Out of My Libertarian Mind

Radio talk show host recently said Libertarians were “out of their minds.”

I was amazed. This guy claims to be “The Militant Moderate” and opposed to traditional left-right, black-white dialogue. I would expect someone like that to be better clued-in about political philosophy than this fellow seems to be.

I started my politically-aware life as a liberal Democrat. The only good gun was one held by a policeman (NOT a soldier … unless sent to serve in a “police action”) and aimed at a criminal. Humanity was capable of destroying or saving the planet’s delicate biosphere. The United Nations was the salvation of mankind from his destructive nationalism. Humans were well able to manage their personal, moral affairs, but cannot be trusted with money and business. The federal (and global) government was the solution to all our ecological and economic problems. (Government was our “Great Mother.” Play nice and share!)

Later I migrated to the conservative Republican side of the aisle. The only good gun was one in the hands of anyone capable of using it against armed bad guys, criminal or military. The ecology was quite capable of taking care of itself. The United Nations was a spineless front organization for impoverished third-worlders to manipulate the Major Powers. People were wise enough and ingenious enough to come up with business ideas that enrich the world, but they tend to be morally bankrupt and need to be “policed” against lewd acts. The federal government was the solution to all our military and societal issues. (Government was our “Great Father.” Get a job!)

Like most people I “bought into” the dualistic concept of left-right, black-white, good-evil, us-them. I mood-swung from one to the other, but reality kept wanting to drag me back toward the center of the swing. I was never happy as a Democrat or as a Republican. There were too many areas of disagreement between my internal sense of justice and party excesses and extremes.

So, in case this talk show guy (I may recall his name, but won’t promote it here) blunders across this article and decides to discover what libertarianism is about, here is the contrasting place where I “live” now, politically.

The only good gun is one used lawfully and safely for sport, or for self defense … including keeping the government from having too much of an upper hand in case it decides to go malignant. The United Nations is a poor substitute for national diplomacy and statesmanship. Citizens can use local courts to bring economic pressure against polluters and maintain good stewardship of the environment. Humans have no business deciding the every day morality OR business of others as long as the others “stay in their own yard,” harming no one except, possibly, themselves. Informed and “empowered” individuals, working together for mutually-selfish (!) motives, are the salvation of society.

And the Creator endowed us all with sufficient parents, natural or adopted or “step” or mentors, so that we don’t need bloodless, yet bloody, institutions to raise, nurture, correct and protect us.

I don’t need a marble Momma or pillared Papa in Washington, D.C. I was raised right at home.

(This is my own, personal take on libertarianism. I am not speaking for the capitalized Libertarian Party. To find out what this estimable political body believes, visit lp.org.)

Iraqi Abuses "College Pranks"?

I recently heard a radio commentator describe the Iraqi abuses as little more than "college pranks" and noticed similar sentiments in online articles.

If I saw pictures of Americans being similarly abused, I would be livid. Wouldn't you? The fact that these are our enemies does not change the offensiveness of the abuses ... except to jingoists.

Compared to Nazi war crimes and Vietnamese tortures, these ARE tame images. They are still patently wrong. I was raised to believe (although it seems so naive today) that Americans are only "better than" other nationals in as much as that we see all people as being created equal, and as a "free and democratic" people we insist on fair and equal treatment.

The degradation of the Iraqis was personally immoral, tactically foolish and strategically counter-productive.

And what's acceptable about degrading college pranks, anyway?

Moon, Mars & Beyond?

At www.foxnews.com I read that Ray Bradbury (author of "The Martian Chronicles" and hundreds of other heavy sci-fi literature) told a NASA Commission that Bush's pronouncement of getting mankind back to the moon and out to Mars met with his approval. He said it was "practical" and would help decrease the motivations for terrorism and war.

So how does that actually work?

Many "classic" sci-fi writers (including Gene "Star Trek" Roddenberry and my all-time fave, Robert Heinlein) believe that war, crime and terrorism are mainly (but not exclusively) caused by poverty and lack. People who are busy and prosperous don't have time to "start shit" with other people. People who have too much time on their hands ... or don't have enough food, income, land, etc. ... commit violence and crime to GET what they lack.

In order for mankind to really, REALLY get "out there" for serious, a major group of work needs to be done. At first, the work will be in developing the stuff we need to GET out there. Then will come the phase of actually getting out there (and still making the stuff needed to get out there even more). Then comes the phase of developing what is already out there and getting it back to earth in valuable form.

There are thousands of ways that a permanent, 24/7/365 presence off the planet can benefit the planet with materials and services. A major reason to move off planet is to find and develop resources that don't scar the planet. Mining and energy production, if moved successfully off the earth, can replace our needed stuff without digging up and burning down our home.

At first the push to get out and find energy and resources and life and simple "elbow room" will demand hundreds of thousands of people, from the janitors who sweep up in the design labs, to the hot-rods zooming off into the unknown. More jobs means more income, less "free/freak" time. And as the move to "conquer/explore" the solar system builds, more and more people will go out to live (or at least spend long periods of time visiting) away from earth, making room for the people who stay behind.

Unless there is a major breakthrough in medical science, I won't live to see the day when mankind colonizes off-world (such as in a permanent settlement on the moon or a huge orbital station, and where people live there full-time as residents). But my niece might.

Heinlein said (paraphrasing from memory), one of the best things about space colonization is room for expansion where the adventurous apes can take their aggressions and curiosities out on other worlds rather than our own. He said another good thing was getting all of mankind's eggs out of one basket. If a "dinosaur-killer" event hammers earth, a lunar colony and a Martian colony might survive to rescue/replenish the earth.

So, Bradbury (whom I had always considered to be a liberal) supports the Bush initiative in space. Cool.

Is Bush serious and committed? Don't know. Is it just a political chess move? Might be. Doesn't matter. Bush's motivation is irrelevant if the people of earth decide to stop crapping in their own bed, roll up their sleeves and "go West."

(Bradbury countered the notion that it is too expensive. He noted that the U.S. spends $1 Billion per DAY on military defense. Bush's proposal is for a $1 Billion a YEAR space budget. Bradbury says we can just take one day "off" from war per year and cover it. Smart dude. Are the rest of us smart enough to make it happen ... or at least to ALLOW it to?)

I would SO retire on the moon. One-sixth gravity would be SO nice for older bones and hearts to deal with. Could actually go jogging for funsies, and no fear of falling and breaking hips and stuff. I keep seeing "villages" that are like earthly shopping malls, but the center lanes are wider and the rooves are windows to see the stars and the earth, and there are apartment "wings" surrounding the central mall area. Parks also inside for jogging and playing chess. And half the people "retired" there work at some of the shops, etc.

Osteo is a danger for almost ALL older people even in earth's gravity well. And I'm talking about RETIRING on the moon. One-way ticket. Supposedly, after living at one-sixth (or less) gravity for more than a year or so, only athletes could return to full gravity without HUGE risks of heart failure and long, long recovery periods. So, you move there to STAY there.

Now there would have to be a large population of younger people there to work the Sonic and the cinema, the Dippin Dots kiosk, etc. I figure these would be outstanding employee of the month from various franchises and chains who would get to work on the moon-based location of Foot Locker, etc., for maybe 2 months. The "moon duty" would be a reward for distinguished service ... and a stepping stone for a career with that company up the managerial chain, maybe. Big companies who provide janitorial service, security, etc., would also send people up in 2-month rotations as rewards for service.

There would also be tourists ALL the time (although somewhat limited, perhaps), especially the family of the retirees who would come up to visit for short periods. Even network news-heads would go to the moon to report from there for a while.

There would also have to be research and industrial facilities with rotating work force.

Still, many of the retirees would want to have some sort of occupation for "fun" and would provide much of the workforce.

This would also be a place for people with physical disabilities that would be better-healed in low gravity ... or which might be incurable, but more manageable in low gravity.

My grandfather fell and broke his hip(s) one too many times and got stranded in a wheelchair for years before he died. He was unable to fend for himself much at all, so he became very deeply depressed and his last few years were miserable. His marbles were all intact, but he couldn't get around and do and had to be waited on all the time. No dignity. In one-sixth gravity even his 90-year-old arms could support him well enough to get around with a walker, etc.

I've been pondering this for close to 20 years now. When my great-gramma fell out of her bed in the nursing home back inna 80's and was TIED into her bed at night so she wouldn't fall out again, it dawned on me that gravity is a major cause of death and injury to old people who might otherwise be able to stay active and spry, mentally.

Sadly, only an outfit with bucks like Disney would be able to make the keystone investment to launch a project so large. It would take mega-bucks and time to send up needed stuff to establish underground hydroponics farms for food and air, etc. Plus would have to find or up-ship water in massive amounts. If we WANTED to it could be done within a generation or so, but the want-to is not there. There are still corners of our world here that we haven't shat upon. Even more sadly, the move upstairs will probably only happen after this place is almost beyond repair. I'm no eco-doomist. Earth is far from being as ruint as Chicken Littles squawk about. But eventually we will have to look for outer sources of resources and energy, and as a lazy species we are likely to wait far longer than necessary.

The Future Through Dark Glasses

1. Pakistan is not our friend. At all. They are sure chewing up the ground hunting for Bin Laden ... but they were INSIDE Afghanistan as "advisors" to the Taliban and al Qaida until the "war" started going against the Afghans so early on. The ONLY reason the U.S. has not included Pakistan in the "Evil Axis" and put crosshairs on their butts is because they are nuclear. We think we have problems with unwashed militants NOW, try pissing off a third world nuclear power! If the U.S. could, they would LOVE to "pacify" this nation, but cannot even think about touching it, really. They pretend that Pakistan was just sort of "neutral" and have decided to jump on the anti-terror Love Train, but it's "spin" to keep Americans from realizing that we are sleeping with a nuclear enemy.

2. Iran is aching to become a new Pakistan. If they get nukes, they will never again fear American expansionism. The U.S. is the only super power left in the world and can do as they please ... except against nukes. The only defense against a nuclear-armed mini-power is to pave it before it uses its own nukes. Pakistan cannot reach the U.S. as the old U.S.S.R. and China can, but they can nuke our "interests" around them, and any forces we might try to send there to shove them around. BECAUSE Iran is so close to having nukes, and is so much farther along than Iraq ever was, and is agitating inside both Afghanistan AND Iraq even now ... Iran is likely to become the next victim of American anti-terror warfare. EXCEPT that ....

3. The war in Iraq has the U.S. stretched painfully thin. It's one thing to forget the lessons of a "war" 30 years ago, as in Vietnam, but to forget the lessons learned only a couple years ago is ridiculous. Except for capturing or killing America's "Frankenstein monster" UBL, the "war" in Afghanistan was a resounding and surprising success. Why? American Special Forces went in first and initiated the action. Later the regular Army and Marines were brought in to help mop up puddles here and there, and to police the place, but Special Forces went in and linked up with Afghani resistance groups and just waxed the asses of over half the Taliban and al Qaida forces in just a couple of months. In Iraq, the U.S. decided to "shock and awe" the enemy with such a huge number of cannon-fodder (traditional troops and equipment sent in such a great quantity that the enemy simply could not stand before it) and the result was slapping a small pool of water with a plank and making a buzzillion little splash-puddles all around. Iraq, therefore, is uncontrolled and damn near uncontrollable. BECAUSE of the cluster going on in Iraq, the U.S. is in no real position to do anything pre-emptive in Iran ... so Iran is likely to get nukes before America can stop them, as they sort of stopped Saddam.

4. If and when Iran gets nukes, America can pull its nekkid ass out of Africa in a hurry. All the U.S.-hating nations that are really, legitimately terrified of U.S. domination will kiss any Iranian ass they can find to become allies and gain at least second-hand nuclear protection. Iran MIGHT sell nuke-tech to high-bidding allies, but will more likely simply form alliances and if the U.S. threatens anything like what they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran will wave a nuclear finger and say, "No touchee, Uncle Sam, or we clobber your ignorant, anti-Islamic ass." Iran would suddenly rule all of the Islamic nations, possibly bringing them under a theocratic thumb that will make the U.S. sweat blood.

5. North Korea is a teeter-totter. It is miserably impoverished even at the central government level, but the Norkies are tough, quietly intelligent folk with a serious jones to stop being a third world laughing stock. If they manage to get delivery-capability of their nukes, the U.S. will have to pull out of Japan, South Korea, etc., and in a big damn hurry. America will probably arm Japan (and South Korea) with nukes as they bail, and that will lead to a miniature Asian Cold War ... and one that might not end so softly as did the one between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Frankly, little-dog countries with so little to lose and so much to gain, will be more inclined to actually USE nukes ... unless they find that the threat of using nukes can gain them appeasement from the bigger powers. Like when some pip-squeak bank robber grabs a bimbo hostage when surrounded by cops and must be allowed to escape or he caps the dame.

6. American intelligence and foreign policy since Reagan has been so disarmed by the so-called end of the Cold War (the media declared it and the politicians agreed publicly with them in order to appear to have "won" something) that it's possible, and even likely, that "rogue nations" like Iran and North Korea will become nuclear powers, and will quickly cancer-ize their entire regions. China would be forced to adopt the Norkies as "cousins," or, about as bad, to strike first and just pre-empt them into a radioactive fog. Same with India and the Pakistanis. Pakistan is predominantly Muslim ... India Hindu. Never the twain shall meet. If Iran becomes the second "known" nuclear Muslim power, anyone else within the delivery range of Islamic nukes will be in genuine, immediate danger, and MAY decide to shoot first and apologize later.

7. The U.S. has already proven that, in order to "save the many" they are willing to nuke the more in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki. If intelligence and counter-intelligence and diplomacy don't stop third worlders from gaining nuke-tech, the U.S. may feel "forced" to blast the new-nukers ... and at least piss off the other nuke powers, if not provoke some of them to attack America. The `Stans are all so close to Russia they cannot be happy about radioactive waste and fall-out near them. Same with China, which can STILL irradiate Americans from far, far away.

How does any of this relate to you? You vote. You pay taxes. You swallow media baby-food, or don't. You join protests that make no difference, or you join protests that matter. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, so anti-nuke whining is just pathetic posturing. There is no going back on nukes. Going forward is the only option, but into a radioactive twilight or "secure" world is the question.

Sadly, the only way I can see the world becoming "secure" is a one-world government. The U.N. will never be it. The U.N. is institutionally sterile and does not have the balls or teeth to get the job done. No major player will allow the U.N. to become strong enough to dictate to them as the U.S. dictates to most of the rest of the world. Something akin to a nuclear N.A.T.O. will have to be born, but not just as a hold-over military command from Dubya-Dubya-Too. It will have to physically impose police-state authority over every nation on earth (including the founding powers) in order to stop nationalistic, theocratic or terroristic development and use of nukes. Of course, the entire world might convert to Islam, or Judaeism, or Christianity ... but pigs might fly from a few butts before THAT happens.

Another, brighter possibility, is that the world, largely using the Internet, becomes educated and wealthy enough that the huge majority will be too happy to allow ignorant, dark little bastards to piss in the punch bowl. If enough nations can find ways (and be helped to find ways) to make more money and food and to interact and deal with more and more foreign customers/suppliers, then anyone threatening to rock the boat will be slapped down by the locals wherever they are found. I hope for and will "lobby" for this alternative, but I have a hard time imagining that it will really happen.

After all, it takes time, thought, sacrifice of comfort and long-term attention span to make such a thing possible. It is just so much easier to allow the States to police the planet with spies and bugs and armed goons and restrictive laws. And humans are a lazy, lazy species....

Online Music Sales

"Ya know, Apple sells mp3's for $0.99 per each. To get an entire album costs as much as a CD or MORE. So the music company doesn't have the freakin costs of production or of distribution other than the website and site maintenance. So why is the music as high or higher? To drive up CD sales?

Nope. It just encourages music-heads to steal is what it does.

So, here's a pricing structure that makes sense to me. I would SO go to a site and BUY my mp3's if I found a place to do it like this:

Single mp3 = $1
Three = $2 (two more @ $.50)
Seven = $3 (four more @ $.25)
Twelve = $4 (five more @ $.20)
and $.15 for every mp3 over 12

I could buy 'albums' for less than the price of a CD, but the company loses NOTHING because it is selling electrons. I can also buy only the tracks I WANT of an album, and mix-and-match as I like. The company and artist(s) get paid and more music is sold than EVER before. Happy consumers, happy producers. What the hell is wrong with that?

Also, I don't want to pay to download only the latest-and-greatest crap on the Top 40 list, or the zillion-repeated 'oldies' from Top 40 lists of yore. I want to replace so many groovy older tunes of an eclectic nature from long-gone collections of mine or my parents, etc. Like Danny Kaye singing 'Little White Duck,' or Bing Crosby and David Bowie singing 'Little Drummer Boy/Peace On Earth' on TV, or Pete Seeger singing 'Guantanamera,' or Ed Ames singing 'Who Will Answer?'

Each record company should take their ENTIRE catalog from when dinosaurs ruled the recording studio and make that stuff available again as mp3's and make money off of stuff that's been out of print for generations and making NO money for them now.

A Rose by Any Other Color

I believe there is such a thing as "absolute truth."

I believe that, if two people both looked at something scientifically measured to have a certain wavelength in the visible spectrum its wavelength would be the same for both, even if one were to pop the other's eyeballs out and put them in their own sockets and see "green" whereas both previously saw red.

In other words, I don't believe that "truth" changes, even if our individual abilities to perceive it accurately falter, or if our perceptions of it differ. WE are the variables, not the "truth."

People run into problems when they decide their perception of the truth is THE truth.

This is a big part of why I became allergic to Religion. I have learned to be as "colorblind" as possible about such things, and in the process I have learned that you may see the apple as what I would call yellow, and I may see it as what you would call purple, but the important thing is that it is an apple and it is good to eat, and good for you.

Now I'm not trying to say that all religions are the same. Frankly, religion is precisely human perception. The Catholic sees a red apple. The Muslim a red banana.

The Baptist sees a purple apple and the Methodist sees a blue apple. I am learning to try to see the APPLE.

The Man said that you know a tree by it's fruit. If it bears figs, it is a fig tree, not a tomato plant. If it gives birth to kittens it is a cat, not a crocodile. If it tastes tangy sweet and is crispy inside with a tough, tart skin on the outside, and it is chock full of vitamins and minerals, and keeps doctors away ... it's an apple, even if it looks gray to me.

Similarly, when one "Christian" says "Kill abortion doctors," but another says, "Go to Borneo and bring medicine to sick children," they may both call themselves "blue," but they "taste" different and their "wavelengths" are not the same.

I heard a clever (and smug) Christian expression once that, for all it's cuteness, is profoundly useful. "I don't judge people ... but I am a fruit inspector."

If it walks like a Nazi and it talks like a Nazi and it kills like a Nazi ... it's a Nazi, even if it calls itself a Saint.

Love `Em or Leave `Em

I really hate for "the boys" to be Over There for so long, and longer, but I have one word for the families at home complaining ... however many or few are, the News does not make that clear ... "Kwicherbichen."

If they didn't want to be there they would bug out like the two in Canada, and if you love them you have to let them do what they want to do. Grow up already and learn some patience. Read "The Greatest Generation" by Tom Brokaw and PRETEND you have some maturity and dignity as the descendants of great people.

I'm not saying that all the service persons Over There "LIKE" being there, but they prefer to be there than (a) on the run for desertion, (b) in the shrink's offices trying to pull a Klinger, (c) resigning and becoming a civilian again, (d) shooting themselves in the foot so they can get away for a while, get a medal and maybe not have to go back ... etc. None of them were drafted. If they don't believe in what they are doing they can get out and go back to civilian life (oh yes they can). So whiney-baby families, including those thinking the Guard and Reserves are like the Moose Lodge, only with pay, can suck it up.

When a guy or gal has their ass on the line in a foreign land where people try to hand their asses BACK to them, and they have to be there a long time, and they volunteered to go, the last thing they need is for their loved ones to second-guess them and their commander-in-chief (regardless of his weenie-hood) and whine about them coming home.

The issue is not about the duration of the occupation. The thing was a cluster from as far back as "Let's go get UBL in Afghanistan." The issue is families supporting their deployed G.I.s ... or not. My grandmother wrote to me every week while I was in boot camp and every month after that. She told me how proud of me she was, how handsome I looked in my uniform. Yadda. (And I looked like freakin Barney Fife in my official boot camp portrait shot!) The issue us: if you intend to be the family of a G.I., shut the hell up, apply one-tenth the "sand" your beloved is exhibiting, and wait until he or she gets home to belly-ache. Service people in the field rely on personal morale, and family is the second biggest source of personal confidence in a G.I. (The most important is the morale of the unit.) If the folks at home are wringing their hands and pointing fingers at the government it saps the emotional strength of the G.I.

YES this crap has gone on way too long! But if MY niece (or brother, cousin, whatever) is over there, for as long as that loved one is serving, I am the Home Front Reserves and I beat a snare drum and play a fife and I wave a flag and let that person know that they are my hero, they are making a difference ... and if they don't come home they die with my love and admiration in their fading thoughts, not my SELFISHNESS.

Liberal Science

So on the PSA (public service announcement) for some environmental defense outfit, Joan Woodward asks if we notice how many things in life happen in a "circle," such as the seasons, and "...the circle we call Earth."

Earth is not a circle. Drawing one with crayons requires making something like a circle, yes, but Earth is an imperfect sphere (or spheroid). According to Sesame Street the Earth may be described as spinning in a circle (rotation), but in fact it is spiraling like a bastard through space as it "circles" the sun, which orbits inside the galaxy, which ....

There's a term used in some minority media: "junk science." There's a lot of it out there. Hardwood produces something like one-sixth the oxygen for the atmosphere than grasses (which are grain crops) but when forests and rain forests are cut down by hungry third- and second-world populations to grow food (or grasses to raise cattle) we are told we are reducing the production of atmosphere. Junk science.

Why is junk science so popular in the media? I suspect it has to do with Sesame Street. Too many of today's "scientists" (actually more like "science writers" really) have been raised on simplified and simplistic illustrations in mainstream media and dumbed-down school curricula. Encouraged to write and speak more in "accessible" language to accommodate lazy, under-educated laymen, so-called scientists have actually begun to think in two-dimensional, kindergarten terms and have lost any respect for accuracy. Sing a folksy little ditty in the background and illustrate the PSA with cutie-pie animated child-like drawings and it FEELS nice, so it must be good. Viola! Junk science.

Real science is boring, difficult to grasp, and even terrifying. It requires hard questions and answers and efforts in time and energy. And money. Cheaper to just do a survey of 100 science teachers in public schools than to spend ten years on actual research.

War is a "Sport"?

The expression has been used lately concerning war, "The gloves have come off." This refers to when boxers get angry and stop "playing the sport" of boxing, throw off the gloves, and take knuckles after the other guy's face and vital organs.

Since the biggest hinderance to war is politics/diplomacy, and since our military is run by civilian bureaucrats, war has become boxing. It has become a sport.

Rumsfeld and the military did the job in Iraq. A flare-up sparks in Fallujah and the politicians decide to talk. End of war. Let the boxing begin.

But when one boxer keeps his gloves on and the other guy uses bare knuckles, guess who loses?

Neuro-Psychology of Politics

Heard on the satellite: there's a study of brain patterns (chemistry? electro-magnetic fields?) to see if there are physiological similarities between "left" (liberal) brains and "right" (conservative) brains. In other words, are people biologically pre-disposed toward one sort of politics or another? I didn't pay close attention, but the thought has simmered on the back burner of my mind.

It is said that younger people "should" be liberal, but that older people "should" be conservative. Youth just goes hand-in-hand with free expression (and free association) and experimentation. Maturity cultivates successful, predictable patterns.

To balance out the strong righty slant of Fox News, I switch around to liberal talk shows looking for "balance." I managed to catch a smidgen of Janeane Garofalo's Air America Radio show. She is attractive, witty and intelligent. She is also one of those people who feel that the Other Side is just "so totally" stupid, ignorant, evil, dangerous, yadda. Elsewhen I have posted that I can't associate myself with Reps or Dems because each side is crippled by the need to "demonize" the other side. "My" side can only be seen as correct and effective, desirable, if I somehow prove the Other Side to be retarded as, well, a seal!

In my life I have found that the Other Side is very often no more wrong than I am! Gasp!

I spend skads of hours on the road blithely ignoring the fact that, at any given moment, someone can make a bad decision and ruin a lot of people's days ... and even lives. I cannot guess how many millions of times I have come within inches and seconds of agonizing, fiery death as amateurs and professionals pilot pristine and dilapidated vehicles small and tremendous around me and mine. And of all those people who have managed not to kill me (or convert me into a manslaughterer) I estimate that many are Democrats. Many are also Republicans. Many smoke grass. Many are homosexual or lesbian. Many are Bible-thumpers.

When the older lady in the checkout line at Wal-Mart drops a bunch of stuff on the floor and 2 other people and I stoop to retrieve her things, we do not declare our affiliations, nor do we ask. We just see a little old lady in distress and decide to do for her what we hope to God someone will do for us one day if and when WE need the help. I wonder if that black guy was French? I wonder if that middle-aged Hispanic lady was "illegal"? Nah! I didn't really care. They were just people going nowhere fast in a Wal-Mart line and bucking the trend by helping out a little old lady.

When it comes to living life ... making and raising babies, growing and buying and cooking food ... Americans get along pretty well thousands of times more often than not. For every disgruntled old white guy who opens a can of AK-47 on an office, there are thousands of disgruntled old white guys who help a stranger fix a flat ... or just take a deep breath and decide NOT to bring an assault rifle to work the next day.

So I find that the extremist Lefties who think the only good conservative is a dead conservative, and their evil twins of the Righty-Tighty-ass persuasion, are out of touch with the real world and use labels and name-calling and banners and slogans to conjure up a fantasy realm that just doesn't have a lot of impact on what "normal" people do every hour of every day to live life.

I find myself often wanting to say to the "Bush/Kerry is an idiot" types, "Uh, `scuse me, but, no, he isn't." Seriously. Bush is not stupid. Neither is Kerry.

But, when I try to lend some perspective to the radicals of either ilk, am I capable of actually contacting them on a frequency they are capable of receiving? Are Lefties on AM and Righties on FM and I'm on XM?

The concept of people's politics being a product of their biological make-up is fascinating ... and possibly revolutionary. What if al Qaida (and KKK) fanatics all tend to have similar brain functions that provoke them toward violent expressions of hatred? What if liberals and conservatives are chemically challenged with regard to grasping the Other Side?

I mentioned the comparison of liberal youth with conservative age because it occurs to me that, as people get older, their physiologies change ... and, so do their ideologies!

If this study points out that people's political leanings are provoked by innate brain functions, will it lead to a way to understand the Other Side? "Oh! You're Left-brained! No wonder you see it that way! No problem! I'm just Right-brained is all!" Or will it take us to the place where we decide that our differences are irreconcilable and we begin to migrate away from the Other Side and consolidate ourselves amongst "Our Own?"

Rumsfeld & War Crimes

I listened to some of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's testimony to the Senate. It was SO frustrating to hear so few people asking intelligent questions, or giving intelligent answers.

On the one hand, Rumsfeld was soft-peddling very guarded and lawyer-eze answers, and on the other hand, Senators were making speeches, followed by windy, lame questions.

The "chain of command" ... from the idiots involved in the "war crimes" (I believe they are war crimes, even if not quite as "serious" as gas chambers and firing squads) to the Commander in Chief ... is innocent until proven guilty. Murderers like Ted Kennedy call for Rumsfeld's resignation without even the slightest shred of evidence that he had any accountability for the situation. When he learned of the incidents, he began a process of investigation to find out the answers to the senators' better questions, and answers that could be reasonably documented so that those guilty could be PROVEN guilty, and those innocent could be shown to be innocent.

In management there is a term for what the British did during the revolutionary war, and what the modern U.S. government does every hour of every day to guarantee that government (and criminal justice) takes forever to accomplish and is slow to react: "micro-management."

Micro-management is when the guy at the top spends 80 hours a week NOT doing his/her job because he/she is busy checking on every move of those under him. It also means that the mule at the bottom hauling the bales has to spend half his time answering the bosses' questions.

"Have you taken another step, mule?"

"Yassa, bossuh! One more step taken!"

"Is the load still on your back?"

"Yassa! Load is still on my back!"

"Have you filled out your Step Taken Report and faxed it to my secretary and emailed it to the Federal Steps Taken Authority?"

"Yassa! All paperwork is done, suh!"

"Then why have you only taken one step in the last five minutes? Looks like we'll need more step-inspectors, and more mules if this job is ever going to get done."

The opposite of micro-management is called "delegation."

Politics is all about micro-management, and the military (except for internal politics, of course) is all about delegation.

Can't you just see Rumsfeld with a clipboard hauling ass across the Iraqi desert trying to count every bullet being fired? That would be an excellent picture if, at the same time, Senators Kennedy and McCain were hauling ass behind him checking his math as he went!

Anyone who thinks Rumsfeld ordered the atrocities, or even allowed them through inaction, has no freakin clue about how political he is, and how devastating such matters are to political careers.

Guys like me who are a-political don't give a rat's rosy rear-end about "majority" opinions. I want selected friends and family to like me, but everyone else can go straight to hell, for all I care. I have been known to say, do, and WRITE things that are quite capable of pissing people off toward me. A politician can't afford to do much of that or he/she is out of work.

So, as a political creature, Rumsfeld would NEVER initiate or allow such stupidity as the prison abuses. His keen sense of self-preservation would jangle like a fire alarm.

Idiot politicians (but I repeat myself) demand verbal answers "right now" that may later be proven to be wrong. Figures. Rumsfeld did the right thing when he started investigations so the right people could be punished and the others allowed to go on about their businesses. The fact that such ridiculous assaults as have been launched by fools makes such investigations not just mandatory, but excruciatingly prolonged because every gnat's whisker of proof has to be compiled in order to have any chance of silencing the accusers.

Even more frustrating is how, even after the evidence is in, people who don't WANT to know the truth will accuse the investigations of being "rigged" or "fixed."

If I were in Rumsfeld's shoes, being a complete clown for even wanting to hold a position in government, here's how I would answer the overall topic.

"I found out there was a problem in January. In order to protect the innocent people along the chain of command, I demanded a thorough investigation to document who was, and who was not, responsible. To do as much as possible to appease meddling legislators, these investigations have to be overly-lengthy and, therefore, are not finished yet. Until then, leave me the hell alone.

"As to why I didn't tell Congress or the public about this before it was leaked to the press? (A) There's a war on and I (unlike the media) will do everything I can to minimize the impact of these relatively few idiots and criminals from hampering the efforts of the majority of 'good guys' in Iraq. (B) While I work for all Americans, I answer directly to the President. If and when he feels like Congress or the public needs to know, he makes that call, not me.

"Now, get back to your jobs coming up with more regulations, laws and committees to explore the formation of committees and leave me the hell alone. I have a war to fight."

MY question is ... since, effectively, the "war" is over in Iraq, why is the Secretary of Defense in charge? Shouldn't this be in the hands of Powell or Rice? Troops have to be there, and Rumsfeld is in charge of that, true, but shouldn't Powell be in charge of the re-building of Iraq?

Actually, there needs to be a new cabinet secretary for this sort of situation ... Secretary of Imperial Occupation.