders, then she's probably an 'effing loon.

"Well, they better be," said Betty Ford's former press secretary Sheila Weidenfeld. "I think she's going to be controversial, which is good. That's because she'll speak up."
"The French will love her," deadpanned Sheila Tate, Nancy Reagan's former press secretary.

I bet they will.

"Put it this way," said author and Forbes FYI editor Christopher Buckley, "I think Teresa Heinz would be by far the only thing to enjoy during what I suspect will be four dreary years of the human tree."

Best line of the article, that one.

For that reason, social Washington is salivating at the idea of a revitalized White House, with a multilingual, art-collecting, wine-drinking, garden-loving billionairess who calls herself "cheeky" and "sexy" running the salon.
Criticized as "bonkers" by her opponents, the unconventional Mrs. Kerry — who describes her detractors as "scumbags" — would be the first foreign-born first lady since John Quincy Adams' wife, Louisa, a native of London. And at the age of 66, she would be the oldest incoming first lady.
She would also be the wealthiest, having inherited an estate reportedly worth $500 million in 1991 ("my pile," as she jokes) after her first husband, ketchup heir and Pennsylvania Republican Sen. John H. Heinz III, was killed in an airplane crash.
She owns five luxury homes and a private plane, The Flying Squirrel. Mrs. Kerry's fortune — now estimated at $1.2 billion — has been her passport to a world of privilege and power far beyond that of the average political wife.
"She knows people in all walks of life," said Time magazine photographer Diana Walker, one of Mrs. Kerry's closest friends. "She knows where the brains are."
"What we're hungry for," said former Clinton administration official Ann Pincus, "is someone who's engaged."

By engaged, they mean a raving social liberal. She'll fit THAT bill.

The Bushes have been virtually incognito for the last four years. Harpers Bazaar recently referred to the first lady's style as "Marian the Librarian."
"Nobody's been to The White House," added Mrs. Pincus. "You don't know about them. There's no buzz." The president is a teetotaler and Laura Bush "doesn't even do lunches. It's like, 'Hello, is this 1958?' "
"Laura is a gracious person, but she's been relegated to being a pretty picture," noted publishing heiress Marie Ridder. "Whereas John Kerry does listen to Teresa, who has a powerful voice."
Her off-the-cuff remarks — including saying she only tacked on her husband's name for political reasons — differ radically from Mrs. Bush's quiet deference. But the real difference, observers say, is their personas.
"I think Washington will be more active" with Mrs. Kerry in the White House, said Democratic stalwart Esther Coopersmith. "I don't think John Kerry and Teresa will go to bed at 9 o'clock."

There's no buzz? Wow. You mean they work all day, go upstairs and go to bed? Gee, Wally, that might make them normal. I like the idea that my President goes to bed early. That means that he's awake during the day.

Described as "with it" by people she knows, Mrs. Kerry's sophisticated social circle is in stark contrast to Mrs. Bush's down-home Texas ways. Her politics are also starkly different.
Mrs. Kerry is pro-choice and pro-homosexual rights. Over the past decade, through the Heinz Endowments, she donated $8.1 million to the liberal nonprofit Tides Center, making hefty donations to the Three Rivers Community Foundation, which funds the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Pittsburgh. Marian Wright Edelman, Hillary Clinton's mentor and head of the Children's Defense Fund, has also been a recipient of Mrs. Kerry's largesse.

This is your potential First Lady: radical liberal causes. You Dems sure are a proud bunch.

Washington socialites speculate what a Kerry administration would bring. "I don't think they're going to serve grits in the White House," said Smith Bagley, whose wife Elizabeth was ambassador to Portugal during the Clinton administration.

This is a cultural slam, in case you didn't catch it. If you live south of the Mason Dixon line, you are uneducated, inbred white trash. You believe in God, which is stupid, and you vote Republican because you're a ruffian who likes guns and the military.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree on one point: Mrs. Kerry is an object of fascination.
"I think she has this kind of magic," said Mrs. Coopersmith's daughter Connie, a Democratic activist in her own right who did advance work for Mrs. Kerry recently. "She's a very subtle cross between Gina Lollobrigida and Sophia Loren. She's a real sensualist."

One thing here: Sophia Loren was hot. Heinz is not. I'll stop there.

According to her acquaintances, the aspiring first lady likes to stay up late, is a marvelous cook, has lots of diamonds and is given to wearing espadrilles on the rope line. She loves shoes, and sports spike-heeled Jimmy Choos with confidence. Her clothes, from such trustworthy labels as Armani, while designer, are not regarded as couture.
"I doubt there will ever be an exhibit of her clothes at the [Metropolitan Museum of Art]," added Connie Coopersmith. One of her close friends is Ari Kopelman, president of Chanel.
She is often tardy, explaining that she doesn't like to "be bossed around" by anyone.

I don't like to be "bossed" around either. That darn working day; you have to get up and be places on time. What a bunch of crap.

Some observers are worried at the prospect of an "engaged" first lady.
"The first lady is not elected to anything," said a former White House staffer. "The minute she thinks she is, she's in big trouble."
She and her husband don't always see eye to eye, and one recent report had the couple retreating to separate hotel rooms after a spat on the campaign trail.
"They argue, they discuss, they carry on," said Pie Friendly, longtime Washington hostess and friend. "Then they flirt. Then they argue some more."
Friends say the conversations are spirited and eclectic.
"Most political wives are anesthetized by the time they even get close to the White House," said French Wallop, ex-wife of former Republican Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming, "They are not able to speak their minds, terrorized by the staff or their husbands. Teresa doesn't give a fig leaf what anybody cares about her."

Ummm, yeah, I think we got that part.

Mrs. Wallop points out that the Bushes have only hosted "what, four or five state dinners in four years? These people don't understand that to get things done you have to have these stupid dinners."

Maybe, just maybe, the Bushes realize how stupid those dinners really are.

On the topic of Laura vs. Teresa, Mrs. Wallop said, "Middle America would find Laura Bush more palatable than an intimidating person such as Teresa."

Not intimidating----just a bitch. There is a difference. My e-mail address is on the left-hand side of this page.

First ladies traditionally have been most effective, observers agree, when they are simply supporting their husbands. "She's not going to do what Mrs. Carter did, sitting in Cabinet meetings," recalled Anne Wexler Duffy, who served as Rosalynn Carter's press secretary, and noted the rolled eyes and rueful winks in those meetings.
Born in Mozambique and schooled in Switzerland, Mrs. Kerry has an air of "colonial aristocracy," said one acquaintance. That has not endeared her to some voters. (She famously described herself as "African-American" to black audiences.)

Very smooth.

"Teresa is much more flamboyant," says Ina Ginsburg, the Vienna, Austrian-born former Washington editor of Andy Warhol's Interview magazine. Miss Ginsburg has known Mrs. Kerry for years — saying, "we shared a ski instructor" — and thinks she will be a wonderful change.
"It's non-Americans and Americans. It seems Europeans lose their temper. We're just more excitable."

Or something.

Return of the Bubba

Rumor has it that Bill Clinton wants to be the next UN Secretary-General. Hell, let him have it! Can you think of a job that would be better for him? Consider this:

1. The UN is full of nations run by dictators. Clinton will look like a saint compared to these guys. After all, he looks like a saint next to John Kerry.

2. Lots of fraud. The Food for Oil Program is only one example of how many, many people are getting rich from underhanded deals at the UN. Since Bill doesn't have a job, this would be an excellent source of tax-free income.

3. Hot interns. One can imagine how many young, nubile ladies from exotic locales are working at the UN in New York. Need I say more?

4. No real power. This is the clincher. The UN is pretty much ignored by the US, so putting Bill there wouldn't have the least bit of impact on any of our lives.

I'm only sort of kidding. Really.

If It's Not Close, They'll Cheat Anyway

The Army of Sleaze working for Kerry is ready to declare victory early on Nov. 2. If you read the linked article, you can't help coming away thinking that Kerry and his ilk believe that winning the election is only a matter of declaring victory and then putting the proper spin on the voting process. A SWAT team of lawyers? OH MY GOD!

It's bad enough this guy came home from Vietnam after four questionable months, gave aid and comfort to this nation's enemies, became the most liberal Senator in American history and changes positions more often than most people change underwear. Now, he's going to threaten the very roots of our democratic process as well.

Have you Dems had enough? How far are you going to let this go? Have you really gone that far afield? Mark my words: if these lawyers are unleashed on a close election, it will be the last free election this nation will ever have. Write it down.

Diana Speaks

Christopher Reeve's widow has endorsed John Kerry. Why is this news? Reeve and his wife were Democrats long before his riding accident. This sort of thing reminds me of Ron Reagan, son of the late President. He was very open about his liberalism during his father's presidency. Yet, when his father passed and Ron spoke at the DNC last summer, you would've thought King Tut was giving a speech. So why is this news? Because liberals love to have celebrities at their side. I think they believe it gives them some sort of credibility with the great unwashed (it may, if you read "People" magazine). However, a close look at some of the famous people pulling for Kerry makes me feel like a MENSA man.

Polls, Part Two

Interesting analysis on the 2002 two mid-term polls. Take a look and take heart.

Hi, My Name is Yassar*

Yassar Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are rooting for John Kerry. Now we only need to hear from Kim Jong Il and Osama. I kid, I kid !!!

*When I was little, my brother Kenny went to a college Halloween party dressed as Yassar Arafat. To make sure everyone knew who he was, he wore one of those "Hi, My Name Is" stickers with YASSAR in the name field. He was ahead of his time.

Running on the Poll

I heard this morning that, at this point during the 2000 campaign, G.W. had a 10 point lead over Al Gore in most polls. Of course, the last-minute drunk driving story stole most of that lead, but you have to wonder if the October polling was accurate. If you read the fine print, you will see that most Presidential polls query about 1000 people, presumably from all over the country. You will also notice that no two polls taken over the same period of time are ever identical, which makes me wonder. I'm not questioning the polltaker's honesty but rather their methods. People tend to forget poll numbers after an election unless they are very wrong, as was the case in 1948 (Remember the headline, "Dewey defeats Truman"?).

I was talking with my father this past weekend about the upcoming election and he made a great observation which had escaped my notice. He said that, in the past, the Democrats' behavior was directly related to how far behind they were in the polls. If the race is a dead heat, they tend to be more rational and limit themselves to banging on the other guy's record and saying how they will be different (this, IMHO, is what campaigns should be about). When they are behind, they go far afield with conspiracy theories and outright lies. Look at the two stories the Dems are trying to make stick: the upcoming draft (only the Dems in the House are talking about this; the Pentagon wants nothing to do with a draft) and disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida (investigations by the NY Times, Knight-Ridder, the AP and UPI turned up less than two dozen people turned away and this was only because they shared the same name as convicted felons).

Each side in a campaign conducts their own internal polls. Do the Dems know something we don't? Is this race not as close as the public polls would have us believe? If not, why are they shotgunning so much stuff?

With Bell and Hook

There is a move afoot to have John Kerry excommunicated. Those of you who are not Catholic have heard the term, but you may not know how serious a punishment it is. Excommunication deprives the offender of all the Sacraments of the Church, the reception of which is crucial for maintenance of one's Catholic identity.

Before the Protestant Reformation, excommunication was almost a death sentence. The excommunicated were excluded not only from Church life, but from social life as well. It was considered being "cast into the outer darkness". Excommunication was used as a weapon by some to keep the questioning in line. The spell of the threat did not relent until Henry VIII broke from the church entirely.

Since the time of the Second Vatican Council (1958-1962), excommunication has become more of a historical term, like exorcism. Mostly, it is reserved for errant priests, and even then it is used sparingly. In my lifetime, I can think of no members of the laity who have suffered the penalty. If the old standards were applied, almost every Catholic I know would have to be excommunicated. I believe the Church, rightly, has moved to a place where it believes that people can be changed if they are "kept on board" instead of abandoned. To cast someone out is to deny them salvation; who on Earth has the right to deny someone that?

John Kerry may indeed be excommunicated, but I don't think that will solve anything. The best thing Catholics can do is to vote against him, send him back to Massachusetts, and let his Archbishop deal with him.

Pretty Pony

Check this out. Not for those of you with dial-up connections, unless you have a great deal of patience.

A Call to Blog

Hugh Hewitt is, once again, holding a blog symposium based on this question: Why Vote for Bush and What's Wrong with Kerry? For the sake of time, I will summarize:

1. President Bush believes in the same America I do---an America that supports democracy around the world, will stop at nothing to defend it and is filled with hard-working people who are better off keeping more of their money.

2. President Bush is a leader in a war that will determine the future course of Western civilization. You can disagree with some of his decisions, but you can not deny that he recognizes what's at stake.

3. John Kerry does NOT recognize what's at stake. His statements lead all right-thinking people to believe that he will treat terrorism as a law enforcement operation that is best left to the whimsy of the U.N.

4. John Kerry came home and, while the better men than he were languishing as POWs in North Vietnam, he made statements in a public forum which gave aid and comfort to this nation's enemies. In an earlier time, this would've been considered treason. Too bad it's not considered that now.

I could go on, but those are my Big Four. Don't worry; the election is only 15 days away.

Today's Navy*

The sailors standing behind the Master Chief in this picture are wearing new concept Navy uniforms which may, one day, be the working uniform for all enlisted sailors and officers. Those of you who wore dungarees like me stand up and shout, "Bullshit!!!" in a loud, clear voice. Man, those uniforms were BAAAAAADDDDDD.

One thing, though: check out the cat nearest the photographer in the dark camo. Doesn't that look a little too much like some sort of SS uniform? Imagine him saying, "Your papers, pleeze." Am I wrong here? Anyone? Anyone?

*"Today's Navy" was a book in the library of Sacred Heart, my grade school. I started grade school in 1977, and the book was published in about 1959. By the time I was in eighth grade, it was 25 years old. I still thought it was cool. But then, I was a nerd.

Welcome Home, Pat?

Pat Buchanan, that firebrand of old-style conservatism (as opposed to Neo-Conservatism, the dirty word of the year) sounds like he is about to get on board with a second Bush term. The linked article is long, but worth a read. I am leery of Buchanan. He is a protectionist and, in my opinion, borders on anti-Semitism with his stance on Israel. But he's been around the block a time or four and he is, in the final analysis, worth listening to.

Saint Flip-Flop

Daniels vs. Kernan

Kelli and I went to the pre-debate rally for Mitch Daniels last night at the IU campus in New Albany (that's IUS to you locals). Daniels is the man running for governor against the incumbent Gov. Kernan here in Indiana. He ran the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) early in the Bush administration but quit to make his run. He gave us a short talk before the debate; he was clear, concise and didn't use any soundbyte-ready phrases.

This was our first time at a debate (we had to watch it remotely from another room) and I have to admit that it was intoxicating. I was amazed at how diverse the crowd was, considering that it was nearly all Republican. We have been sold the idea of conservatives as angry, Bible-thumping white guys (remember the "Angry White Males" in 1994?). The crowd last night contained a large number of people of all ages and races. It is reassuring.

All You Need to Know

Stealing from Fark, Again

Just something to start your day:

Ladder 49

Kelli and I saw 'Ladder 49' tonight and I can say without reservation that it is the finest movie I have seen in a while. It is unabashedly positive (although very sad) and, refreshingly, portrays Catholicism as a normal part of people's lives. I've never been a huge fan of either Joaquin Phoenix or John Travolta, but both of them carry the day here. A must see, even for the kids if they're over 10 or so and aren't scared too easily. There's some harsh language, but nothing they probably haven't heard at school.

As we sat there in the dark, I kept thinking of something I saw three years ago: a still from one of the stairwell cameras in a World Trade Center tower. The picture showed a line of people trying to get down the stairs. Moving past them, going up, was a group of firemen in a single-file line. They were running because they seemed a little blurry in the photo. Running.

I don't know how you fight a fire in a 110-story building. I remember reading that the NYC Fire Department was not wild about the WTC when it was built because of the height. But there those men were, going to a fire in the sky. They knew what the fuel was: aviation gas, about the most volatile stuff you're likely to run into. They also knew that it had been delivered there by a speeding jet, which had undoubtedly caused serious structural damage. But there they were.

Unless your're in New York, Chicago, Taipei or Kuala Lumpur, you don't live in a city with a 110-story monster sitting downtown. In our little burg, there's nothing over 10 stories. But our firemen face the same dangers---collapse, smoke inhalation, burns. We take for granted the fact that, if our house catches on fire, someone will be there to put it out. We rarely thank them because most of us never have to call them. Like most people, they would probably be embarassed by the praise.

Our firehouse is just 4 blocks from where we live. I drive by it often and wave if one of the guys is sitting in the station's little yard. They carry no weapons, but they are on guard, every day and night of the year, just in case I ever need to call them. Thank you.

What is Remembered

Kelli and I went to a wrap party last night for the IUS Review, a literary periodical for which Kelli had been one of the assistant editors. Unbeknownest to me, it was also a memorial service for one of the publication's sponsors, an English professor who died unexpectedly of brain cancer earlier this year. Students and faculty alike shed tears as they shared their rememberances of a man who loved to teach, loved the written word and loved to write poetry. He will undoubtedly be missed.

Eulogies are not the best source from which to derive the full measure of a person. No one mentions a person's faults once he is gone; we still seem to have respect for the dead. Instead, we see the peaks of the deceased's life and the impressions he left.

I have always been suspicious of people who search for a legacy. Our legacy is written for us in our everday actions, not in some post-game analysis laced with proper spin. When I look back upon my life thus far, there are things I hope will be long forgotten by the time I am gone. I do not know what will be said or written about me, for I (hopefully) have much life left to live. Some people are not defined by their youth or their middle age, but by the things they did in the twilight of their lives (Colonel Sanders comes to mind).

I believe the most any of us can hope for is to be remembered as people who loved well, taught much, listened more than we spoke, showed compassion often and strength when necessary, and left the world better than we found it.

Thoughts on Last Night

The guys over at Powerline have some great insights concerning the debate last night. Kerry did seem robotic compared to Bush's relaxed posture. Was he nervous?

Conditions of Discharge

The New York Sun ran an article yesterday concerning John Kerry's 1978 discharge from the Navy. It raises questions at to whether or not his first discharge (which would've been in 1972) was honorable. If what is alleged here is true, this is a big, big deal. Let's see if anything surfaces.

The Final

By the time you read this, the final Presidential debate will be over. I don't think there was a very clear winner, although I have to say that the President made his best showing tonight. John Kerry said, about 47 times, that he has a plan. I'm still not sure what the plan is, but I'm hoping I never have to find out.

And so begins the final phase of the campaign. My only advice would be to not focus on this time alone, but on what has happened over the course of the past four years. The man who wins the election in three weeks will get to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice, many federal judges and oversee what will, hopefully, be the final phase of our military involvement in Iraq. Your responsibility on November 2 will be an awesome one.

Special

Someone has been spending a little too much time over at Fark. There's no desperation like Democratic desperation.

The Use of Reeves

'Superman' was the first movie I ever saw with my parents. I guess I was six or seven and my mom got upset about the scene in which the naked little Superman plays in the crater made by his spaceship (you would have to know my mom to really appreciate this). To me, and to millions of other kids my age, Christopher Reeves is, and always will be, Superman.

After his accident, Reeves became a very visible spokesman for people who suffer from spinal cord injuries. Disturbingly, he also became a vocal advocate of embryonic stem cell research. Why is this disturbing? Because embryonic stem cell research would never have changed Reeve's life.

Stem cell research will, in time, touch every part of medicine. However, current embryonic stem cell research is focusing on short-term goals, like curing juvenile diabetes. Spinal cord regeneration, while a worthwhile goal, is far in the future and is not directly related to current embryonic stem cell research.

Reeves once made a statement that "George Bush is keeping me in this wheelchair". Not to speak ill of the dead, but this comment is simply wrong and shows that Reeves was a victim of his handlers. The fact is that President Bush is the first President to approve federal funding for any kind of stem cell research. The argument comes in when people discuss the embryonic part; Bush said in August 2001 that only those lines already in existance would receive federal funds. For the record, this did NOT make embryonic stem cell research illegal; it merely limited federal funding. The research continues in private labs all over the country along with other kinds of stem cell research.

Today, while speaking about Reeves, Little Johnny Edwards said that, if elected, he and Jean Kerrie would ensure that people would "get up out of that wheelchair and walk again". Not only is this statement way outside of the realities of modern medical science, but it shows how the Left in this country has turned this debate into a fact-free environment. Furthermore, what kind of dirtbag do you have to be to use the death of a famous person to further your political campaign? It sounds like something a trial lawyer would.....whoops, forget it.

Time Off

I forgot to mention that Kelli and I are off today and Tuesday, so the posting may be rather thin. We're actually getting out into the sun and leaving the internet connection behind for a little while. I'll talk to you in the morning, most likely.

Post-Game

Of the three debates we have seen thus far (two Presidential and one Vice-Presidential), the one tonight was my favorite. I thought the questions were wide-ranging and balanced. Both candidates were able to put out a lot of information (not all of it accurate, I'm sure) on issues from Iraq to stem cell research.

Did the President win? I think he improved and Kerry remained his usual self. G.W. needs to do several things before the next debate to improve his performance:

1. Slow down. He has a tendency to slur words (like his father did). Take your time. People will remember clarity over details.

2. Bone up on Kerry's voting record. This guy is a liberal's liberal. He's got a 20 year tail behind him to prove it. Make him eat it.

3. Since the last debate will be about domestic policy, learn who pays what when it comes to taxes. The upper ten percent of wage earners pay something like 70% of the taxes (those figures aren't exact; send me a link and I will correct myself)---they also employ people like me. Rich people make other people money, and it's time we talked about it. Honestly. As the President said, if you pay taxes, you should get a tax cut.

Lots Of...Whatever It Takes

Hugh Hewitt is hosting a blog symposium over some answers John Kerry gave in a recent interview. Kerry's audio fumblings don't surprise me much anymore because they are sort of a background noise for my dislike of liberalism and flip-floppery. But when you read some of these transcripts (please go read the one linked above), you can't help but wonder if the man isn't a little off-kilter, or at least incompetent.

His answer reminds me of my days in Texas. Cowboys football was always huge there and every talk station would, at some point, break format to talk about the latest playoff game or Superbowl shot. The question would always arise, "How are the Cowboys going to beat Team X?". The answer would arrive from professionals and caller alike, always along the same lines: "Well, we need a lot of speed, quickness and, by golly, we need to put the ball in the endzone." No specifics, just the obvious. After a while, I began to realize that the banter wasn't intended to be meaningful; it was meant to stir the faithful.

This is what we have here. Kerry's handlers know that words like "Lebanon" and a sense of hopeless doubt will keep the crowd in line. The answers don't need to make sense or help us form an opinion of policy. All they need to do is provoke an emotional response.

Shoptalk

It has come to my attention that there are several young people (people under 18) who read this weblog. While I am certainly flattered, this knowledge also makes me realize that I have certain responsibilities with regard to the language I use. With this in mind, I will make a concerted effort to refrain from using vulgarity. This will in no way change what we discuss here; that is, whatever I'm thinking about. It will only change the words I use.

I would also ask that you observe this restriction in your comments as well. 95% of the comments posted here are well-thought and well-written. The rest of you know who you are ;-). Other than the spam postings I regularly delete, I have only deleted one post from this blog. It conveyed a threat against an individual (not a public person, but someone I know) and, although it was meant as a joke, did not read as humor.

This brings me to another idea for which I welcome your input. I have the ability to grant user rights to this blog so that other people can post their thoughts as well. If any of you are interested in being a "co-poster" with me, please let me know. It would be nice to have a small group of people to do this with. Be advised, however, that I will hold you to the same editorial restrictions I hold myself; mainly the language restrictions I discussed above. Other than that, the sky's the limit!

Another Lesson

Liberals don't like history for a number of reasons. First, it is full of unhelpful facts pointing to the failures of socialism and what happens when nations attempt to placate thugs. It also reminds us of our better selves and harkens back to a time when our political debates, while still hot and sometimes personal, were built on foundations of mutual respect and the idea that political bickering should stop at the water's edge.

Hugh Hewitt reminds us today that there was a Presidential election campaign under way in 1944, sixty years ago. American, British, Canadian and French troops were dying in western Europe and the Pacific; while it was anticipated that the war against Germany would be over by Christmas (it wouldn't end until the following May), the war against Imperial Japan was anticipated to go until 1947 (a group of scientists in New Mexico was working to end the war sooner).

To borrow a phrase from Hewitt, no Republican questioned the logic of fighting against Germany when it was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor. You can call the comparison oversimplistic, but don't forget that there was a very strong movement in this country to pursue a "Pacific First" policy and leave Germany to England and the Soviet Union.

The Second World War reminds us of the sacrifices that Americans have made to ensure the survival of freedom and democracy around the world. Those who support our actions today compare our struggle to that of sixty years ago, but the comparison is flawed. This war will go on much longer and will be punctuated by periods of relative calm. There will be no peace treaties, no announcements of cease-fires. We will only know victory when we make the cost of terrorism so high that none dare attempt it.

The opponents of our defense frame Iraq (and undoubtedly future invasions) by comparing them to another war---the one in Vietnam. We hear the word "quagmire" a lot, especially from Kerry/Edwards. The fact that Saddam Hussein did not have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons ready for use means that the Bush Administration lied to the American people (wouldn't these same people be asking for someone's head had a WMD actually been used?). The Michael Moore legions have made uninformed dissent into a patriotic act of the highest order ("Asking questions is the American way"---but being an attention-craving asshat isn't, Mikey).

So if we are to be consistent in our comparisons, then we can not help but compare Kerry/Edwards, Moore, Kennedy and their lemmings in the media to those who saw fit to give aid and comfort to this nation's enemies during the war in Vietnam. While better men and woman did their duty (even though many of them did not agree with the war), the spoiled Boomers walked out of class and then, a generation later, have tried to make their actions into some kind of noble crusade. Unless, of course, you're running for President, in which case your treasonous anti-war activities are swept under the rug as youthful indiscretions.

In less than a month, the choice will be clear: we can continue on what I see as an honorable path worthy of the greatest generation or we can take a cultural move backwards towards usurpation of all we hold dear. Don't tell me that it's all equal.

The Number Twos

The debate last night was interesting for two reasons. First, it showed what a skilled debater John Edwards is. He stayed on focus, relayed the Dems' talking points again and again and was never left speechless. If I was looking for a slick lawyer to help me sue someone, he'd be the man.

Secondly, this debate showed what a good Vice-President Dick Cheney is. He is more than just a spare President; he is a trusted advisor who has command of the facts, is incredibly intelligent and is capable of consistent, thoughtful approach. Unlike Edwards, the VP wasn't talking out of a handbook of quips and one-liners (did you notice that Edwards went back to them when he was stumped by Cheney?), but rather speaking from experience and reason. He was brutal when speaking about Kerry's voting record, something that the Dems want to keep hidden behind a naval uniform from 1969. He also had a valid point when he spoke about the differences between slick campaigning and governance. Kerry and Edwards are both good campaigners, ala Bill Clinton; history has shown that those qualities do not necessarily make a good leader.

Many of you who e-mail me and post here claim to be free-thinkers who make up your own mind about issues. Based on what you saw last night, who would you rather have at your side?

After Tonight, Some Assembly Required

I love watching Dick Cheney. You may not like him, but you have to admit that the man is intelligent and dispassionate. When he debated Joe Lieberman in 2000 (a man who I disagree with on some issues but have great respect for), the result was a near-lovefest of agreement and mutual respect. This is what happens when gentlemen debate.

Do not expect the same thing tonight. John Edwards is a hightly successful trial attorney, a profession which requires one to be an excellent debater. He will give the VP a run for his money. Mr. Cheney, however, has experience behind him. He has been a Congressman, a Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, a CEO and Vice President. I can't imagine an issue that he's not knowledgeable about.

I've been looking forward to this debate more than the others because I really, really want Cheney to disassemble Edwards. The problem is, nothing less than a blowout will be considered a victory precisely because of Cheney's level of experience. We shall see.

The 4 Horsemen of Idiocy

I have a theory, a theory which I had time to perfect during my recent travels. I thought of everyone I know who regularly and proudly votes for Democrats and proclaims himself to be a Democrat. Some of you vote for Democrats but claim to "think" for yourselves. Whatever. All these people (and the ones whose thoughts I read on a regular basis) fall pretty neatly into one of four classifications:

1. The Uninformed. These are the people who get their news in 10 second chunks from MTV or Howard Stern. They don't know anything about how government works and they don't want to know. They DO know that they're not getting their fair share and that the Democrats "care more". President Bush "scares them" for some reason, but they are unable to say why.

2. The Hero Worshippers. These are the people who still believe that the Democrat Party today is still the party of Truman and Kennedy. Most of the time, these people are older and actually voted for Truman, Kennedy and Roosevelt. They don't know that LBJ took their party and Bill Clinton has yet to give it back. Zell Miller would give it back, but he is treated as a carrier of bubonic plague by the party. Hero Worshippers would vote for Stalin if he ran as a Democrat. They also believe that Democrats represent "the workin' man". Ummmm, OK. Only in the mind of the overpaid, overfed Teamsters hierarchy.

3. The Believers. These are the people who know the party is liberal and they like it. Hard core environmentalists, pro-abortion chicks and gun control nuts are all Believers. They vote for Democrats because voting for a Republican will cause them to lose their friends. They can not be swayed. This is the true core of the party: Michael Moore, Al Franken and their ilk. Don't you Dems feel all warm and cozy.

4. The Smart Guys. These are the people, men and women, who believe that they have arrived at their vote independently and that they are WAAAAYYYYY smarter than you. There are many, many people in this category: Hollywood actors, college students, teachers, that guy you work with who's a know-it-all, etc. They post long diatribes to online forums such as Slashdot anytime something political comes up. They send e-mails to their friends full of garbage they lifted from Der Speigel (they don't read it; they just quote it). They try to dominate little groups in chat rooms, even though they are in control of nothing in the real world. They hate America and think Europe is the future. They believe that Americans have no culture. The Holy Undecided Who Vote for Liberals belong in this group.

So there you have it. If you're going to vote for Kerry next month, you fit into one of these classifications. Oh, boy...here it comes.

Crib Sheet For JFK?

Powerline and Drudge are both running with an assertion that Kerry may have had a cheat sheet during the debate Thursday night. I watched the video on Drudge and it does look as if, indeed, he did pull something out of his jacket. If so, then it is a violation of the debate rules.

Of course, the Dems will claim that this is desperation on the part of Republicans. The President did NOT do well, IMHO, and I don't look for the White House to comment on this story. But it just goes to show you what these lesser beings will do to win an election. Man, if this thing is close on November 2, you're going to see the liberal lawyer army crawling over everything, democracy be damned.

BTW, I finished "Unfit for Command" this weekend. I might talk more about it later but, suffice it say, if you read that book and still vote for Kerry, well....I guess there's no hope for you.

If Only

When I was little, I used to play this game in which I would retrace the steps of my day, trying to remember everything I had done up to the present moment. It seems childish now, but try it once; you'd be shocked at the amount of lost and/or wasted time in your life. I know I have my fair share.

Traveling back home from my business travels on Friday left me with time to once again retrace my steps, but on a much larger scale. The branch of the tree that is my life has a distinct, finite beginning: a Sunday afternoon in April, 1989. That was the day I tripped backstage during the last presentation of 'The Wizard of Oz' and dislocated my shoulder. The injury resulted in surgery, which resulted in me missing my planned entry date into the Navy (June 2 of that year). Instead, I had to be reclassified. That was how I became involved in the Navy's vaunted Nuclear Power Program.

Were it not for that fall on that Sunday, two things would not have occured: I would not have come home on leave in November, 1990 and asked my future wife out on a date (she was recently out of a relationship; had I come home earlier or too much later, I would've been out of luck), and I would never have moved to Texas.

Texas came to be because of my best friend and fellow sailor Peter, whose Bronx-born family calls Dallas home. I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my experiences in the Navy and in Dallas did more to shape the man I am today than any other events since my childhood. The Navy taught me about discipline, teamwork and hard work; Texas taught me the value and construction of good relationships (sometimes by showing me what I didn't want) and the worth of loyalty.

Texas and the Navy still linger in me. The Navy is a group of memories, sometimes so far removed that they seem like a different lifetime. Texas is still alive for me and the people there are still very much a part of my life. I was there on Thursday and Friday for business, but had a short time to see Peter and his family. The gang, as it was, no longer exists. Any six people would tell six different stories about the how's and the why's; I will not discuss them here. What remains is a shell, a facade of something held together by long-ago held affections and devotion to things no longer held dear.

All that remains for me is loyalty to a friend who I love as a brother. His family will be my family; his friends will be my friends. This may seem blind to many of you, but there is a point in a man's life when he must come to respect some opinions more than others. This is not the course I chose; it has been chosen for me over the years. The days of hearing arguments and trying to be impartial are over. I can not rebuild what was, as I have tried to do for so long. I must make the best of what is and cling to those few who I know and trust. I will not close anyone out, nor will I make acommadations for them at the expense of a lifelong friendship that has seen great times and rough weather.

I read 'Winter Dreams' again Thursday night. It is F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story about young love and the loss of it, something which the main character never gets over. Years later, he hears news of his lost love and her loveless, abusive marriage. He has gained the world, but loses his heart again in that moment. But he has a realization that he must live the life he has and block what was, for it is lost forever: "I can not cry, I can not care. That thing is gone, that thing is gone. It will come back no more."

I know this seems off the beaten path for some of you, especially the newer readers. Monday is another day, and I will once again turn back to the world. There is much to talk about.