65 Years ago today

D-day.

It's some how troubling to me to realize that some one born on D-day can retire.

It's due, I'm sure, to my age, but WWII Vets are supposed to be the grown ups in charge. I'm not supposed to be the oldest person in my office.

Twenty years ago today

Twenty years ago the Goddess of Democracy fell, run over by a tank. Claudia Rosett has an editorial in the WSJ on what she saw at Tianamen square that day.

Since the Tiananmen uprising of 1989, China's rulers have loosened the economic strictures enough to allow remarkable growth -- testament to the vibrancy of the Chinese people given even half a chance. Out of this, China's rulers have devoted enormous resources to projects meant to suggest they run a modern nation -- sending astronauts into space, convening conferences on the climate, and hosting the 2008 Olympics.

Count me unimpressed. The real sign of modernity will come when China opens up its political system enough so that the country's leaders no longer fear June 4 but treat the Tiananmen uprising with the honor it deserves.

Four pictures to remember:



This image haunts me. They are so young, they may well guess what lies in store for them, yet they dance. I often wonder what became of them.



The Goddess and Mao.





All of this makes me want to go through my house and throw everything made in China.

Welcome to Bizarro World

For non-comic book geeks, Bizarro World is a planet in the Superman universe, where all things are opposite of Earth. We live there now.

Pravda has run an editorial lamenting America's slow fall into Marxism.

"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."

Happy Memorial Day

I did some driving today and listened to some NPR. Sigh. Like many Americans today (including, evidently, our President) there is some confusion as to the purpose of Memorial Day. All of the shows had Veteran oriented themes, but that would more appropriate to Veteran's Day, which we don't celebrate much anymore. Memorial Day is about remembering and honoring the dead. (I can understand NPR's dilemma. Dead people make for poor radio.)

Any way no one has ever said it better;

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Stupid now and then

Stupid now and then, 2nd in a series of rants

Consider this person: Graduate of Oxford, quotes classics in day to day conversations, has an extensive written and spoken vocabulary, speaks 2 languages, seeks and takes the advise of experts on subjects that he is lacking in. Can do complex probability calculations in his head.

Sounds like a pretty bright guy right?

I, of course mean Bertie Wooster, the touchstone of "stupid" of a bygone era. Yes, lacking in common sense and needs that first cup of tea in the morning, but all in all, a bright fellow, by modern standards.

When I had my moment of clarity it also came to me that Bertie, despite what Jeeves and his Aunts say, isn't dumb, he's just not devious and, to be truthful, missing a bit of common sense.

Westside Story and the fall of American Cities

A random rant, first in a series.

Arthur Laurents,Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim are responsible for the crack drug disaster of the late 20th century. László Benedek and Stanley Kramer also have a lot to answer for.

At a critical point in American recent history, when drug gangs were starting to make their selves felt on the inner cities of the both the rust belt and SoCal, a large part of White Bread America heard the term "Youth Gangs" and instead of thinking "this is some thing that needs to be done about RIGHT FREAKING NOW" thought "Westside Story" and blew it off. At worst they though "The Wild One", regardless, they didn't take it seriously. The result? Millions of lives destroyed, large parts of American cities made "No Go Zones", not to mention rap music and the whole hip/hop culture, a target of a future rant.

In real life the cycle of violence was not broken, in real life Maria would have pulled the trigger over Tony's body and the two gangs would not have ended their blood feud because of one crying woman. In real life their would have been a major gun battle. In real life Lt. Schrank and Sgt. Krupke are, or should be, the heroes, not a bunch of murdering thugs. As much as I would like to blame this one on boomers, I can't. They weren't quite in charge when the youth gang crises started. This, like a lot of other things, can be laid squarely in June Cleaver's lap. Why I said June, not June and Ward is also the subject of another rant.

"Ding"

I guess Air Force One has never heard of Photoshop?!?

Instead let's waste $328,000, and counting, of the tax payers dollars to update the portfolio of an arrogant President.

When will the madness end?

Happy Birthday

You're old TOO

What's in an Acronym?

Does anyone else find it ironic that the acronym for Pelosi, Michelle, Barak, and Reid is POOR?

A random thought

In past wars of the US (and pseudo US) the rallying cry of the troops tended to be "Remember " where blank expands to The Maine, Pearl Harbor, The Lusitania, The Chosin, or The Alamo.

Of wars of any duration (there by ruling out Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm) we find the following exceptions

The Revolution. "Don't tread on me", "Live free or Die" "Liberty or Death"

The Civil War. "The Union Forever" or random screams AKA the "Rebel Yell".

Viet Nam "N days and a wake up" (where N equals number of days left in country, normally under 335 (one year, less one year's worth of leave == 335 days 'in country'))

The Long War AKA Global War on Terror, AKA Enduring Freedom. "Let's Roll". (see footnote)


This says something about both what the war is about, and what the troops are thinking. Of these, only one, that for The Long War is a take action sort of thing. I'll grant it's also a memorial quote as well.

I'll also grant I don't have a clue about the War of 1812 and the Mexican American war.

Like I said, random thought.

Footnote. For a while I was following Mr. Pournell's lead and was calling the war between the US and the USSR (1917-1989) "The Long War", but the US Military is now calling the GWoT "The Long War" now. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I strongly suspect my preferred choice "The Final Crusade" would not be taken. Still does my heart good to know that one of the men calling in air strikes on Taliban positions is, in his heart of hearts a Paladin, a follower of the Lion Hearted King and a Crusader for Good.

Greatest Foreign Policy Speech Ever.

Sorry for the delay. As much as I admire Churchill, this is the greatest foreign policy speech ever.

Young Lawyers in Love

I guess the high cost of law school and estimates that America may be producing more lawyers than the market needs has caught the eye of the President and Barak Obama is here to save these poor legal eagles. For young lawyers are going to be the only real beneficiaries of the stimulus bill. I predict, and I think I am conservative in this number, that 80% of the cost of all these “shovel-ready” infrastructure improvement projects will go to lawyers who litigate the wet-lands, dry-land, endangered species, minority quota-driven, law suits over the next decade. The government will be suing itself: Federal vs. Federal, State vs. State, local vs. local, and any other combination you can imagine. Yes, and there will be a needs for many more judges just to handle the workload, but the ACLU will gladly help with a list of “qualified” candidates. Fortunately Barak and Michelle were young lawyers who understood the need for young lawyers to find gainful employment.

A final thought, should my prediction be true, that is 80% of $787 billion is $630 billion to the legal profession. The one group that needs a bailout…NOT.

Sharks versus Jets

Congress, and an extremely compliant press, has been rallying the country against something once again, This time the Democrat party, self professed to be the party against hate in all forms, is worked up into a visceral rage and the bull’s-eye is on airplanes, corporate jets to be precise. On a side note, can you imagine what these people would do if they ever felt hate? It boggles the mind, but I digress.

I have two opinions about this anti-executive air crusade. The first is for companies that accepted government bailouts…GO FOR IT. In keeping with today’s theme of two, I will submit two reasons. First, limited executive perks by congressional fiat may actually have the benefit of preventing most executives from selling their public trust to the Capitol Hill Mob for a little of the easy life. While CEOs might actually have to do their jobs, it is a small price to pay for using the Gulf Stream or the Lear. Secondly, if we allow the logic that acceptance of public funds is sufficient cause to dictate terms-of-use to the receiver, this might give leverage over the NEA crowd. In other words, if we can tell executives at Citibank that if “you take our money you have to take our direction” the same will apply to Robert Mapplethorpe. Okay, I realize the latter requires consistency of message from a liberal, but I can dream that the left-wingers will grow up and realize that hypocrisy is not a virtue.

My second opinion deals with telling the CEOs of companies who manage to show some semblance of self restraint and don’t go hat-in-hand to the Potomac Raiders. To these men I say, fly to your hearts’ content. First, I think this is something the stockholders need to watch and, if they are happy, it really doesn’t hurt me. For that matter, it doesn’t hurt you either, so relax. My final reason is less personal: do you remember the American yacht industry? It was destroyed by the luxury tax. Did this do anything to the "soak-the-rich" Americans who wanted the 45-foot ocean going schooner? No, they just went to England or Jamaica to buy their toys. But boat builders and handlers were suddenly out-of-work. There are lots of small businesses employing many people in the private jet industry who would suddenly be closed due to lack of work. Those employees would be losing jobs they love, simply because of nothing more than petty jealousies.

The banning of Childhood. The burning of books.

OK, maybe banning of childhood is a bit of an overstatement. Instead what Congress has done is ban everything associated with childhood not made by large companies which specialize almost exclusively in children's products. Small companies, start-up companies, and large companies which have children's products as a side line have been pushed out of the market by act of Congress. Small companies, by the way include that nice old man at the farmer's market who makes wooden toys and that lady on the internet who makes those darling little girl dresses by hand. Why have all of these businesses been banned? To protect the children of course.

You may remember last year's scare about lead in paint used in some toys made in China. You may also remember that Congress responded with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which banned lead and phthalates in any product intended for use by children under the age of 12. Every component of every product must be tested for lead by independent testing agencies. (There is not, by the way, a large scale testing industry in existence, as there was no demand. Congress assumed that an industry that did not exist could be created within a few months) Every variation must be tested separately and every lot must be tested. So the old man making toys must test each component of the toy. If he comes up with a new design, all of the components must be tested, even if they were tested before for previous designs. Same thing for the lady making little girl dresses. (Different sizes count as different designs, by the way.) It is obvious that only the largest companies are going to be able to afford the testing required by these laws. Not only will the small craftsmen be put out of business, but also the many small companies. The type of specialty toy maker that does a few hundred thousand dollars in sales every year and employs a handful of people, you know, the makers of all of the really cool toys, is history. Companies that primarily make goods for adults will likely avoid the added costs by dropping their children's lines.

One might think, that at least I will be able to get some of these things through the used market, but no, Congress banned that as well. CPSIA applies to all goods made for children regardless of when they were made. This means that the resale market will have to remove or test all items made for children. The stores, of course, will remove them. So in a time of economic hardship, Congress has just made it impossible for parents to save on children's clothing costs by going to Goodwill. I know from experience that it is possible to keep a child in clothes that were initially quite expensive for less than Wal-Mart prices. Children outgrow clothing before they wear them out. They often outgrow them before they appear to have been worn at all. Good-bye to all of that.

One of the real tragedies is that this travesty of a law applies to everything sold for children, including books. The Consume Products Protection Agency has graciously exempted used books which were printed after 1985 from the testing requirements. The books must be of normal bindings and have no lead components. Prior to 1985 lead was used in some of the inks used in children's books. (That is, by the way, why the colors in the illustrations of old books are often so rich.) Of course for the ink to damage a child, the child must eat the book. Vintage books are excepted if by age or price it is likely that purchasers are going to be adult collectors rather than children. Some businesses will try this dodge to continue old children's books, but let's be real, a third printing of a kid's book from 1967 is just not collectible. What this means is that most out of print children's books are now illegal to sell. If you want older editions for you kids, tough luck. You can no longer search for that book with the pretty illustrations you loved as a child. If you are lucky, a new reprint might be available, but only if the book is famous, or won a major award like the Newbery or Caldecott. Even then it might only be available in paperback. There are some truly great books out there that have never been reprinted and this heritage will be lost forever.

Ah, but what about libraries, you ask. Surely libraries will preserve this heritage. First, most library books do not have a lifespan of more than twenty years. The books fall apart from being handled so much. Second, the law applies to libraries. Libraries can not loan out books printed prior to 1985 without having them tested. The testing required is wet testing. Wet and books do not mix. Old books can not be tested without destroying them. Besides, we already know that many of them will fail. An even more serious problem is that it is next to impossible for a library to tell when a book was printed. Printing date is not one of the pieces of bibliographic information that libraries routinely include in their records. Copyright date, and edition number, yes, printing date, no. In fact it is often impossible, even by examining the book itself, to determine the printing date. The only safe route would be to sequester all books with a pre-1985 copyright date until it can be determined when the book was printed. Of course books aren't shelved in order of copyright, so every book in the children's section would have to examined or moved. Most libraries do not have the manpower to do this. It will costs libraries millions of dollars to sort and replace books. This is money that does not exist.

This is not speculation. The law took effect on February 10. There have been reports of used bookstores pulling all pre-1985 children's books. Bookstores can not afford to store books they are not selling. These books are being discarded. The book burning has begun. For the children.

The greatest foreign policy speech of the first half of the 20th century.

Possibly ever.

Happy Birthday

Ninety eight years ago today Ronald Wilson Reagan was born. I shudder to think what he would have made of this week's stimulus discussion.

And now an excerpt from the greatest foreign policy speech of the last half of the 20th century.

On the inauguration

I didn't watch. My family and I went birding. We had a great time. We went to a small local reservoir that we go to often. We saw some Common Mergansers, which I have never seen on that lake before. The highlight was chancing upon a flock of about 10,000 Red-winged Blackbirds. Overwhelming without being frightening. But enough about birds.

I've read the President's inaugural address and have a few comments. Many of these points have been noted elsewhere.

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. "

He flubbed one of my favourite trivia questions. Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. How many men have been President of the United States? Answer: 43. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president, but only one man.

"we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

That's right McCain ran on a program of fear, conflict and discord.

"For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh."

And Iraq and Afghanistan. To ignore the battlefields of the wars in which are currently engaged is ungracious, at best. (The Argonne and Chosin could have been mentioned as well, but then those are forgotten men from forgotten wars.)

On a broader point those that traveled across oceans, toiled in sweatshops, and settled the West, didn't do it for us, they did it for themselves and their families. We reap the benefits of what they did, but that's not why they did it.

"But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

Unpleasant decisions, like committing troops to an unpopular war? Protecting narrow interests, like making it easier for union thugs to intimidate workers by denying them the right to a secret ballot?

"We will restore science to its rightful place."

Meaning we will keep it way from politics? Or use it as a hammer to beat on our opponents? Seriously, science is not equipped to make value judgements. You can use the scientific method to determine the effects of hypothermia by experimenting on humans, But it isn't science that will tell you that it is morally repugnant to do so.

"(We will) wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost."

Aside from the weird use of wield here, technology raises health costs, not lowers it. 1960s health care was much cheaper. It also didn't have today's wonder drugs, MRI machines, robotic surgery, endoscopic surgery, CAT scans, advanced monitering like Oxygen saturation monitors, the list goes on and on. These are great things, but they are also expensive.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ... Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."

I look forward to the list of programs that will end, or maybe this is just a rhetorical device to defend big government.

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. "

Not so subtle dig here at his predecessor, here.

Sigh, I can't dissect this any longer. A dominant theme was that America needs to change, and change everything. We need to start doing things, many of which we already doing, and many of which don't need to be done. The near past is to be rejected.

At the same time, it is good to here a Democrat speak well of the founding fathers. The president did well to reach to the founders, and forgo anymore strained comparisons to Lincoln.

All in all it was not a bad speech, and he speaks well when he has a script, but, at least when read, it was not a stirring speech. It had some good moments, and it is good to here someone from the left embrace our history and patriotism, although those words might not mean what they think they mean. It had its downsides too. I was obviously a speech from the left, although that was to be expected. The greatest flaw was the inclusion of the ungracious, unsubtle snipes at President Bush. Perhaps he has moved for so long in circles where outright hatred of the right is the norm, he does not realize that oblique insults are still uncouth, given the occasion.

The address aside, I have said that the President deserves the respect due to his office. That does not necessarily apply to his jack-ass, moronic supporters. The left greeted the Bush presidency by throwing eggs at his motorcade after his inauguration, and ended it by booing and chanting na-na-na-na, hey, hey good-bye. In between there were comparisons to Hitler and chimps, ridicule and hatred. To steal a line, now I know what the left means by a classless society

Good Mourning

It is with a heavy heart that I wear black today in honor of lost freedoms to come in months ahead.

Goodbye to freedom of speech, national security and the right to bear arms.

Hello to increased crime rate, higher taxes, record unemployment rates and this is just the beginning.

But it's okay. . . because this is the 'change' that America needs!

Inauguration

As I write these words, we are in the last hours of the Bush presidency. In a little more than two hours Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the country's first black president. I've thought quite a bit in the last few days about what this means to me and to the country. Here are a few of my thoughts.

First, as should be obvious, I am not a political supporter of Mr. Obama. Out of all the major candidates in both parties, he was, with the possible exception of John Edwards, the person I least wanted to win. But he did, so I must come to terms with it.
He, however, will hold the office of President of the United States. I will not indulge in the mindless hatred that the left engaged in for the last eight years. Barack Obama will be my president. If some prominent conservative goes to London and expresses shame that Mr. Obama is president, I will condemn him or her as much as I did the Dixie Chicks. Even though I disagree profoundly with the platform on which he ran, I can nonetheless support him as president because of the unique nature the office. Unlike many other democracies, the President of the United States combine in one person the dual offices of Head of State and Head of Government. As Head of State, Mr. Obama will embody the United Stated to the world. He is the a personal manifestation of American democracy, and as such he deserves respect. And as a loyal citizen of this nation, he will have my respect.

As Head of Government, however, his words and actions, deserve only the respect they earn. If he advocates something that I see as damaging or dangerous to the country, then I, as loyal citizen, have the right and even the responsibility to criticize and oppose him.

All of that could be said about any politician, however. It would be wrong-headed of me to pretend that Mr. Obama's election was only about differing policies. His election demonstrates in a fundamental way the distance that race relations in this country have come in the last sixty years. This a great and glorious thing. It, however, says something that the first black man with minimal qualifications (Jackson and Sharpton don't count) to run for president won. I think that race relations have been much better for much longer than has been commonly presented. I would have preferred to have this be proven by a conservative black, but the times are what they are.

So when after every thing is said, where do I come down on the Obama presidency. As a pollster might ask, do I hope he succeeds? It depends on what one means by succeeds. Do I hope that he will offer that leadership that protects America from its enemies, and that the economy will revive and become again a vibrant powerhouse. Of course I do. Do I hope that he will succeed in enacting his policies and reshaping the American economy on more liberal lines. Well, no I don't. Because I think that he will succeed in the latter, I fear that he will fail in the former.

Obama's speech

I caught the first two thirds of the president-elects speech to day. A few things popped out to me. Early in the speech he said "If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.", later in the speech he said "It will take time — perhaps many years — but we can rebuild that lost trust and confidence. We can restore opportunity and prosperity."

This strikes me as going to the doctor and being told, "You have a cold. If nothing is done, it could last a week. Spend $1000.00 dollars on this medication and you will get well. It mayt take some time, perhaps a week."

I also like the scare tactict "The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four." Well, yeah it might average out to 12K per family, but the way it will actually happen is that the 80-90+% of the workers that don't loose their jobs will have no lost income, while those that do will loose much more income. The average is meaningless, but he makes it sound like everyone listening is going to loose thousands of dollars.

Later we get "It (digitizing medical records)will save lives by reducing the deadly but preventable medical errors that pervade our health care system." I'm deeply skeptical about the benefits of digitizing medical records. I've seen nurses struggle for too long trying to extract information from poorly designed systems to give the idea much credit. I also have very real doubts about the ability of digital records to prevent medical errors. For example, I fail to see how having a digital record will prevent a nurse from picking up a sound alike or look alike medication bottle, which is one of the common caused of medical errors. But what do I know, I just hand things to doctors. I wont't even get into the word "pervades".

About this point in the speech, I felt the strong call of classic rock on another station.