www.downingworld.com

archives: October, 2004

Can't Anyone Link? Plus, the UN Connection
Can't anyone link two thoughts together and see the contradictions? Sen. Kerry continues to blather on and on, contradicting himself, and then putting on that Snidely Whiplash sneer as he revels in his own evil genius in getting away with it.

For example, he's running TV ads that brag, "I defended this country as a young man." Senator, if you were defending this country with your service in Vietnam, then why did you return home and protest the war, saying it was wrong?

Was it wrong to defend America? Or was the Vietnam War NOT wrong, after all? If that's the case, Senator, then why don't you apologize for your baby-killer protester histrionics?

Another example of people who can't link. Last night I had our local KSTP-TV 10:00 pm newscast on. The station has some footage of explosives that their reporters shot in Iraq "at or near" the Al-Qaqaa munitions depot. No one knows for sure whether this was Al-Qaqaa, or just what sorts of explosives are being shown in the video. But they're playing it for all they can.

As she stretched out the story, the anchorwoman told us that the Al-Qaqaa depot was the place Sadamm would have gone to get supplies to build a nuclear weapon. Now, she said, the fear is that materials from Al-Qaqaa may enable terrorists -- or Iran -- to build a nuclear bomb.

Hold on! The media have spent the past year telling us that Sadamm had no intent to build a nuclear device, had no means to build a nuclear device, and did not have materials to build a nuclear device. We've been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied. The war was unwarranted.

Now, they're all upset that Bush's "incompetence" is letting terrorists get WMDs! But you told us there aren't any WMDs!

Which is it?

The truth is, it doesn't matter. If they can scare us and hurt the President, they count that as a good day's work.

The UN Connection

This tempest in a teapot started with the UN. Could there be a UN link to the presidential campaign? Does anyone remember my column of July 8? I'll reprint it here:

First published online July 8, 2004

A UN Plant in the White House? Call Out the Black Helicopters! Has it occurred to anyone else that if the John-John ticket wins in November, we'll have a foreign-born First Lady? So what? Well, the Constitution requires that the President be not only a citizen, but a natural-born citizen. So it just seems a little strange that a First Lady might be foreign born. Sounds sort of like one of those European arranged royal marriages of convenience.

According to the johnkerry.com website, she was born in Mozambique, educated in South Africa and Switzerland, and then came to the U.S. to WORK FOR THE UNITED NATIONS! That ought to give pause to those who are concerned that the UN is trying to take over our country!

It's said that the "native-born" requirement is in the Constitution to make sure no foreign power "plants" someone here to become our President. What if a UN "plant" became First Lady?! That ought to keep the Black Helicopter crowd busy!

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Kerry Says Shoot First, Ask Questions Later
Senator John Kerry continues to say whatever he thinks will help him at the moment. One of the more amazing statements that Kerry isn't being questioned on is running over and over in a TV ad. He says, "We're gonna hunt down the terrorists. We'll kill them."

Pretty strong words for the liberal candidate. He doesn't say, "I'll keep America safe from terrorists" or "We'll bring terrorists to justice." No, he's going to hunt them down and kill them. No arrest, no trial. Shoot first, ask questions later. Isn't that the sort of action that Bush is criticized for?

I wonder what Kerry's views are on capital punishment? I'm guessing he tries to have it both ways. I'm going to check his website.

Not much help there. Some mention that he supports the death penalty for terrorists who have "declared war on America." No mention of what constitutes such a "declaration."

But no mention at all about capital punishment.

We mere mortals might think that this is just more of Kerry's vague, flip-flopping doubletalk. But people smarter than us -- people who will vote for Kerry -- know he's just being "nuanced."

Now, Kerry and his friends in the media are all upset about "missing" explosives in Iraq. Maybe the "missing" explosives are wherever the WMDs are. Critics say that if you can't find WMDs, then they never existed. But if you can't find these explosives, it's because Bush personally lost them. Maybe they never existed, either.

Meanwhile, Kerry says, "We went over there to prevent weapons of any means of destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists."

Then why all the fuss about not finding WMDs? They keep saying it was all about WMDs, and since stockpiles of WMDs haven't been found, Bush "lied," and the war was unjustified.

Now Kerry says it was about all types of weapons, not just so-called WMDs.

Which is it? And why doesn't someone ask Kerry? A truth seeker like Dan Rather or Michael Moore, perhaps?

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Criminals Have Broken the "Criminal Social Contract": 9/11, C-Store Link
Increasingly, thugs who used to simply take money from convenience stores are now taking the money AND shooting the clerk, too.

There's a link to 9/11.

In both cases, the bad guys are not holding up their end of the bargain. I'll try to explain. You see, it used to be that in a store robbery or a highjacking, there was a "deal" struck between the victims and perpetrators. There was a transaction that took place, and each party got something out of it. The bad guy got money or an air transit; the victims got to keep their lives.

"Do as I say, and no one will get hurt." That used to be the terms of the deal.

But now, the bad guys don't hold up their end of the bargain. And that ruins it for everyone. The bad guys had a good thing going, in a sense. All they had to do was ask for the money or the airplane, and they got it. The victims handed it over, in exchange for their lives.

But now that the bad guys don't "pay up" by sparing the victims, there's no incentive for the victims to "accept" the transaction. Airplane passengers know they're better off resisting. Clerks know if they comply with the robber's demands, they'll die anyway. So they might as well fight back.

Now the robbers don't get their money, the clerks die, everyone loses.

In a way, it's another example of how appeasement doesn't work. For years we heard, "Just give the robber the money. It's not worth getting killed over it." On a case by case basis, that makes sense. Why should I get killed to save my boss $200?

But...that policy only served to encourage more and more convenience store robbers, who treated convenience stores as their personal cash machines. Who hasn't heard of a convenience store referred to as a Stop 'n' Rob?

If we had "just said no" to convenience store robbers years ago, maybe some clerks would have been shot then. But it's also possible that murderous, thieving thugs would have stopped viewing convenience stores as easy pickings years ago, before they became emboldened as they are now.

Monday, October 25, 2004

2000 Taught Them Nothing (Or Did It?)
We keep hearing about presidential election polls: Bush is up 2 points; Kerry is up 3 points, No, wait, they're even.

Didn't our wonderful news media learn anything from 2000? Remember? Al Gore garnered more votes than George W. Bush, yet Bush is president because he won in the electoral college. The electoral college is how a president is chosen. These polls of the "popular vote" are worthless. The Constitution never mentions a "popular vote."

What is going to matter is who wins the so-called "swing states" (which this year include Minnesota). So who is up by a few points in a nationwide poll is irrelevant. All that matters is who is winning the vote in those key states.

But try telling that to our enlightened, intellectual news media.

I suppose if I were cynical, I might suggest that the news people are fully aware of this. They just want to set up another "controversy" if Bush wins the presidency despite Kerry getting more total votes. "How can this happen!" they'll exclaim. "Bush is an illegitimate president!" they'll cry.

As if it had never happened before.

(And no, 2000 was not the first time, either.)

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Kerry Bashes Bosox?
It seems whatever President Bush says, Senator Kerry disagrees. Put that together with the Senator's predilection for pessimism, and I wonder what would happen if Bush were to make a statement complimenting Kerry's beloved Boston Red Sox?

Bush: "The Red Sox are a great team. They've really turned the corner, and this is the year they will finally win the World Series."

Kerry: "The President should pull his head out of the sand. Just because he says the Red Sox will win, doesn't make it so. This is the worst Red Sox team since the Great Depression! Wakefield starts with "W," and that stands for "wrong"! He's the wrong pitcher, in the wrong game, in the wrong stadium."

Bush: "Senator Kerry says he's a Red Sox fan, but now that they're in the World Series, he says he's not."

Kerry: "I actually cheered for the Red Sox, before I cheered against them."

Ridiculous? Of course. Do you think the real political rhetoric isn't?

Saturday, October 23, 2004 My sister Michele's Birthday. Happy Birthday!

Woodchuck Comes Out for Bush
This just in: In the wake of Senator John Kerry bragging about his hunting prowess (crawling on his belly to sneak up on deer; plunking woodchucks), Punxsutawney Phil today came out in favor of President George W. Bush.

Taking his cue from the celebrities who have threatened to leave the country if Bush is elected, the Pennsylvania woodchuck and media darling, famous for his spring weather prediction every Groundhog Day, said that if Kerry is elected, he will NOT be leaving his hole for the next four years.

"If they think I'm going to stick my neck out for Kerry, they're nuts," Phil said through a spokesperson. "Of course, that'll mean six more weeks of winter."

Told of Phil's remarks, a Kerry spokesman replied, "As we've been saying all along, John Kerry will do something about global warming."

Reached in a designer duck blind on the campaign trail, Senator Kerry said, "W stands for woodchuck. W stands for warming. W stands for wrong. So woodchucks are wrong."

Meanwhile, President Bush issued this statement: "How much wood would a woody, chuck, charles, woodrow, would wilson, pickett....... we won't get fooled again."

Friday, October 22, 2004

Quality and Quantity Cost More: Why Should Health Care Be Different?
Building on yesterday's topic, you might ask: So why does health care cost a lot?

Well, why shouldn't it? First of all, we use more and more of it. If you want a higher quantity of something, it's going to cost you more. Second, it's always getting more and more advanced. In a way, it's like our automobiles. Why do cars cost so much more than they used to? Inflation aside, they cost more because we get more. Cars are loaded with standard features that were once considered options. They're also loaded with new features -- like airbags and anti-lock brakes -- that are designed to keep us alive. Just like with health care, if we want new technologies that keep us alive longer, we have to pay for them.

But people expect to get something for nothing. They want to pay $10 and get $1000 worth of health care. That can't work. Someone is paying. It's either your employer or the government. But in either case, you're still paying. If your employer "gives" you health care coverage, it's in lieu of cash wages that could have been given to you. If your government "gives" you health care coverage, it's funded by taxes that are taken from you. There are no freebies.

Another problem is that despite all this talk about health "insurance," most of us don't have health insurance. Instead, we have pre-paid healthcare. Insurance is when you have coverage for large expenses that you can't pay out of pocket. Like if your house burns down. You don't expect your homeowner's insurance to pay to paint your house. But that's the way we use our health care coverage. We expect someone else to pay for ordinary, regular health care. Consequently, we have little incentive to be smart shoppers. When in doubt, go to the doctor. It might cost you a $15 co-pay, but someone else will pay the remainder of the $160 charge.

So if we use more and more, it's going to cost more and more. Where's the mystery in that?

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Political TV Ads Are Aimed at Stupid People
I've come to the conclusion that broadcast political ads are aimed at stupid people. If you have a brain, don't pay attention to any of the TV ads. For any of the candidates. Distortions, half-truths, outright lies. That's what they are. Full of unkeepable promises and ridiculous charges aimed at the opposition.

For instance, let's look at some presidential campaign ads that focus on health care. There's an ad for Bush that tries to scare us into thinking that John Kerry will turn all health care over to the government, and bureaucrats, not our doctors, will decide how to treat us. That's not true. Kerry hasn't proposed the all-encompassing plan Bush's ad threatens us with.

Meanwhile, in a Kerry ad, the dour Senator himself stares into the camera and claims that high health care costs are the fault of the Bush administration, for not letting everyone re-import drugs from Canada. Come on, as if that's the cause. Do you really think that's the whole problem, Senator? How will that help with the high cost of X-rays, surgeries, MRI's?

Maybe the debates are aimed at stupid people, too. After all, they're on TV. I heard just a few minutes of the third debate on the radio. It was the part where the President and the Senator were asked to explain the high cost of health care.

Bush said it's because of ambulance chasing trial lawyers (John Edwards) and the high cost of malpractice insurance. Please, give us some credit. While there is much to criticize in that regard, malpractice insurance is still only a very small percentage of the cost of health care. Just over 1 percent, according to what I read.

Then Kerry had his turn. He said something like, "One man stands between the American people and lower health care costs: George Bush, who won't let you get lower-priced prescription drugs from Canada."

So the Senator wants us to believe that George W. Bush is the reason health care is expensive? But he's been President only 4 years. So then why is it that 12 years ago, even before she was elected President, Hillary Clinton was promising us a government-run health care program because costs were too high? Costs were too high then, we had 8 years of Clintonion genius in which to solve the problem, and now Kerry expects us to believe that the problem is George W. Bush's fault? Because his administration doesn't remove restrictions on the re-importation of prescription drugs?

Canadian Drug Re-imports: A Fallacy of Composition

The whole get-your-pills-cheaper-from-Canada idea is nonsense, anyway. It can't work. Logically, it's a fallacy of composition -- that what works for one will work for the whole group. For instance, if one person stands to get a better view at a rock concert, then if everyone stands, they'll all have a better view. Real life experience tells us all that is not the case. No one ends up any better off, and now everyone has to stand. Likewise, a driver who sneaks through on a red light may get where he's going sooner. But if everyone sneaks through on the red, it just delays the traffic which now has the green, and overall, traffic moves no faster. (More slowly, probably, since people learn that they can't go as soon as the light turns green. They have to wait in case someone is still coming through on red.)

Likewise, if a few people get drugs re-imported from Canada, they may save money. But if everyone tries to do it, it won't work. The drug companies won't allow it. They'll stop selling pills to the relatively small Canadian market completely, before they allow their huge U.S. market to be supplied through Canada. Let the government declare that Canadian re-imports are the way to go, and watch what happens. Already, pharmaceutical companies are grousing and threatening to put an end to this.

That's because it's not a question of why do prescription drugs cost more in the U.S., the question is why do the prescription drugs cost less in Canada?

Because Americans are subsidizing Canadians.

Canadians pay less because their government demands it. They pay less than the true cost. In the U.S., we pay a price that allows the pharmaceutical companies to recoup their research costs and make a profit.

But the Canadian government mandates artificially low prices. If those were the prices everywhere, the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't have developed the drugs in the first place. It wouldn't have been worth their while. But the pharmaceutical companies still sell their wares in Canada, because the Canadian market is relatively small, and the marginal costs of producing more pills for Canada are still less than the government-mandated price they are paid.

And we in the U.S. pay the whole cost of research and development. If Canadians paid the market rate, then the market rate for everyone -- including Americans -- could be lower! If the Canadians would stop standing up, we could all see better!

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Front Porches Offer Glimpse Into "Vast Prosperity"
One recent morning, while walking around the other side of my block, I noticed three houses on which work was being performed on the front porch. Three front porches, one block, the same morning! One house was having the porch insulated, a second house was having the existing porch torn off and rebuilt, and a third house was having footings dug to build a front porch where one had not previously existed. (Also on the block that morning, a new garage was being painted.)

This was strong evidence of what Joe Soucheray would call VAST PROSPERITY. For decades, porches in St. Paul suffered from neglect. Many had even been removed by owners who didn't think they were worth spending money to fix.

Garages had been neglected, too. But for some time now St. Paul has been seeing a boom in garage building. Evidently the condition of St. Paul's garages has now improved to the point that we can move on to porch repair.

Vast prosperity. It's a good thing. I'm in favor of prosperity. I'm in favor of porches. I'm in favor of garages. I'm in favor of a St. Paul filled with houses and garages in great condition.

Vast prosperity. Yes!

My part of St. Paul is rife with home improvements, including many large home additions. But there's some sort of disconnect. My part of St. Paul is also riddled with Kerry campaign signs. The Kerry-ites insist that we don't have any prosperity. They talk like we're in the midst of the Great Depression. Meanwhile, they're adding on to their houses.

Very strange.

As for me, my humble home has been graced by both a new garage, and an addition that included a new porch. Life is good. I'm thankful for all that I have. Yet, somehow my wife and I have managed to do this while earning incomes that lag behind union workers, public employees, and public school teachers, three "beleaguered" groups that put their "hope" in John Kerry.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

A Profit Is Without Honor in My Own Country
On a radio news broadcast recently I heard a report that a box a flu vaccine had been stolen from a clinic. The reporter said that apparently someone stole the vaccine in order to "sell it at a profit."

Well, duh. If you steal something and then sell it, you're making a profit. No matter what price you sell it for. After all, you stole it.

But the bigger issue here is the idea, all too prevalent in America today, that selling something "at a profit" is bad. Keep your ears open for that. You'll hear people complaining that someone sold something "at a profit." It's like "profit" is a bad thing -- greedy, unfair, dishonest, or a way of cheating people.

How is a merchant supposed to stay in business if he doesn't sell at a profit? It's just more evidence that most people have jobs that keep them too far removed from the economy. They get a paycheck, but they see no connection between commerce and the paycheck being there. The paycheck is just something they are entitled to for showing up.

We'd be a stronger nation if more people were self-employed or worked on commission. Then they'd realize you have to produce in order to get paid.

Meanwhile, people who work for wages need to realize that they are selling their labor at a "profit" to their employer. Do they work for just what it costs them to eat each day? Of course not. The part of your paycheck that exceeds absolute minimum living expenses (your "cost") is "profit."

Monday, October 18, 2004

Stupidity on Display
I'm often amazed by the letters-to-the-editor that make it into print. Evidently, the newspaper doesn't consider making sense or having your "facts" straight to be necessary requirement for publishing a letter. Nonetheless, I bet many a stupid letter writer has seen his stupid letter in print and thought, See, they think I'm right.

Last Thursday's St. Paul Pioneer Press had a doozy of a leap of logic. A Bush critic, one Paul Bartlett of Eagan, went on and on with what he considered President Bush's false rationales for invading Iraq (Never mind whether Bush actually made those specific claims.). Then he concluded with this bizarre paragraph:

"And now for the whopper: According to the just released Duelfer Report, as reported in the Pioneer Press, Iraq was cheating in the U.N. oil-for-food program. What? Bush has repeatedly mocked and ridiculed the U.N. and now he is concerned with that U.N.-administered program? His justification for invading Iraq is now linked to the international organization that he has held in contempt?"

What is this guy's point? It sounds like he is trying to say that, since Bush has not been a big fan of the U.N. in the past, he now has no right to criticize the organization when it is implicated in an international criminal scandal. Huh? How does that work? Only fervent supporters may criticize an organization? But evidently, they can do it only once, because once they've criticized, they're no longer supporters. So it's like the U.N. becomes "vaccinated" against repeated criticism. Sort of the Clinton defense: What? That again? Can't we move on?

I hope this guy was a Bush supporter until he wrote this letter, otherwise, according to his "logic," he has no standing to criticize.

The truth is, the invasion of Iraq has always been linked to the U.N., and the way it had overtly or covertly propped up Saddam's regime.

The U.N. is a Joke
The United Nations is a joke. Really. Why was it created? The United Nations exists to keep the powers of the world from warring with each other. That was the goal of the failed League of Nations following World War I. After the globe went through World War II, the U.N. was created to, basically, tell Germany, "For the last time! Stop invading France!"

OK, I'm having fun there. But the reason for the U.N. was to keep the U.S., the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy and primarily other European nations from fighting with each other, as they had done for centuries. The way things turned out, though, the Cold War and the division of the world into two camps -- West and East -- made the U.N. largely irrelevant. The Cold War was a stabilizing factor that kept most of the world out of war. Ironic? Yes. But it's true.

Meanwhile, the U.N. has turned into an organization that tries to redistribute wealth, and lets banana republics led by tin-horn tyrants think they can tell the civilized powers what to do. Amazingly, many of the civilized powers have bought into this. President Bush doesn't. If that's a reason for the rest of the world to "hate" us, too bad for them.

Friday, October 15, 2004

President Spock? Not Everyone's Cut Out to be Captain
Yesterday, I talked about different ways of looking at the job of President: Who do you want? A Section 2 guy, or a Section 3 guy?

Today, I offer another perspective. Who do you want as your leader? Captain Kirk? or Mr. Spock?

Fans of the original Star Trek series should be able to relate. There was often a tension between the decisive, headstrong Captain Kirk, and the analytical, cerebral (dare I say "nuanced"?) Vulcan Mr. Spock.

Space cowboy Captain Kirk always did what he thought was right, often over the objections of his chief advisor, his first officer Mr. Spock. Since he was so much smarter than a mere human, the tall, long-faced Mr. Spock was always pointing out everything that could go wrong -- and everything that he thought the Captain had done wrong.

I often thought I'd make a better Spock than Kirk. Smart, knowledgeable, able to see all sides of the issue, wary of the consequences of his actions, always finding something else to consider. That's Mr. Spock. But he was too reliant on data, facts, probability.

Captain Kirk, meanwhile, was the human counterpoint to the logical Vulcan. He was decisive and strong in his conviction that doing the right thing was the right thing, even if there were high risks and high costs. At times he may have been overly impulsive, but Captain Kirk always valued justice and freedom above data and probabilities.

I don't think I would make a good Kirk. It's too hard for me to make those tough, command decisions. I'm more of a Mr. Spock. Lots of information. But just because I know a lot doesn't make me a good leader. I couldn't be President. I'd always be second-guessing myself. I'd be afraid to act, because I might be wrong. I'd always be finding something else to consider.

Who do you think would make a better President? Kirk or Spock?

Keep that in mind when you vote November 2.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Is "Who Won" a Valid Question?
Another debate last night, and the inevitable question: Who won? But is that a valid question?

In a competitive, academic debate, it is my understanding that either the "pro" side or the "con" side can win, based on who does a better job of presenting their arguments. A team that wins by arguing "pro" one week may win again the next while arguing "con." Winning isn't based on the relative "truth" or "justice" of a position, but on how well it is presented.

But a presidential debate is a different sort of critter. It's not really a debate at all. Rather, it's a chance for the candidates to state their positions and, hopefully, make a good impression on the voters. But since most voters already know the differences in the candidates' positions, and have formed their impressions of the men's character, the "debate" mostly just reinforces the pre-existing preferences of the voters.

Realistically, do you expect someone to say, "I agree with Bush on the issues, but Kerry has his facts better organized and he makes his case more eloquently. I'll vote for him"? Of course not.

That's why the "winner" is whoever you already planned to vote for. The guy repeated the things that made you want to vote for him before the debate, so in your mind, he's the winner.

What's the President's Job Description, Anyway?

Forget red states vs. blue states. The real question is: Are you a Section 2 Voter or a Section 3 Voter?

If you're going to hire someone, you need to know what it is that you want the hired person to do. If you want to hire a maintenance man, you want someone who knows plumbing, carpentry, electrical, and has janitorial skills. He or she doesn't have to have an MBA from Harvard, but he or she does need those other skills.

If you want to hire a CEO, maybe you want that MBA. Certainly, you want your new CEO to have management skills, planning skills, leadership skills. But you don't care whether he or she knows how to properly maintain the shine on the marble floor in the lobby.

Yeah, yeah, that's all obvious. What's my point?

My point is, when we are deciding which presidential candidate to "hire" as the chief executive of our nation, we should be asking ourselves, Just what is the president's job? But where can we look to find out? I mean, it's not like there's some sort of job description written down somewhere, is there?

Of course there is. It's in the U.S. Constitution.

Article II describes the office of the president. Section 1 describes how the president is to be elected and the terms of office. (Note: The words "popular vote" are nowhere to be found.) Section 2 describes the president's duties. Here are the president's constitutional duties, in the order they appear: 1) The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. 2) The President may make treaties with foreign powers and appoint ambassadors. 3) The President may fill vacancies in the Senate (since voided by the 17th Amendment).

Clearly, the primary intended Constitutional duties of the President were national defense and foreign relations.

But let's go on to Article II, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

It appears that in 2004, for much of the electorate, the focus of the President's job can be found in the vague phrase "...recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

Look at the political ads. From the Kerry camp we hear: "Health care costs have risen." "Good jobs have been lost." "Gas prices are high." "College costs are too high."

These issues aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

Kerry's campaign and support seem to be built upon an expansion of the vague "recommend" sentence in Section 3.

But from the Bush camp we hear: "Strong on defense." "Protect our borders." "Fight terrorism." "Oppose evil tyrants."

Bush's campaign and support are focused on Section 2, the primary duties of the President.

It seems clear to me that supporters of Bush want to hire a guy to do the job as laid out in the job description, as intended by the Founding Fathers. But what do Kerry supporters want? They seem to want a guy who will take care of them -- give them good jobs, make sure they don't have to pay "too much" for life saving medical care, and keep gasoline cheap (While we also wean ourselves from foreign oil? How's that going to work?).

Kerry supporters want socialism. Yes, it's that simple. They want the government to provide them with high-paying jobs, but keep the cost of living low by providing them with the things they want. How will they do this? By taxing the rich. Make someone else pay for it.

That's socialism, in my book.

But the Siren Song of the Socialist Is Hard to Resist

And it appeals to people. It really does. The truth is, we've all gotten pretty good at demanding something for nothing. And both Republicans and Democrats are all to willing to give it to us. As Edward Lotterman writes in discussing the national debt in today's (10/14/2004) St. Paul Pioneer Press:

"This dilemma -- that one can expect the candidates of both major parties to increase the national debt -- says much about the American public. We apparently are unwilling to demand change. Deficits reduce national savings along with investment in new plants, equipment and technology. Deficits raise interest rates. A larger national debt means that a higher proportion of our children's taxes will go toward paying interest.

"All of these are bad outcomes, yet the choices that lead to such bad results have bipartisan support. As cartoonist Walt Kelly's Pogo once said, 'We have met the enemy and he is us.'"

Yes, the annual budget deficit and the compounding national debt are our own doing. Once upon a time, Republicans railed against debt. They demanded a balanced budget. But then a funny thing happened. They rose to power in Congress, and they found out that when you're in charge of the purse strings -- and you want to stay there -- it's hard to be frugal. Now, strangely enough, it's Democrats who rail against deficits. But they'll change their tune again as soon as they regain the majority.

I've done some checking, and I trust someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that our annual federal budget deficit right now is over $400 billion. Meanwhile, we are paying out over $300 billion in interest on our previous deficits -- the accumulated debt. That means most of the amount we're "short" is being eaten up by interest on our previous purchases. Gosh, it wouldn't be so hard to have a balanced budget, if we'd simply done so all along. That's exactly the same way people get themselves into a hole with credit card debt.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

She Was Asking for It! Laura Billings Blames the Victim
St. Paul Pioneer Press columnist Laura Billings really sent me for a loop with her Tuesday column. The liberal, feminist Ms. Billings analyzed the problem of lawn sign theft and vandalism, and arrived at the conclusion that it's the victim's fault! She wrote:

"Yet as painful as all of this may be, the fact is, you brought this on yourself. Having a political sign in your front yard is like choosing to wear a 'kick me' sign through the hallway of a junior high school. It is not advertising; it is an invitation to an argument, and you'd better expect to endure a few swipes."

You go, girl! And the next time some co-ed alleges that she was raped by a football player at a keg party (or some hotel clerk alleges assault by some basketball player), you make sure you let the little slut have it. What did she expect? Wearing that tight sweater and that short skirt? The girl was asking for it, isn't that right, Ms. Billings?

Just like someone who gets a beating (or worse) while hanging out in Loring Park; he's just getting what he's got coming to him. And suppose some woman goes to work in a traditionally male field. She's got no business complaining about so-called "sexual harassment." After all, what did she expect, parading her pretty young self in front of all those good old boys?

You say that's different? Those people are having their Constitutional rights violated? I guess you're right. I have no Constitutional right to free political speech, do I?

Hey, Laura, maybe Sid Hartman over at the StarTribune will introduce you to his close personal friend Bobby Knight ("If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it!"). You three great minds can sit down over your butterknife steaks and solve all of the world's problems.

More Saddam Atrocities Revealed
More reports today of mass graves being found in Iraq. More of Saddam's victims. Women. Children. Women bearing children. And yet we have people in this country who say Iraq and the world were better off with Saddam in power.

Yeah, and Mussollini made the trains run on time.

There are people who say that nothing we find in Iraq, other than WMDs, can justify the war. They say you can't find new justifications after the fact. There's a logic to that, but it can break down when applied to the real world. Let me make an analogy.

Suppose a doctor thinks you have a cancerous tumor, and you should have surgery. You undergo the surgery and guess what? No cancer is found! That doctor was wrong! He misled you into risky surgery!

But suppose that, in the process -- the surgery or pre-op or post-op exams -- it is discovered that you face another serious medical threat. A threat that would likely have killed you before it was discovered. Maybe it's an aneurysm or blocked arteries (I don't know, I'm no doctor.) You'd be pretty darn glad you were misled into that unnecessary surgery, wouldn't you?

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Whose Seat Is It, Anyway?
Yesterday, I heard the question asked: Is it proper to refer to Bush and Kerry as the "two candidates," or are they "the candidate" and "the incumbent"? It's a good question. I had a similar question myself recently, when I heard a radio news reporter talking about what "candidate Bush" was up to that day.

"Candidate Bush"? What did that mean? Was it meant as disrespect, not recognizing that he is the President? I decided not. Rather, the reporter was pointing out that the activities being reported on were Bush's campaign activities, rather than his official job activities. I decided that in this case, referring to the President as a "candidate" actually served a purpose in conveying precise information.

And an incumbent office holder seeking reelection really is a "candidate." We may have an "incumbent" and a "challenger," but both are "candidates." It's important that we note that, as it goes to the very heart of our political system.

They key point to remember is that we elect politicians to set terms. There are end dates. President Bush's term is up in January. Win, lose, or not run again on November 2, George W. Bush is President until January 20, 2005. No more, no less. Right now, he is running as a candidate for a new term, to begin January 20, 2005. His currently being the President gives him no claim on that new term. He has to win it. He's not like some sort of heavyweight champion boxer, who "owns" the title until he is dethroned. The term of the President is four years. No more, no less.

He doesn't "own" the office -- the people do. That's the heart of our system of government. We don't have a king. All power comes from the people.

That's why it really bugs me when I hear about someone running for so-and-so's "seat." Let's use Minnesota's 8th Congressional District as an example. Democrat Jim Oberstar has represented that district since "rap music" meant tapping out "shave-and-a-haircut" when you knocked on someone's door. But it's not Oberstar's seat. He has been repeatedly elected to two-year terms, but the seat belongs to the voters. They can place Oberstar in it over and over, but it's still not his. He's not a king who needs to be deposed. His term is always scheduled to end in two years. He cannot continue in the position unless he gets elected to a brand new term.

But you'll hear things like, "Republican Joe Blow is running for Oberstar's seat." It ain't his! It's up for grabs each election. Yes, as a practical matter, incumbents usually win reelection. But still, it's not Oberstar's seat. He doesn't own it. If he continues for another term, it's only because the voters saw fit to place him in the seat for another two years. Still, some day Oberstar will decide he's had enough. Then we'll have to listen to things like, "Democrat John Doe and Republican Joe Blow are vying for Oberstar's seat." Oberstar won't even be involved in the election, and they'll still call it his seat!

What's the big deal? Well, this sort of thinking reflects a problem in our political system. The longer a politician is in an office, the more likely it is that he will start to think the office is his, rather than the people's. Us calling it his office only reinforces that idea in his brain. And then he won't ever leave. He won't step aside for someone else. And we end up with lifetime politicians.

Would term limits help? I oppose term limits on principle. We have term limits in the form of elections. As I've pointed out, incumbents must be reelected over and over. Their terms do end. We can decide enough is enough.

The trouble is putting that into practice. Let's use Oberstar as an example, again. He easily wins reelection every two years, as his district votes overwhelmingly for Democrats. So what do you do if you are an 8th District Democrat who thinks Oberstar has overstayed his welcome? Vote for the Republican challenger? That wouldn't make any sense. Better the same old guy who votes the way you want, rather than a fresh face who doesn't vote the way you want.

To remedy that, you'd have to remove the incumbent at the party endorsement level. But I don't see that happening. The parties aren't about to turn their backs on proven winners.

Monday, October 11, 2004

CC & MLK: The Two Greatest Americans
Today is Columbus Day. It's a federal holiday, but it's largely a non-holiday for most Minnesotans. I understand that the day is a bigger deal in some parts of the country (New York) with large Italian-American populations.

Have you ever noticed that Columbus Day and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day are the only two national holidays that honor an individual? George Washington and Abe Lincoln no longer are honored on their birthdays. Now they just share the generic Presidents Day with all the other former heads of state. Even Jesus has had his birthday turned into the "winter holiday."

Since they are the only two men with a national holiday, I have to conclude that old CC and MLK are the two most important figures in our nation's history.

But not so fast. Old CC is under attack these days. He's not politically correct. And he wasn't even an American! So MLK is the most important American ever. Take that, George Washington, Father of His Country!

Here's a question for you. If it's OK for states like Minnesota to ignore Columbus Day, a holiday of importance to Italian-American Roman Catholics (CC's a saint, after all, isn't he?), if people can judge CC by the standards of the 21st century and find him wanting, if people can ignore his holiday because they decide he doesn't deserve one, then why is it "racism" if all states and all ethnic groups don't recognize or celebrate the MLK holiday?

Kerry's Permit Defense

Apparently, Sen. John Kerry has now said that he doesn't plan to win the War on Terror, he just wants to reduce terrorism to acceptable levels.

In the world of football, this strategy is sarcastically known as the "permit defense."

Funny, the liberals don't talk about reducing racism to acceptable levels. They don't talk about reducing child poverty to acceptable levels. They don't talk about reducing pollution to acceptable levels. No, they plan to eliminate all of these problems. And in some cases, they've been planning for decades. But despite decades of Great Society programs, they keep asking us to re-elect them, so they can solve the same old problems, which they tell us are worse than ever.

Maybe they should apply this "permit defense" philosophy to domestic social problems, too. Let's just accept these problems. Treat them as law enforcement issues. We'll save more than the $200 billion Kerry keeps talking about.

(And why is it that when Kerry says we can't eliminate terror, we can only manage it, he isn't raked over the media coals the way President Bush was when he said it might not be possible to "win" the war on terror in the conventional sense? -- see my Sept. 1 column below )

Saturday, October 9, 2004

Free Agency for Players, Free Agency for Fans: What Happened to Loyalty to the Home Team?
Today was the first day of pumpkin selling season. Also this afternoon, the Minnesota Twins were going to play the New York Yankees in a playoff game. Shortly before game time, a man stopped to buy a pumpkin. I noticed he was wearing a Yankees hat. But he wasn't a New Yorker in town for the game. He wore a shirt indicating he was a worker at the St. Paul Ford plant. His Minnesota-licensed car wasn't a rental; it was an older model. Clearly he was a Minnesotan. Why the Yankees hat? Where's his loyalty? (Come to think of it, the Ford worker was driving a GM car, too!)

Anyway, that's a good lead in to give you this little essay, which I wrote about a year ago:

--------

(9/19/2003)

A major link hit me square in the forehead this morning as I was delivering my children to the local public elementary school. There was a boy wearing a Minnesota Wild jersey, and another kid with a Minnesota Vikings jersey. They were coming under fire from other kids, who were saying "the Vikings suck" and "the Wild suck." The anti-Wild kid was saying that "the Stars are better," (even though he's not old enough to remember the North Stars) while the anti-Vikings kid, under my questioning, stated that "his" team is the Eagles. I asked if he was from Philadelphia. He said no, he just likes the Eagles better.

Now, this allegiance to non-hometown teams isn't brand new. I've noticed it for at least a decade. But I don't understand it. When I was their age 30 years ago, a kid who said the hometown team "sucked" and pledged his allegiance to another team would have been in for a pretty rough day on the playground, if you know what I mean. It just didn't happen.

That's when the light bulb lit up over my head. Loyalty has become nothing more than just another consumer product. People feel free to buy (root for) whatever product (team) is in fashion (popular or successful at the moment), or whichever one catches their eye.

It's the same as the way that people used to buy their hometown beer simply because it was "their" beer. But somewhere along the line, people were seduced by the allure of the big national brands, and they decided that old Grain Belt, Hamms and Schmidt just weren't good enough for them. There's almost no "hometown loyalty" in the beer business anymore, and sports loyalties may be headed the same way.

Now here's the big LINK: People are starting to view loyalty to country the same way. I can't find any reason to refuse to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance other than on sincere religious grounds or because a person is a citizen of another country (And even then, he should stand out of respect for his host country). But evidently we have some people in this country who think that when it comes to loyalty to country, they are free to shop around and decide which, if any country, they will buy into.

It seems we have some people who don't want to say the Pledge because their man is not in the White House. That's nonsense. It's not a Pledge of Allegiance to a man or a political party. It's a Pledge of Allegiance to OUR country. If you're not loyal to it, why are you here?

That doesn't mean you can't say the Pledge and still disagree with the policies of the government. Of course you can. But some people seem to be taking the view that since their man did not get elected, it's not their country anymore. They think it's Bush's country, and they don't want to pledge their allegiance to Bush.

But that's nonsense. To use a sports analogy, disagreeing with the President used to be more like disagreeing with the coach over who he should start at quarterback. You might think he's wrong, you might think he's not a very good coach, but it's still YOUR TEAM.

Or at least, it used to be that way. Now I guess you just find a different team to root for.

What's a common thread in all of these changes? Television. National advertising of beer bred consumer demand for the big brands. The proliferation of sports coverage -- and endorsements, video games, etc. -- makes nationwide stars out of athletes and teams. In the same way, television -- through news and entertainment -- not only constantly questions and ridicules our President, but it also gives us a previously unavailable view into other nations. That includes seeing how they "don't like us," and hearing about how so many things are so much better in all of these other, more enlightened nations. The result is a kid who can sit in an American classroom, getting a free education (and maybe free breakfast and lunch, too), while having the freedom to not participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, and still wish he or she were French.

Friday, October 8, 2004

The Trouble with Michael Moore's Visit to "U"
As of this writing, the latest information I have is that liberal filmmaker Michael Moore will be speaking at the University of Minnesota tonight (Friday, Oct. 8). His possible appearance at the "U" created a great deal of controversy when it was initially reported that he would receive $40,000 to speak. Campus Republicans rightly objected to the University paying out money for an anti-Bush campaign rally.

Now, the University claims it is not paying for the event, which will be sponsored by a liberal interest group. That group says they will pay Moore's expenses, but not a speaking fee. Hopefully they will also reimburse the university for indirect costs like security and use of Williams Arena. If that's the case, then we taxpayers shouldn't be up in arms. Let the fool speak.

But I'd like to talk about the initial reaction to the announcement that the U would be paying Moore to speak. Why did that bother people -- myself included -- so much? It was pointed out that the U has a long tradition of bringing in all sorts of speakers, many of whom are controversial. That's been seen as part of the mission of providing a liberal (small "l") education.

Why so much opposition to Moore?

I think there are several ways in which Moore's appearance differs from most speakers at the U. For one thing, Moore is associated not just with a certain philosophy or way of thinking, but with a specific political agenda. He directly attacks a particular candidate. He's more of a political operative than a thinker. He's clearly working to influence the election. And that election is now only three and a half weeks away.

In addition, there was the $40,000 figure. That struck people as a lot of money, especially to pay to someone whose appearances help him to sell more books and movies. Moore's appearance isn't about exposing students to a variety of ideas. It's about benefiting Moore: by earning him more money, and by influencing the election in the way Moore wants it to go.

Why should the taxpayers be party to that? If the U wants to bring in Moore for the intellectual value, wait until after the election.

Thursday, October 7, 2004

The Challenger As Co-President
Maybe you've heard about the school teacher who was forced to take the picture of President Bush off her classroom wall. But then again, maybe you haven't, because the story doesn't seem to be showing up in the daily paper. I heard about it on (evil, talk) radio Monday, and was waiting for more about it to come out in the paper. But that hasn't happened. So I used the (evil, conservative) Drudge Report website to find a link to the story on the website of the TV station that first reported it. You can find the story at http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_100304_middleschoolteacher.html

As reported by ABC7 TV news, a Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, middle school teacher had pictures of the U.S. presidents on a classroom bulletin board. Three parents confronted her and insisted that she either add John Kerry's photo to the display, or remove the photo of President Bush. She refused.

I'm guessing that she saw this as one of those "teachable moments," and informed the parents that Senator John Kerry is not now, nor has he ever been, President of the United States.

But, that was not good enough. She was told by school administrators that her "inflammatory politics" had disrupted the school, she was required to remove the display of presidents, and she was told to leave the building.

"There was no political intent, nor was there any political content in that photograph nor on the bulletin board," said the teacher, Shiba Pillai-Diaz. The English teacher said she is a Bush supporter, but she keeps politics out of her classroom. Whether or not she had been fired was not immediately clear.

Is it not a fact that George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States? How can merely recognizing that historical fact be considered some sort of not allowed partisan activism?

Meanwhile, I'm writing this after returning from accompanying my child's elementary school class on a field trip. Another parent on the trip was wearing both a Kerry campaign button on her shirt and a Kerry campaign sticker on her backpack. It didn't seem to me that I needed to complain about that.

And four years ago, my then-first grader came home and announced that we should vote for Gore because Bush would destroy the Alaskan wilderness. I asked where she got that idea, and she said, "My teacher said so."

But a picture of the sitting President on the classroom bulletin board? Controversial! Take it down.

Yes, by nature of being the incumbent and doing his job, the President will be in the public eye. That may include having school children see his photograph. But incumbency always has benefits, for any political office. Members of Congress benefit not only from publicity, but they use the Franking Privilege for free postage to inundate voters with "official business" mailings extolling their virtues.

But the fact that the President, just doing his job, ends up in the news seems to bother the news people. They seem to think they need to give equal time to the challenger. Yes, it can be hard to separate "just doing his job" from campaign activity, but the media take it too far. It sometimes seems as though they anoint the challenger as some sort of co-president.

If Bush does something newsworthy, they have to give equal coverage to whatever Kerry did that day. Or they give him a chance to say what Bush did is wrong. (It doesn't matter what Bush does, Kerry just says it's wrong. Maybe Bush could trick him, a la Bugs Bunny: WMDs. No WMDs. WMDs. No WMDs. No WMDs. WMDs! OK, have it your way.)

This is one of those things I'm going to have to pay closer attention to when the political tides turn and Democrats conquer Washington again. (Yes, it will happen sometime. I just don't know whether it will be sooner or later.) The next time an incumbent Democrat President is up for reelection, will the media treat his Republican challenger as a "co-president"? I'll have to watch for that.

And another thing I'm going to have to watch for is the way they like to say "House Republicans today passed a bill..." whenever there's controversial legislation. Or how they say "The Bush administration today..." every time anyone in the executive branch does anything that might not be popular. I thought they used to just say "The House passed a bill..." or "The Labor Department announced..." It seems like they take any opportunity to make Republicans look bad. But maybe they've always done it that way. Like I said, I'll have to watch when the tide turns.

Day-early post for Wednesday, October 6, 2004

Rockers In Mid-Life Crisis -- It's Never Enough
I already wrote about the "Vote for Change" Democratic concert tour Oct. 4, but I've got some additional thoughts to share as the tour hits St. Paul.

I wonder if a big part of this, from the musicians' perspective, is sort of a mid-life crisis. Look who's heading up this show, at least in St. Paul. Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M., John Fogerty. These guys have been around awhile. Maybe they're looking back on their lives and saying, Sure, I'm rich, I'm famous, I've partied my butt off, but what have I really done? Plus, the bloom has gone off their roses, so to speak. They're not the young stars they once were.

But their mid-life crisis is a little different from yours or mine. They've already had the red convertible. They've already had the young mistress (or several). They don't wonder if there's still time for that second career as a lounge singer.

So they're looking to make their mark on the world in some more grown-up way.

I guess no matter who you are or what you do, you always want more. Donald Trump was rich; now he's a rich TV celebrity. Notice how the other rich guys are jealous. They don't want to be left out. So now Mark Cuban and Richard Branson have their own TV shows. The money isn't enough, they want to be big TV stars, too.

People always want more. As a wise man once wrote:

"Poor man wanna be rich,
rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied,
till he rules everything."

Wait. That was Bruce Springsteen, in his song "Badlands."

Maybe old Bruce is pretty smart after all. He just needs to listen to himself.

Tuesday, October 5, 2004

Report on Tax Cuts Illustrates Different Perspectives, and Media Bias
A recent news story about Congress' wrangling over tax cuts provides us with a "teachable moment." The story illustrates three points: 1) Differences of opinion are frequently the result of looking at the same situation from different perspectives. 2) Which perspective you have determines what terminology you use to define the debate. 3) When the media pick which terminology they will use, "media bias" results.

Here's the lead paragraph from a story by Edmund L. Andrews of the New York Times. It was top-of-the-front-page in my Sept. 23 St. Paul Pioneer Press:

"Putting aside efforts to control the federal deficit before the elections, Republican and Democratic leaders agreed Wednesday to extend $145 billion worth of tax cuts sought by President Bush without trying to pay for them."

I emphasize the last six words because they are key. The idea that we must "pay for" a tax cut reflects a certain type of thinking. A type of thinking that regards tax cuts as some sort of government benefit being paid out to people. That sort of thinking comes about if you assume that there is some "right" level of taxation, and any deviation is an unnatural abnormality that must be "paid for." Taken to the extreme, this line of thought believes that ALL money belongs to the government, and any money that the government does not take from you is actually money that the government is giving to you. People with this perspective are usually called liberals.

But tax rates are, of course, arbitrary. They can be set as high or low as we want to make them. People who recognize this look at tax cuts differently. They start with the premise that the money is theirs, not the government's. We usually call these people conservatives.

Also at the heart of these differing perspectives is the question of which came first: the taxing? or the spending?

Liberals seem to put the spending first. They look at all the things they want to do with tax money, see how much tax money that will take, then they set the tax rate accordingly. They see expenditures as fixed and tax rates as flexible, so the tax rate must adjust to accommodate spending. This is what is going on now in St. Paul, as a new city council majority wants to raise property taxes.

Conservatives are more likely to first determine the desired tax rate, then see how much money will be available, and make spending decisions accordingly. They see tax rates as fixed and expenditures as flexible, so expenditures must adjust to accommodate tax revenues. This is the position of St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly, who vetoed the council's proposed property tax hike.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Dave, if the tax rate is lowered, then planned expenditures will have to be cut. That's what they mean by 'pay for.'"

I understand that. But remember what I said about terminology defining the debate. This story is reported from what I have described as the liberal perspective. The reporter shows his bias -- however unintentional -- by looking at tax cuts as a departure from the "correct" rate, and a benefit that the government is paying out to people. He seems to assume that the government already has the money, and now is paying some of it back to people. That's why he reports a tax cut as something to "pay for." He sees the spending as coming first. A conservative perspective might instead refer to the need to adjust spending in order to balance the new budget, which is based upon the lower tax rates.

Unfortunately, my point would be more clear if we weren't talking about the federal government. You see, our federal government doesn't balance its budget. We have a deficit year after year. So when Congress passes tax cuts and then fails to -- take your pick -- either "pay for" them or "adjust spending," it just adds to the deficit. If we were talking about the city of St. Paul, which must balance its budget, we'd actually have a better example. But with deficit spending, Congress isn't forced to recognize the relationship between taxing and spending. Thus they can get away with cutting taxes -- at least in the short term -- without making any tough decisions on the spending end of the equation.

So what should the tax rate be? Is there some magic number? Beats me. In the absence of scientific proof of the "best" tax rate, we instead have a system built on a tug-of-war between two philosophies: conservatives, who think a tax cut is good in and of itself; and liberals, who think a tax increase is good, because it allows increased government spending on worthy causes.

Either, or both, may be right -- in the short term. But consider what would happen if one philosophy won out. If we raised taxes year after year after year, eventually we'd approach 100% taxation. Obviously, that wouldn't work. If we cut taxes year after year after year, eventually we'd approach 0% taxation. Obviously, that wouldn't work, either.

So in the long run, maybe this adversarial, two-party, tug-of-war isn't so dumb after all.

Monday, October 4, 2004

Can't We Keep Art, Business and Politics Separate?
Tuesday brings the much publicized "Vote for Change" concert to St. Paul. Bruce Springsteen and R.E.M. headline a show to benefit America Coming Together, a group that hopes to "derail the right-wing Republican agenda by defeating George W. Bush and electing Democrats up and down the ticket."

There's been a lot of discussion about whether a person who likes the music, but disagrees with the musicians' politics, should go to the concert. I say no. Because it's no longer a concert. It's a campaign event -- a direct fundraiser with music. A person must judge it as that.

I never had a problem with musicians and actors being liberals. That's the nature of the beast. Like businessmen being conservatives. If I paid to partake of someone's art, I figured the artist could do as he or she wished with my money. If he wanted to make contributions to candidates I do not support, that's his right. If she wants to speak her mind, so be it.

But there was a separation between the artist's work and the artist's personal politics. I could buy the record, but I didn't have to buy the rhetoric. But now, it's as if the artists are saying, You're either with us or you're against us. The music belongs only to the true believers.

People used to say, Don't talk about politics or religion. That was good advice if you wanted to keep a civil relationship with your neighbors, many of whom you knew had views that differed from your own. Suppose you were a Republican, and you regularly got your hair cut at Charley's corner barbershop. But Charley was a Democrat. No problem. When you came in for a haircut, Charley made sure he talked to you about sports, not politics.

But now, we've got situations like my neighborhood coffee shop, which greets customers with an anti-Bush sign on the front door. Don't they want money from Republican coffee drinkers? Apparently not. Maybe they think "those people" don't live in the neighborhood. Or if they do, there aren't many of them. Not enough to care about.

It reflects that Minnesota liberal arrogance. All the normal people are like me, the liberal thinks. Republicans are just something you read about in the papers. Republicans aren't real people I might know or come into contact with in my neighborhood.

So they send the message: We don't care about you. You're less than human. We don't want your kind in here. We don't want your money.

Remind you of anything? Any time or place in our history?

Are we destined to backslide into segregation based on politics? Doing business and socializing only with those whose views mirror our own?

Friday, October 1, 2004

The Real Debate: Who Won?
Here's what I learned from Thursday's presidential debate: I can't lose! I'm supporting Bush, so if he wins, I win. But if Kerry wins, I win, too. Because all our problems will be solved. You see, he has "plans"! We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble-Up and eatin' that rainbow stew, and someone else will pay for it. And not only that, but someone else will be dying for us in Iraq!

Who won the debate? Your answer to that likely depends on who you wanted to win. Some true believers were so sure their man had won, that they began voting in his favor in the StarTribune online poll hours before the debate began!

In terms of who came off as more polished and articulate, Kerry won. Bush is not smooth. Listening to him speak can be painful sometimes. If a person knew nothing about either man before the debate, and they were trying to sell us widgets, Kerry would have won the account. He probably gained votes from undecided (uninformed, is more like it) voters who were impressed with his regal demeanor.

But despite the obsession with style over substance (read my columns from Aug. 13-17), substance matters. And when you examine what Kerry had to say, he's a loser.

Bush continued to state where he stands. You may not agree with him, but you know where he stands. If you disagree, then don't vote for him.

But Kerry continues this charade of claiming he has maintained one, consistent position on Iraq. He obscures his political wind-blown flip-flops by relying on his past record, in which he simultaneously has taken no position and every position. He has so many qualifiers and "nuances" in everything he says that he's always parsing himself in order to find an out.

Listening to him "explain" his flip-flops is like listening to excuses from children. It's like when you tell your kid, "I thought I told you no video games tonight," and he replies, "I wasn't playing video games. I was playing computer games."

Or when you say, "Don't play with that, it'll break," then hear a crash as soon as you turn around. "I told you not to play with that!" you say. And your kid replies, "I wasn't playing with it. I was looking at it." (Very Clintonian.)

Kerry's most ridiculous doubletalk appeared early in the debate. In one response, he complained that the U.S. is paying 90% of the cost and doing 90% of the dying in Iraq. Our allies should share in those costs, he said. Then, the very next time he spoke, he blamed Bush for not catching Osama Bin Laden. "We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords that he outsourced the job to."

Isn't that what you said you wanted? Let our allies die in our place?

Then, on his very next turn, he again talked about the need to have our allies share in the cost, returning to his statistic that the U.S. is bearing 90% of the cost in money and lives.

Senator Kerry, do you really want to entrust the capture of the bad guys to the French? You yourself just said there is no one as qualified as American troops.

Then, when talk turned to North Korea, he criticized Bush's six-way talks that include China, the one nation that North Korea listens to. Kerry said we should negotiate directly with North Korea, and the other nations be damned. Kerry wants us to act on North Korea unilaterally!

Kerry also complained the our troops in Iraq don't have the equipment they need. Yet he complains that the $200 billion spent in Iraq could have been spent better at home. During 20 years in the Senate, he has consistently voted against providing the proper equipment to our military. And he blames Bush for not providing for our troops?

At another point, Kerry tried to link himself to Ronald Reagan. Yet while he said the greatest threat we face is nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies, he also said that if elected, he would discontinue work on a nuclear bunker-buster missle. Ronald Reagan believed in peace through strength, and won the cold war by refusing to disarm. I was hoping Bush would say, "Senator Kerry, I knew Ronald Reagan, and you're no Ronald Reagan."

Still, he knows he can get away with it. The "mainstream" press won't call him on his doubletalk. Yet remember what happened when Bush spoke with real nuance, saying the war on terror may not be a war that we can "win"? The press went nuts, claiming Bush said we were losing the war. (Scroll down to see my September 1 column.)

I don't think Kerry believes in anything, except that he wants to be president. He will say whatever he thinks is politically beneficial on any given day. And he thinks we're all dumb enough to let him get away with it. After all, he's better than us commoners, isn't he?

Just look at his history. He went to Vietnam when he thought that would look good on his political resume. Then war-hero John came home, saw how much the political winds had shifted, realized a war hero was going nowhere in politics, and he became anti-war John. But when the war on terror came along, all of a sudden he was war-hero John again. He "defended America as a young man." (A claim he repeated last night.) But I thought he and his anti-war friends had been telling us for decades that Vietnam had nothing to do with defending America. Which is it?

This guy's only position is that whatever Bush does is wrong. He's like a Monday morning armchair quarterback. After the fact, he claims he knew better than the guy who had to make the decisions in Sunday's game. Funny thing is, in this case, Kerry was in the huddle agreeing with the calls on Sunday.

contents copyright 2004, David W. Downing

Home is at http://www.downingworld.com