Undecided Voters: Reading To Expand Your Horizons

Some things I haven't been as good about would be "blogrolling" or putting out other blogs with interesting posts that might help explain some other points of view. So, I am going to post some here. They are all great and I had a hard time deciding which ones to post first, so I hope no one is offended by the order.

First, let me introduce you to the first blog I ever read: Iraq The Model. Three brothers from Baghdad who have embraced the new freedoms and democratic process in Iraq with joy and excitement. They even started their own political party: Iraqi Pro Democracy Party.

Many times their posts have touched me personally. I have felt strongly in the last 6 months that they have taught me more about cherishing freedom and understanding my own obligations to maintaining that freedom. An excerpt from todays post reminds me, once again, not to take that freedom for granted:

I got a passport!
I should’ve written about this some days ago but I had to spend a week in Basra...Anyway, I feel it’s still worth writing about (at least from my point of view): last week, I crossed the borders for the first time in my life; something may sound less than regular for most of you but for an Iraqi dentist or doctor it was a beautiful dream becoming a reality. Countless numbers of Iraqi doctors, dentists, officers and professionals carrying Msc or Phd ended up in prison or even lost their lives for trying to get passports (faked ones of course and at a very high cost) to get out of Saddam’s hell.

And interesting how he ends his post with talking about a strange peace he felt:

Life seemed normal for me for the 1st time in my life. Soon after the war we could sense freedom immediately but this time we experienced it in a way that we haven’t before. It was an amazing feeling!
Despite all what’s Baghdad is going through, nothing can match the peace I felt when I walked down from the airplane in Baghdad's airport.

Got that? He felt at peace with returning to his country instead of desparately trying to get out. A strange "peace" for sure if you only get your news from your local TV, paper or cable network.

Go on to the inner sanctum to read more interesting blogs.

Another brilliant Iraqi blogger is the Messopatamian who writes today about his view about America's responsibilities as a super power:

The American people should realize the full responsibilities and importance of their nation. No one can deny, even those who despise the U.S.A. that this country has an importance and influence transcending by far its borders and encompassing the entire world. This is particularly true at this point in time of the history of human civilization. Indeed

But the logic and “dialectic” of historical evolution does seem to conform to the old “Hegelian” concept of thesis and antithesis. That is to say historical forces will inevitably tend towards the emergence of New Poles (not to be confused with the Polish people) and New rival powers. And it is not difficult to guess the powers and countries who are candidates for this new polarization.

Any concept that there is possibility of a wide alliance that will support U.S. efforts and be amicable to its goals and national interests is a false hope which profoundly misinterprets the logic of historical realism. The battle lines are clearly drawn, and ally, foe, and opportunistic bystander are all quite well defined, and any notion that these can be appreciably changed by diplomacy or otherwise is an illusion.

Yes, Alaa is an Iraqi and quite a brilliant writer from my point of view. Very intelligent, well read and capable of understanding world "nuance". Basically, if you don't have the drift, even an Iraqi can figure out that countries like France and Germany may well fall under "opportunistic bystander" instead of "ally" and that, in seeking their own power, they will not be persuaded to augment the power of the US by any means, but may instead, oppose it or support it depending on what they see as beneficial to their own ends.

Other recommendations would be Asher over at Dreams Into Lightning with a humanist bent sowed up with some deep thinking faith and truisms:

Actually, President Bush's supporters include a wide spectrum of people of all ideological persuasions, precisely because President Bush has correctly understood the war on terrorism and on fascism as the central issue of our time.

Many people on both sides of the environmental, social, and economic issues - including those like myself who strongly disagree with the President about many of these things - realize that these political conversations are secondary to the threats facing both America and the free world. In fact, one of the most positive changes I've experienced in the past three years has been the chance to learn about, and better understand, those whose views are different from my own.

And talking about political wedges and issues:

A wedge between America and the rest of the world? No. It is a wedge between those who support and defend the sadistic fascism of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, the Iranian regime, and their ilk; and freedom-loving nations like America, India, Britain, Australia, Israel, and free Iraq. Drive that wedge deep, and drive it with a sledge hammer.

I particularly like that last sentence: "Drive that wedge deep and drive it with a sledge hammer". In other words, don't be afraid of the division of our nation or the world on this issue. The division or "wedge" just makes the issues that much more clearer. When they are muddied up by political desires to me "multilateral" whether across political parties or countries, you may achieve something, but it is often slow and almost always imperfect. Think of the truism: "management by committee" which pretty much means nothing will get done except to meet, meet again, write a paper, meet some more, too many ideas to follow, nothing gets done.

Sometimes it is much better to choose your side and drive it forward if you want to achieve anything.

Other blog that I read occassionally is Michele from Letters From NY. She lost many friends on 9/11, but she did not let that stop her. She writes letters to her long lost friends as well as some new ones she's made, particularly a military unit that she has been supporting in Iraq:

Yesterday, I got home and found my mailbox jammed packed with letters, and a note from my mailman that more that were waiting for me at the post office. I was stunned. As I flipped through the envelopes I saw that all the addresses were from soldiers in Iraq. (...)

You see, I began writing and sending these brave men and women letters since they were first deployed. Most don’t have time to write backas they work long days, in challenging environments that when they finally do get back to their bunks it’s to take care of themselves and get ready for the next day.(..)

As a company, they decided to write back to thank me for the care boxes I've sent them this past year. Each letter touched my heart in a special way. I for one don’t take their service lightly, being the direct recipient of their efforts.

And she goes on to print a partial letter from the commander of the unit, "Major Ken":

We are here in Iraq for a one-year tour and the time is flying past. There are so many good things happening and as I write this letter the interim government is preparing to meet tomorrow morning to begin preparation for the upcoming elections. I am grateful to be a part of the process and after being here last year I’ve seen a dramatic change in the country already.

Although this is my second deployment, my time here this year continues to be rewarding and challenging. The soldiers are working very hard daily to give the interim government a chance to get started.

Go on over and read the rest of the letter.

Personally, I like the soldier's letters and the Iraqi bloggers as some of the best sources of information and "man on the street" that we don't get to see on a regular basis. To me, it helps put things in perspective a little more.

I hope you've enjoyed this brief tour through the blog world and that some of the reading helps you understand where folks like me get the idea that some things are worth fighting for and might require more information than a paragraph in the paper or a two minute sound bite on the news.

Summary only...

Reality Road Check: Undecided Voters Part VIVoices of Iraq: Wrong War?

I am working on a review of the tax cuts for our edification. In the meantime, I don't want to leave you without something else to think about.

When you see the news, every night, even in it's most kindest version, what you see of Iraq are pretty much: car bomb, dead citizens, wounded citizens, dead soldiers, destroyed houses, angry Iraqis, pundits talk about Iraq, politicians talk about Iraq.

When was the last time you saw an Iraqi talk about Iraq? Read about one lately? Think all Iraqis are walking around thinking Americans are evil baby killers? Authors of their destruction? Support the Islamists? Support the "insurgents"? Based on the media that you see, do you think that Iraq is full of bombed out buildings, no electricity, running water, sewers, etc? All Iraqis walk around with AK47s waiting for their chance to kill Americans, kidnap them, set off a bomb, dance in the street chanting "death to America"? Are Iraqis nothing but a bunch of goat herders in bare feet or sandals living in mud huts?

I don't blame you if you do because I know what I saw on TV before I went looking for something that wasn't a two second sound bite from CNN.

So, here I am compiling a brief list of places that you can go to on the internet and hear from Iraqis themselves. Go to the inner sanctum to get a list of places to hear from Iraqis themselves. And if you have the stomach, scroll down from here to view pictures of "The Wrong War, Wrong Place and Wrong Time".

The first place I am going to take you to is a film that will be airing in the US shortly. It wasn't filmed by anyone in the US. It was filmed by Iraqis with digital recorders:

Voices of Iraq

One hundred and fifty digital recorders were handed out to Iraqis. No political affiliation. No stated views. They were asked to just go film hours and hours of their lives, their families, ask questions, etc. It's not propaganda either folks. I won't fool you. There are a few on this film that wouldn't mind seeing Saddam back in power if only the fighting would stop. On the other hand, there are quite a few people that spit on Saddam and are enthusiastic about democracy, freedom, the future, etc.

Hey, don't take it from me. Go to the site and look on the right hand side bar for "video". Or go here to see several other previews of the film.

This morning, I saw the CNN interview with the producers and the clips they showed. After seeing the preview of the film myself, I was unbelievably stupified at the clips that CNN chose to show. They did not show differing points of view. I am not kidding when I tell you that they chose to show four clips of similar message: car bomb, angry Iraqis, American soldiers driving through crowd of Iraqis with guns and a small child who said they were driven out of their home by American bombing and all they wanted to do was to return to their home in Fallujah.

Not that these weren't on the film, but the words "fair and balanced" do not even cross the CNN editors mind. You will know I am not just going on another "the media is biased" tirade when you watch the previews I sent you and then watch the CNN broadcast. Unfortunately, I can't find the link on the CNN website, it was sent to me as an embedded program. If you want to see it, please send me an email (go to side bar and click on "dispatches"), I'll be happy to forward it to you for comparison. One thing that stuck in my mind was the way the interview from CNN phrased his question to the editors of the film: "We don't know much about the Iraqi suffering..."

Please, just go see if they are suffering yourself and click on the previews. Don't take my word for it nor CNN nor Fox. The only people that can tell you about Iraqis are Iraqis. Go to voices of Iraq: videos and click on "uncensored preview" and "in-depth preview".

For another view of Iraq, I also suggest the following: Iraqi Truth Project and click on "see movie trailer" at the top of the page.

After you see this film, you might wonder why anyone would say that we should have left Saddam in power and worked through the United Nations. Surely, he was a man who sits in the realm of history along with Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler. It's not the first reason we went to war, but it is without a doubt a reason we should understand. Humans lived there. Humans died there. And they did it in masses with full knowledge and action by their own government.

Maybe it was just me, but there is a clip where a woman was standing near the mass graves, I don't know what she saw or who she found, but she let's out a bone chilling scream that should remind us, but for the grace of God...

Thinking of those that continue to deny the appropriateness of this war or those that still talk about the deposition of Saddam as if he was some sort of benevolent uncle leading his people to prosperity and we interfered with his wonderous reign, I think of the saying I once saw from post holocaust Germany:

First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I am not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I am not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I am not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me.

-Pastor Niemoller (1946)

Want more video? Stories from Iraqis and soldiers in Iraq? Go to Untold Iraq and click on "Iraqis in their own words".

In my own hometown paper, the Kansas City Star, some folks from this group visited Raytown, Missouri to talk about Iraq:

That's exactly where Councilman Abid Khalid and an Iraqi doctor, Hayder Abdulkarim, were last week, meeting with Raytown city leaders and spreading news of progress in their country.

Khalid told the city's Board of Aldermen that the American media seem bent on exaggerating Iraq's problems. News reports ignore improvements in schools, sanitation and drinking water, he said.

“Iraqis are dedicated to building their country, and they really want America to stay for a while,” said Khalid, a civil engineer.

And, from the mayor of Raytown, Sue Franks, she expresses exactly what I have learned in reading and listening to the many sources from Iraq:

Frank said meeting the Iraqis reminded her of American political apathy. People in Baghdad may die going to the polls, but many Americans don't even vote.

“All of us were just left with such a sense of awe and a sense of appreciation for how much we take for granted,” she said.

Whatever I say here, whatever I do, largely I am trying to provide you, if you are undecided, information on what each side is presenting and whether this is accurate or not.

You have only to look on my side bar to understand who I am and who I am voting for. But, in the end, it is you that must decide who best will represent your view of America and where we should go in the next four years.

My decision did not come to me overnight. It was not a thunderbolt from the sky. It was many events that led me to that conclusion. In the same token, my own feelings on the justification for the war in Iraq did not come from one speech by the President. I have no idea how young or how old some of my readers are, but I am old enough to remember the last 14 years.

I remember the first Gulf War and the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent removal of Saddam.

I remember seeing the pictures of destruction of Kuwait. The ravaged buildings, the ravaged citizens and the reports of the tortured, executed and missing after the "cease fire" was signed.

I remember wondering in that moment why we left such a dictator in place. Someone that could feel no compunction about unleashing such destruction on a neighboring country for purely territorial gains and greed.

I remember the massacre of the Shi'a who rose up against Saddam as we signed the cease fire and how we did nothing except institute no fly zones which simply meant that Saddam went to the road to drive his troops to the areas and continue massacring the Shi'a.

I remember learning about the gassing of the Kurds several years before (when I was still too young to know or care about international politics) and seeing the pictures of men, women and children lying in tortured positions, their mouths agape, foaming, burned skin, lying where they fell and we had done nothing.

I remember wondering in that moment why we left such a monster in place and had not gone to Baghdad to remove him as surely this cease fire meant that we would one day return to this place.

I remember how many times (hundreds) that I heard or read about Saddam's military targeting or shooting at our planes in the no fly zones.

I remember how many times he defied the UN and threw out the inspectors.

I remember how many times we had to threaten him with violence (the cessation of cease fire as he was violating the cease fire agreement) or do violence in order to get him to re-admit the inspectors.

I remember the sanctions that were to keep Saddam from gaining certain military abilities (even WMD) but help the Iraqi people with food and medicine and how I learned that the people were suffering degredations while Saddam staged little shows of defiance from gold plated palaces.

I remember when President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and I thought "finally, we will remove him" but we could not muster the political will to do so and I wondered how we could continue to leave this man in place

I remember Saddam's words after we were attacked on Sept 11. They were no words of condolences, but words of defiance and satisfaction.

I remember when the President said that Saddam must disarm or face serious consequences (and we weren't just talking disarming WMD, nuclear or biological or chemical; that included his missiles that did not meet the UN resolution standards for what he could have militarily to defend himself and not prosecute "offensive" wars) and I thought again, "finally, we will remove this man".

And we removed him with all speed.

I remember thinking, "finally, we do what we say and are no longer speaking empty words."

I remember seeing the prison full of children and women being liberated by our soldiers and being even more shocked than I thought I could be after 14 years.

I remember seeing the torture chambers, the men speaking of their torture, the videos of that same torture and murder made for the entertainment of Saddam and being even more shocked at the depravity that I could not understand here in my safe world where my only worries were paying the bills, buying groceries and what I would watch on TV that night.

I remember seeing the mass graves and all those things that I had read about in history, about the holocaust, the purges of Stalin, the killing fields of Cambodia, suddenly became a reality in my world. Something I thought surely must have passed away into history, but there it was, confronting me.

I remember and hear even now, how there were no WMD stockpiles to be found, therefore, the justification for this war was null and void and I think even now how shocked I am to hear someone wonder about the "legality" of this war or wonder for it's justification when I have clearly lived these last 14 years and have not lost my memory nor have I gone deaf and blind.

I hear people arguing about the semantics of the 9/11 report about whether Saddam was involved in planning 9/11 or had contact with Al Qaida or other terrorists or if that contact was extensive and I wonder what are we arguing about? Clearly, here was a man and a government machine that violated the ceasefire, violated international law and violated every tenet of human decency and yet we question whether this was the right war? The right place? The right time?

Sitting here now, I have wondered if we have fallen so far that we, as a nation, have lost all sense of good and decency in this world that we must wonder at this action? We wonder if it was worth it? We wonder at the sacrifice of our young in that far away land?

I have many times expressed to some who doubt the legitimacy of this war, that there were many wars before that started out for less than humanitarian reasons that, in the end, resulted in some of the most fantastic humanitarian efforts known to man kind.

Did we fight the Civil War on our own homeland to free the slaves? While the right to admit slave states was among the issues of the day, the reality of that war was the southern states intent to assert states rights and secede from the union and Lincoln's intent to preserve it. The Emancipation Proclamation was not even signed until three years into the war and yet, we teach our young that the most important outcome of that war was not the retention of the union, but the freedom of the slave.

Did we fight the Nazis because they were exterminating the Jews and any other undesirables they determined in order to create their "master race"? No. We fought them because they threatened our allies, had an alliance with Japan, which attacked us, and seemed intent on conquering whatever part of the world they could reach. And yet, when we teach our young, one of the most significant points is the monstrosity of the Nazi machine and the holocaust.

We fought the Japanese because they attacked us, but when you read history, do we not include the atrocities committed in Nanking, China? The butchering of the Chinese citizenry? The Batan Death March? The beheading of our soldiers and brutalization of civilian captives?

Why do we include all these aspects of these wars when the original reason for the war was not bound by these reasons? Because they represent a part of those wars that cannot be denied, that represents the morality of those wars and we sacrificed much in them. And in the end, those sacrifices were for our security, but also for freedom, not just here in the United States, but for people around the world. They were not for nothing.

And we have fought so many other wars for less.

And here, we question ourselves about this war. Having expressed these reasons and pointed out the monstrosity that was Saddam, some people have argued with me and told me that I cannot use the "humanitarian" aspects of the war as justification and that the only justification was WMD and that has proved false, therefore, this war is false.

I say to you that you may believe as you wish. The justification for this war was not in one speech given by the President. To me, it was 14 years of memory that cannot be erased by the words "weapons of mass destruction" or any lack thereof.

The justification for this war is buried in the hundreds of mass graves through out Iraq. It is in the pictures of wailing women and men as they discover their loved ones there, the last site of them as skeletons and decomposing bodies with blindfolds and bound hands, broken skulls and bullet holes.

The justification for this war is in the pictures of a liberated prison where women and children and old men and women were the only occupants.

The justification for this war was in the pictures of mutilation and torture for the amusement of a sick man.

The justification of this war is in the rooms of torture and the overcrowded underground cells where men could not even sit, much less lay down, who were detained for nothing more than not being one of the select, for not showing deference to a poster of Saddam, for not being willing to give up their business to a crony of Saddam because they simply "wanted it".

Don't tell me what I need to justify this war. I have not fallen so far from the morality and human decency that my forebearers fought and sometimes died for, that my grandparents and parents taught me at their knee that I cannot know when it was right to remove a monster and his offspring. That I cannot know when something or someone so heinous threatens the security of me, this country or the world.

The Duelfer report says that Saddam did not have stockpiles, but retained the ability, the resources and the desire to recreate his WMD program. The same people that tell me that I cannot use the last 14 years or the horrible death and destruction Saddam perpetrated on his people as justification, tell me that the retention of ability, resources or desire do not constitute the same threat to our security.

In 1918, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versaille in a truce for World War I. In this truce, they were forced to decrease their military, destroy their biological weapons (mustard gas), limit their naval ability and pay extraordinary reparations for their aggression. There was a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, who was particularly agrieved at the humiliation that Germany was forced to endure by the Treaty of Versaille and for nearly 20 years he harbored a deep antipathy for those that forced this humiliation on his country, on him.

In the same time, a great organization was created, The League of Nations, whose premis was to insure that no such World War and destruction would occur again. That all nations could sit at a table and discuss their problems and avoid such wars. This organization was to enforce such treaties and other international laws. This organization failed in it's premis. It eventually became useless and disolved. 18 years after World War I and the Treaty of Versaille in 1936, when the world had turned it's eyes away from Germany, having determined that the Treaty of Versaille had done it's duty, that same corporal was now the "elected" leader of Germany and began to re-arm Germany, persecute political opponents, demanded that all persons wanting to live and work in Germany become part of their party, instituted "the final solution" for the extermination of "undesirables" and again threatened it's neighbors.

And we looked not on his actions because, they were in Germany after all. Far across the ocean. No threat to us and our kind. Four years later, our allies were in a fight for their lives, their very freedom, while many debated the ethicacy of involving ourselves in another war. December 7, 1941 we were attacked by an ally of Germany, Japan, and promptly declared war.

In 1936, had the world recognized the danger of a re-arming Germany and actually enforced the Treaty of Versaille, Nazi Germany would have died a dream in the darkest recesses of Hitler's heart since Germany, at that time, did not have the ability to fight the war that it began fighting in 1939 and we joined in 1941.

One man understood the danger of Hitler and scoffed at the appeasers while France laughed behind the fortified gun implacements of the Maginot line and Russia assumed it was protected by the great tundra and the Ural mountains that had proven Napolean's downfall. His name was Winston Churchill and he was branded a war mongerer. In 1942, no one was laughing anymore. No one wondered why the war was important, France had fallen and Russia trembled as the Nazis began their first foray into the hinterlands.

After millions died and the great holocaust came to light, did anyone wonder at how they had come to such an impasse?

We are there today. History does not repeat itself so much as tells us the lessons of the monsters and of our own downfalls. They are meant to be lessons learned and not repeated.

The United Nations was created to insure such a war would never occur again. That no such dictator could come to power. Committ such atrocities. Threaten the world. It has served many purposes, but here, once again, it has failed to learn the lessons of the League of Nations. We turn blind eyes in hopes that these things are figments of our imagination. Not so great and horrendous as we suppose. Explainable. Stoppable.

You cannot change the spots of a leopard. A simple cliche, but a truism beyond measure. No act of the United Nations would change Saddam. No sanctions disarm him. No censure of this world keep him from abiding his time and returning to his desire to arm Iraq to the teeth and become the power of the region. Threaten his neighbors, our allies and, in the end, the US itself as the main author of his humiliation in Gulf War I.

The Oil For Food scandal and the armament abilities of Iraq in 2003, clearly showed that the cease fire, resolutions and sanctions were falling apart. We can look into the heart of Iraq and see clearly the the kind of man, the kind of leaders the heinous actions of this man and his machine committed against his own people.

There is no need for a crystal ball, for inspectors or investigators, or another five or ten years to go by to tell me what Saddam and his sons would become. I have the pages of history to review the advent of dictators upon our world as if Nostradamus himself had written it. I have fourteen years and the voices of Iraq to tell me.

Believe as you must. Cry foul if you will. Speak of "illegitimate" wars, the UN, inspections.

This is my "Voice of Iraq" and, by God, I will never say "Wrong War. Wrong place. Wrong time."

Freedom is never wrong.

Summary only...

Wrong War? Wrong Place? Wrong Time? Will You Deny Them Their "Legitimacy"?

You are entering a site that contains inflammatory and inhumane pictures. Viewer beware. These are but a few of the pictures of from the mass graves discovered over the last year.

Summary only...

They had to wear a blind fold, are you blind, too?

Summary only...

The killling fields of Iraq. Pol Pot would have been proud. 

Summary only...

These men had been dead for less than a year when this photo was taken in 2003. Were the sanctions working? Do you think these men are questioning the "legitimacy" of their execution? 

Summary only...

You do not have to be a forensic scientist to know that this mass grave is less than a year old based on the deteriation of the bodies. Just so you understand that this is not some "old" mass grave from the 91 uprising or the 80's gassing of the kurds. This was on going and sanctions and inspections would never stop it. 

Summary only...

Reality Road Check: Undecided Voters Part V Was Tora Bora "Outsourced"?

One thing is for sure, people like catchy phrases and their is nothing more "catchy" than the word "outsourced" in our current economical climate. The word induces shivers in any person that works in technology or manufacturing positions.

In this case, the word "outsourced" is used specifically to give the voter that same shiver. That our current administration, as opposed to any other historically, is so attached to "outsourcing" that it would "outsource" our security. Of course, the same has been said concerning Senator Kerry's proposed "global test" for future security measures.

In regards to Tora Bora and Osama bin Laden, it is specifically used to do what the Democrat party has been saying the Republican party has done: fearmongering.

From my perspective, it seems that the best source of information about whether Tora Bora was "outsourced" is the commander who was in charge of the situation: Gen. Tommy Franks.

In a recent opinion editorial of the New York Times, Gen. Franks (ret), talks about his operational plan for Tora Bora, and whether the allegations of allowing Osama bin Laden to slip away, are true:

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Go read the rest here: Tommy Franks on Tora Bora

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John Kennedy, May 18, 1963

Summary only...

Reality Road Check: Undecided Voters Part IV You And Your Money

In my post, Undecided Voters Part II - Politics of Numbers, we discussed the timing of the recession, the indicators of that recession and the incident which compelled it past where it might have gone to the reality of a post September 11 economy. As I noted in that posting, we had hit our economic peak somewhere around October 2000, slightly before President Bush took office. There were a number of things that contributed to it, but, as the National Bureau of Economic Research indicated, we had experienced one of the longest upward climbing economic booms in history. It was bound to come down some sooner or later based on normal economic trends.

We will be reviewing some charts that show this climb as well as historical economic trends that fairly indicate that continuous economic booms do not exist in our history and probably never will. I will also review some things that leant to this economic boom, not the least of which was "hope". "Hope" is an important factor and based on one of the most important historical factors in economic history: the fall of the USSR. This one instance made the United States the last remaining super power on the planet with the strongest economy. It also negated the possibility of nuclear holocaust at the hands of the "evil empire". "Hope" for a future of peaceful economic expansion around the globe was driving investments as not seen since post World War II.

Some might point to China as our next biggest "arch enemy" and the concern of their nuclear weapons. A potential conflict over the right of Taiwan to continue as a free and democratic country at the edge of a post Communist China (yes, "post" communist because China is edging towards capitalism even as we read here). But there is a reality that must be taken along with these concerns that make China less of a danger than many might otherwise consider: Money. Simply, China is in the middle of their own economic boom, largely dependent on trade with the free world (including the US) and global investments. Money trumps all and China is very unlikely to want to damage it's own economy with threats of war.

What about your money? Your money drives this economy. Your money is what will bring us from recession and is working now. But the consumer confidence index shows that you, the consumer, are not as confident. Why is that when economic indicators have shown that we are on the road to recovery?

"Recovery" is in the eye of the beholder. Are we recovering? Do you have money in your pocket? Go to the inner sanctum to find out about your money and why you wonder if we are "recovering".

Do you have more or less money?

Undoubtedly, there are some people reading this that know, after the tax cuts of the last three years, you actually have more money in your paycheck. Others will point out the lost jobs that they experienced that required them to take a job that paid less, even if it was $5 or $.50 less and, understandably, would say they have less in their pocket. Those that have fallen victim to "outsourcing" will point to that as a factor in their considerations for how and when and under who's administration their job loss occurred. It is only you, as the individual who can decide if you have more money in your pocket and determine if this is the sole director of your vote.

What about the country as a whole? Have we lost income or gained income?

During the debate, Senator Kerry claimed that the average household had lost over $9,000 in salary. President Bush claims that his tax breaks put more money into people's pockets, particularly the middle class.

Who is correct?

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, economic trends indicated, even as we went into recession, your real personal income (money from salaries, interest from investments, sale of realestate, etc) steadily increased through 2001:


real personal income through 2001

The solid line represents your income during this recession period and the dotted line represents historical trends in income during all other economic recessions.

Why would your income increase, but the country head into recession with job losses as per my post "The Politics of Numbers"? Largely because of two things:

1. Effects of economic down turns compared to income have a verifiable lag time.
   
2. Job losses in 2001 were extensive in the first few months and had tapered off considerably during June, July and August. August showing none. Which means we were set to have one of the shortest recessions in history.

In short, had all economic trends continued as they were, you would have felt very little impact in your pocket. But, as I pointed out in "Politics of Numbers", something else happened entirely. September 11, 2001.

This was not just a human tragedy or even a national tragedy. It was an economic tragedy as well. And it was timed with near perfection.

What does September 11 and Al-Qaida have to do with our financial situation?

As I pointed out in "Politics of Numbers", the economic impact was felt immediately. What might have been a slow game of leap frog back to a growing economy, was exacerbated by immediate unemployment of over 1.4 million people within the first four months after the tragedy.

And you felt it even as the president urged us to go shopping, continue our lives as normal and try to not let it effect us or the economy. In reality, it would be hard for many not to feel these effects. But, it is actually sound advice that we will discuss a little later.

What about Al-Qaida and finances? Did they plan to have this kind of impact or was it incidental to the entire tragedy?

The first thing that you must understand about Osama bin Laden and the advisors that work with him is that they are not stupid people. As much as we might like to imagine them cowering in a cave eating goat cheese and cooking over a campfire, it would be highly disingenuous of anyone to believe that they do not understand finances and impact at least as well as you do. They did not attack the World Trade Centers because they were the tallest buildings in America. They did not attack them because they thought they would get the highest number of casualties (in fact, on a video later released, Osama is heard laughing with amazement over the amount of damage that was actually inflicted). The did not attack them because they were symbols of American ingenuity or freedom.

The attack was orchestrated specifically because these two towers represented the epicenter of American finance and economy. The purpose was to inflict as much damage on the US economy as possible in hopes of forcing just such an economic disaster and, hopefully, force the US to withdraw from some of it's global endeavors.

And what about the timing?

As noted, Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants were not scruffy goat herders without education or understanding of finance. They understood it perfectly well and had been using it to invest money and collect dividends by which to support their own endeavors and launder money. They understood perfectly well the condition of the US economy. The plan had been in place for nearly five years and, yet, had not been unleashed. We could speculate about operational issues and training, etc, but, if we look at the last years of the Clinton administration and the financial indicators, we can see that the US economy was in a "boom". Certainly, an attack would have set us back, but would not have had the impact on a growing economy that it would have on an economy in recession.

With the recovery of August 2001 looming, it was now or never for Al-Qaida to strike and they did. According to some reports, Sheik Khalid had actually tried to get it off the ground in April when the recession had first been called, but that had been postponed due to operational issues.

So, what happened to your money, post September 11?

Almost immediately, you felt it in the pocket book. Within a few months, prices for commodities, dairy, food, clothing and gasoline began to see an increase in cost. Almost immediately, 1.4 million people were unemployed and were desperately searching for any job to sustain them. In which case, there are two factors that effected your money and they are based on "supply and demand" rules of economy:

1. 1.4 million people searching for a job along with the original 7 million unemployed at the time
   
2. Available jobs paid less in salary

The reality is, with so many people looking for a job, employers no longer had to offer top salaries and benefits to attract good employees. The employees were now competing at a rate of 20 to 1 for a position and the employers had the upper hand. The reality is, because so many companies were effected by September 11 and the recession, they no longer had top management positions available or many jobs at all. What was left was lower paying wages which you competed for.

This had a direct impact on your wage earning per family:


median household Income 1967 2003

According to these statistics, you, the average family, went from an average household income of $45,000 in 2000 to approximately $43,500. Losing approximately $1500 per year per household.

In answer to our earlier question, was Mr. Kerry correct when he said that the average household had lost nearly $9000 in yearly income? The answer is no although this graph is an "average" so that means that, statistically, someone could have lost as much as $9000 in yearly income. But that would mean, because this is an average, that others would have gained nearly $7500 per year in income. Leaving the aggregated amount of -$1500. However, there are no statistics that support this conclusion, therefore, we must assume that Mr. Kerry's claim is incorrect.

Is President Bush correct when he claims that he has put more money in your pocket?

The answer is "nuanced" as Mr. Kerry likes to say.

The numbers don't lie. You, on average, have less income today then you did in 2000. So, was the president lying? Not exactly. For those who did not lose a job or income, most of you would have realized an additional amount of "take home pay" in your check. This is due to the re-alignment of tax levels. On average, you, whose salary was not directly impacted, saw approximately a 2% increase in your take home pay. In addition, if you have are married, you received approximately 1% additional take home pay for relief from the "marriage penalty" and if you have children, another 1% in take home pay for the child credit. Some of which were only first realized when you did your taxes last year and received your refund check (or paid less to the IRS).

In short, most of you realized an additional 4% in cash from your paycheck.

For those who were impacted by the loss of a job and/or the taking of a lesser salary, your total income was effected, but you probably did not note the additional take home pay in your check because it was less than you were used to making after all.

So, the answer is, yes you have more take home pay, but, no, some of you are making less salary than previously. And, no, we did not lose an average of $9000 per household.

What else do these numbers tell us? Are we recovering?


median household Income 1967 2003

If you look at the graph and it's trending closely, you will note that in every recession period, once the downward trend in income leveled off, it never continues to go down, but does immediately begin to grow again. If you look at the end of the graph where it shows the 2002-2003 period, you will also note that household income had leveled off after it's loss. We have no complete numbers for 2004, but we may make conjectures based on known data.

1. According to the research in "Politics of Numbers", unemployment continues to steadily decrease. Sometimes faster and slower than others.
   
2. Average monthly job gain: 103,000.
   
3. GDP is steadily rising since it's nearly all time low of .8% in 2001 to appx. 3.7% in 2004 (to date).
   
4. Average hourly wages have increased from $15.55 in May 2004 to $15.77 in August 2004. This up from average hourly wages of $14.40 in September of 2001
   

So why then is consumer confidence down for a second month in a row?


consumer confidence Index 2004

There are a few reasons that persist:

1. Insecurity about continuing economic growth. The last three years have seen some ups and downs based on the financial data and many people are hesitant to believe that the upward trend will continue.
   
2. Unemployment continues to be a net loss of jobs (-585,000) which means there is still less money for consumers to spend
   
3. Cost of oil continues to rise, forcing the cost of gasoline to increase exponentially.
   
4. Increase in gasoline prices have caused an increase in cost of delivery of goods and services which means an increase in cost of living.
   
5. Continued fighting in Iraq and other hot situations continue to worry consumers and investors about the future (Iran, North Korea).

What then will the future hold and who best will guide it?

Frankly, there are no guarantees. Any number of factors can effect the economy. The truth is, if we are looking to climb out of this insecure economy in the next 6 months, we may be setting our expectations too high and, having them dashed, will see another leap frog effect on consumer confidence and improved economy. Neither candidate can actually control the economy or how many jobs are created. However, it is their policies that will effect those that create jobs and whether you have money in your pocket from tax reduction.

If we return to the graph above, the width of the blue bar indicates the length of the recession. For instance, the recession of 1981 last until mid 1982. Nearly one and a half years before the economy recovered and then, household income did not start increasing until six months after the recession began to recede or until 1983. After the recession of 1990, household income did not start increasing until three years later, 1993 and did not return to it's previous levels until 1995.

In our current situation, the recession appears to have ended by 2002. In 2003, income loss had leveled off and, according to current trends, will increase for 2004 eventually coming equal with pre-recession income in 2005. If no other financial issues arise, it will continue on past the pre-recession levels.

In short, barring any disasters, you will soon return to your original income and then some.

Is this sustainable?

Again, there are too many factors to accurately project what the economy will do, but today's numbers indicate we are in a recovery. Some things, regardless of who is in office, are unlikely to change:

1. We will continue in Iraq until it is pacified and the new government is elected for at least another year. Neither candidate is likely to withdraw or have a plan to withdraw any time before that. Continuing violence has an impact on people's buying habits. Only the election of 2005 and continued offenses against the terrorists will tell the outcome.
   
2. Oil prices will eventually top out, however, do not look for a fall in price equal to the increase. Countries like China and South Korea having growing populations and economy and require more oil. This is supply and demand economics and, as long as the demand is greater than the supply, prices of oil will not decrease significantly unless other countries can increase their output and few, besides Saudi Arabia, are willing to do so.

But, based on trends, we are recovering and, barring another attack, we will continue to do so. From this perspective, President Bush's economic package of tax cuts seemed to have worked as he indicated and is pulling us from recession. Some might say that this was nothing less than Herculean considering the effects of 9/11. They may be right in this case.

The question must be who will be able to insure the future. We will review each candidates proposals and on the next round of "Politics of Numbers".

Reference Materials
US Department: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Factcheck.org: Bogus Claims on Job Losses
Factcheck.org: Who received tax relief?
National Bureau of Economic Research
Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Index: 2003

Summary only...

Reality Road Check: Undecided Voters Part III Politics of Education

The next post was going to be about personal income and take home pay, but I ran across a vital post from The Anti-Idiotarian concerning the alleged underfunding of the "No Child Left Behind Act".

A taste:

2. Total taxpayer investment in K-12 education in the United States for the 2003-04 school year is estimated to exceed $501.3 billion.
Even in this current time of war, taxpayer investment in education exceeds that for national defense. In addition to the K-12 money mentioned above, taxpayers will spend an estimated $350.8 billion for higher education in the same school year.[ * ] As noted on the chart below, the United States is a world leader in education investment. However, nations that spend far less achieve higher levels of student performance.

Go on over and read the rest

And if you are interested in more fact checking on education spending, go to Factcheck.org for information on alleged cutting of after school programs and Pell Grants.

Summary only...

Reality Road Check: Undecided Voters Part II - The Politics of Numbers

My favorite thing is to look up the numbers that the candidates give you and see if they are telling the truth or blowing smoke. You can bet any time they quote a number, they are expecting you the voter to sit there and just take it. Trust them. They wouldn't lie.

So, after last nights debate, I decided to look up some information and see what was up.

For example, it eas very easy for me to look up the very misleading education numbers that Sen. Edwards gave during his debate with Dick Cheney, where he says 50% of African American's and Hispanics drop out of school before they finish high school. Upon review of the numbers, it was easy to find out that the drop out rate was 7% for whites, 13% for African Americans and 29% for Hispanics. Of which, the Hispanic population included almost 44% of that number as being immigrants that did not re-enroll in school or had not attended school in their native country. These numbers have been steadily decreasing since 1992.

Want to learn more about the numbers that people quote and the reality behind them? Go to the inner sanctum.

Where do we start? How about the economy?

Recession, In What Hour Did You Begin?

I was looking through some different numbers regarding decreases in salary or family incomes when I came across some the recession indicators.

So, we answer the first question. Were we in a recession or a depression? If you remember correctly, the Kerry/Edwards campaign originally started touting the "misery index" and trying to claim we were in a depression like 1929. The misery index turned out not support the "misery" that Mr. Kerry wanted to show. President Bush's highest rating was 8.6 directly after 9/11 and then decreased to 7.4 and continues a downward trend. In comparison, the highest misery index was created during the Carter Administration which was at 20.6. The President's current misery index is the same as Clinton's at the end of his time in office.


misery index 1948-2004

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession became official, March 2001, a few weeks after President Bush was sworn into office January 20, 2001:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001.

What are the indicators for a recession?

A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough.

According to the next figures, employment reached it's peak in March 2001 and began sliding off at a slower rate (solid line) than previous recessions' average (dotted line) until Sept 11, where the number began a rapid decrease to match all previous recessions:


current employment compared to previous recessions through 2001

According to labor reports, almost 1.4 million jobs were lost within months after Sept 11.

1. September 2001, 199,000 became unemployed with an unemployment rate of 4.9%
   
2. In October 2001, over 732,000 jobs were lost. With unemployment jumping to 5.4% compared to 4.9% in September
   
3. In November 2001, another 418,000 became unemployed, increasing that number again to 5.7%
   
4. In December 2001, another 124,000 became unemployed, with 5.8% unemployment rate

In short, almost 1.4 million people became unemployed within months of the September 11 tragedy. Prior to that, March 2001 to August 2001, the recession had caused an approximate loss of jobs of 403,000. Two months within that period had shown no increase of unemployment. The bleeding had stopped by February 2002 and by May 2002 modest gains were seen with a total decrease of unemployed people from 8.9 to 8.1 million by September 2002. But then, another economic bust caused unemployment to rise once again from January 2003 to July 2003 with a record 9.1 million unemployed at 6.3%.

1. Job creation began again in August 2003 and has risen steadily.
   
2. Unemployed decreased by 1.1 million by August 2004 to 8.0 million unemployed and 5.4%.
   
3. Average monthly job gains from July 2004 to Sept 2004 rose by an average of 103,000 per month

NBER goes on to answer an important question about the recession in their FAQs:

Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in causing the recession?

A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession.

Where are we at today with unemployment?

Kerry claims that over 2.5 million jobs were lost during President Bush's administration and he is right. President Bush claims that over 1.96 million jobs were created and he is right.

According to all indicators, the aggregate job loss is -585,000. Based on current average increase of jobs in the last 12 months, this job loss will be erased by February 2005.

President Bush claims that the recession began before he started office. Is this correct?

Technically, the recession was called in March 2001. A recession is identified after 2 quarters of steady decline after a peak in multiple indicators, including the unemployment that we discussed earlier. However, he is correct to state that the economic peak and decline had began BEFORE his administration took office. Several key indicators support this:


Industrial production through 2001

Industrial production peaked in October of 2000 and began a rapid decline the last three months of 2000 and continuing through 2001.


manufacturing and trade through 2001

Manufacturing and trade peaked in November 2000, continued downward until January 2001 where it began a leapfrog pattern.

According to these indicators, President Bush was correct when he indicated that the economic peak had been reached before he took office.

What indicators show either an improvement or decline in the economy?

The first would be the current steady increase in employment. As noted, if the current trends stay in place, the lost jobs will be made up by February 2005. Other indicators would be:

1. Steady increase of GDP. 4.5% in the first quarter of 2004 and 3.3% in the second quarter 2004. Although this shows a slower growth in the second quarter, third quarter numbers are not available to show if this trend continues as an increase or decline. In reflection, GDP was at an all time low of .8% in 2001; climbed to 1.9% 2002; 3.0 2003 and shows a probable average for 2004 of 3.7%.
   
2. Government deficit decreased by 15 billion from -379.2 in 1st quarter 2004 to -364.6 in the second quarter.
   
3. Production index shows a small increase from 116.4835 in 1st quarter to 116.6196 in second quarter
   
4. Inventories have increased from 40 billion 1st quarter to 61 billion in the second quarter (quantity and value of inventories correlate with manufacturing which also means additional jobs are created.
   
5. Investment in both residential and non-residential realestate have increased quarter over quarter

Strangely, consumer confidence has declined for the second month in a row:


consumer confidence Index 2004

Probably not so strange due to other indicators that we will discuss in our next posting of "Undecided Voters-Politics of Numbers".

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John Kennedy, May 18, 1963

Summary only...

Reality Road Detour: Debates - If You Are Undecided Part IWill the Real JFK Please Stand Up?

Tonight's debates are what I call "blah, blah, blah". We've heard them all. The same lines. These are the candidates stump speeches. If you needed to hear them to decide who you were voting for, it's sad. Very sad. Particularly as my future may depend on someone that can't make up their mind. And, no, I'm not talking about Senator Kerry. I'm talking about you, the alleged un-decided voter.

A hint to you, you have already made up your mind, you just won't admit it to yourself. If you have figured out what each candidates policy, plans, bullshit means, you are either fooling yourself or have been living in a tree in South America for the last four years. Maybe longer. Go to the inner sanctum for more on the blah, blah, blah of debate and what you need to know as undecided voters.

Some historical reference: we were attacked by 19 men in four Boeing 747s on 9/11. They were Arab men. Extremist Muslims. Their leader is/was Osama Bin Laden. We got rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan in October of 2001. We deposed Saddam, the Butcher of Baghdad, in 2003. We are fighting the same group of extremist Muslims in Iraq right now while we stave off power grabs from old Saddam Ba'athi party members, Shi'a fighting on behalf of the Iranian Mullahs and a shi'ite theocracy and some criminals that are looking for a quick buck however they can make it.

The economy was going in the shitter as of 1999 and totally went into the shitter thanks to the 19 men who felled the World Trade Center and it's finance group. We were able to pull it out of the shitter and wipe it off some in the last three years, but we have some ways to go. The UN Oil For Food program was a bribery and extortion program. Member states of the security council of the UN participating in the Oil For Food program and receiving ill gotten gains blocked additional resolutions or requests to authorize UN force against the Butcher of Baghdad due to either greed or fear or stupidity or all three. Terrorists of the extreme Islamic sort have attacked countries all over the world, kidnapped and beheaded citizens, learned to use the internet and media as an effective tool while we sit dumbfounded.

The education system is being reformed. The NEA doesn't like it because they will no longer hold the power to determine excellence. They will actually have to teach the students how to read and write and do math (novel idea, don't you think?). Healthcare in the United States has never been better, never cost so much and some folks in government think we should have nationalized healthcare so we can insure the mediocrity of our healthcare system to match the world. Lord knows the last time French or British healthcare developed a new life saving procedure or drug.

Taxes were reduced for everyone, but that included the corporations, which in no small part kept the economy, formerly noted as being in the shitter and being pulled out, from drowning in the shit created by a busted market and attacks on financial institutes.

The UN has declared the war in Iraq "illegal" as they quibble over what constitutes 'genocide' in Sudan and 50k people are massacred for either their ethnicity or their faith (do you recall Rwanda: hit "replay") and we do nothing. Because they are black? Because they have no economic value like Iraq or Iran? Because they do and these same greedy countries that played with Iraq's Oil For Food Program have oil companies and investments in Sudan that might be effected if they interfere?

In case you haven't noticed, there has been a serious decline in morality across the nation and the world while you were hiding in your tree. Our grandfathers buried in Normandy, Italy, Africa and tiny islands across the Pacific are rolling in their graves. Or maybe morality isn't an issue for you if you've been living in the trees?

Lastly, in case you haven't noticed, the Democrat party has raised the evil specter of racial and ethnic discrimination by insisting that these minorities were disenfranchised in the last election. Let's not forget stolen elections. They are preparing already to declare the election fraudulent in an attempt at a bloodless coup. What, you don't think so? What else do you call it when one body acts like a third world criminal political party and attempts to overthrow lawful elections in order to install their candidate? Besides, I'm not making it up. That is the letter that has been sent to Democrat members around the country and you can see on their own website.

Oh, yeah..You've been living in a tree for the last 20 years. Well, you'll just have to get up to speed a little quicker.

I suggest we look at the current debate so you can here the repeat, wash, rinse, spin, repeat of the candidates stump speech:

First question to Kerry:
Senator, I want to set the stage for this discussion by asking the question that I think hangs over all of our politics today and is probably on the minds of many people watching this debate tonight.

And that is, will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?

yada, yada, yada...I believe that this president, regrettably, rushed us into a war, made decisions about foreign policy, pushed alliances away. And, as a result, America is now bearing this extraordinary burden where we are not as safe as we ought to be.

What? You haven't heard that 20 times? What do you believe?

(...)And there are a host of options that this president had available to him, like making sure that at all our ports in America containers are inspected. Only 95 percent of them -- 95 percent come in today uninspected.(...)

People who fly on airplanes today, the cargo hold is not X-rayed, but the baggage is

Ok, since you've been hanging with the natives and sleeping in trees, let me break that down for you. These are essentially truths. Except for the "cargo hold not x-rayed". That is true but not true. The cargo hold is not x-rayed but all the packages and baggage that goes into the cargo hold, are x-rayed. Not sure why he thinks we need to x-ray the cargo hold if everything else is x-rayed, but there you go.

How do I know? I fly in my everyday job. A lot. Read my blog. You'll find out. He's just trying to scare you sometimes flyers into worrying if you will be blown out of the sky on your once every decade flight to see Grandma.

That's not good enough. Firehouses don't have enough firefighters in them

Cuz'...Did I mention that we were attacked on 9/11? I know I forgot to tell you the part where 3000 people were killed and it including 346 Firemen and emergency personnel? Or the number of firefighters that are off now serving their country as part of the military? How about I remind you that, while the federal government provides subsidies, it is actually you, me and the state and city that you live in that is responsible for raising taxes and providing fire services? Or...If you are living in some places I lived in, the fire department is completely volunteer with the exception of the chief and the captains. Also, there are no proven numbers that we somehow are missing firemen for some reason related to the President.

You see, this is another scare tactic. Hey, did I tell you that they are claiming the Republicans are using fear mongering to push their campaign? We'll get to that, but it's pretty damn clear they want you to believe that we are so short on firemen that your house is likely to burn down. Oh, yeah. I forgot. You've been living in a tree. Well, then they want you to believe that your tree will burn down because there are not enough firemen.

Scary, huh?

Police officers are being cut from the streets of America because the president decided to cut the COPS program.

Um...Can you say "scare tactic" again? I don't know...Has crime gone up in your neighborhood or city? Well yeah, I was just looking at my cities crime statistics and they have gone up. At least certain ones. Aggravated Assault and Non-aggravated assault and larceny and Grand theft auto. Homicides are the same and rape and robbery and burglary (robbed you, a bank or person; burglarized a home or business while no one was there) are down. Hmmm...What does that mean? Violent crime goes down but a bunch of people are trying to make a quick buck. Maybe the decrease in violent crime but the increase in larceny and grand theft auto are related to the recession and increase in poverty? We'll discuss that on another post.

Now for the repeat, wash, rinse, spin and repeat:

So we can do a better job of homeland security. I can do a better job of waging a smarter, more effective war on terror and guarantee that we will go after the terrorists.

I will hunt them down, and we'll kill them, we'll capture them. We'll do whatever is necessary to be safe.

Actually, I have to tell you...Kerry's insistence that he will "hunt them down and kill them" rings a "beware of braggart overkill" bell with me. I think he must have done one of those focus groups and tested the phrase out on some people "we'll kill them" must have rated stronger than the President's "wanted dead or alive; or bring them to justice" speech.

Can you actually picture Kerry killing anyone? Well, yes, but it's not terrorists and he wouldn't need a weapon. Just his droning, droning voice as he plays Perry Maison and bores you to death without actually having said how he was going to do it. I mean, did you hear him say how he was going to do it? Get our Allies to participate. Uh...Another history lesson for you, we already have 30 countries, including Britain and Australia. He is talking about the French and Germans? Meet any of those while you were living in your tree? Remember: Oil For Food scandal; French block the vote, Germans follow, they all had a piece of Saddam's oil pie and his money in their accounts.

Now he will invoke the long dead presidents that he wishes he could emulate:

"But I pledge this to you, America: I will do it in the way that Franklin Roosevelt

History lesson: Roosevelt is dead. He had a Churchill to work with who is probably rolling in his grave over the lack of moral fortitude in his fellow British. The French were already over run, the Italians were with the Nazis, and he had to give Stalin and the USSR half of Europe to get them to buy in. Fortunately, the Aussies were with us then and now, although Sen. Kerry stupid sister tricks going down to support a losing candidate probably didn't endear him any to the current Aussie PM, re-elected Mr. Howard. Is that your plan? Let some of the allies get overrun, bargain with a murderous dictator and pray for your Jacque to turn into Churchill? I think you will have a long wait. Maybe you will sell Iraq to Iran if the Mullahs will just give up their nuclear ambitions or maybe hand over some of the Al Qaida "guests" they've been harboring?

Which Roosevelt program are you going to follow, Senator? The one that says the Japanese and the German's were a threat or the one that makes deals based on advice from a communist sympathizer planted in the State Department?

and Ronald Reagan

Holy shit! I can't believe the balls this guy has. Reagan must be rolling over in his grave. Er..Sorry, another history lesson, the allies that Kerry keeps talking about? They hated Ronnie in the 80's. Swore that he was going to cause a nuclear holocaust between us and the USSR. Demonstrations in the street. Remember that? Were you around in the 80's? Did your tree not get MTV or ABC or BBC? The European protestors with "No Nukes" signs were trying to assault military bases and nuclear installations in Europe. The German government was with us, but France had banned any but their own. And Kerry on Reagan:

In 1984 campaign literature: “We are continuing a defense buildup that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don’t need and can’t use.

“The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed ‘window of vulnerability,’ which we now know not to exist.

“And Congress, rather than having the moral courage to challenge the Reagan Administration, has given Ronald Reagan almost every military request he has made, no matter how wasteful, no matter how useless, no matter how dangerous.

“The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities become more and more distorted as the share of our country’s resources devoted to human needs diminishes.”

Holy carumba! Does this sound familiar? I mean, does this guy ever have anything NEW to say? Cut "Reagan" and add "Bush" and you have his entire freaking stump speech. Or this one..Cut out Libya and replace with Iraq:

When Libyan terrorists bombed a Berlin, Germany, disco frequented by American GIs, Reagan ordered a retaliatory air strike in 1986 that reportedly came close to taking out Libya’s President Moammar Gadhafi. But to Kerry’s way of thinking, the Berlin attack that killed one U.S. soldier and wounded 51 did not merit a military response.

“While I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President,” Kerry wrote in a letter, “I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the Gadhafi regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act.”

Admitting that the evidence tying Tripoli to the disco bombing was “irrefutable,” the U.S. had failed the proportionality test, Kerry argued:

“It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration’s own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians. ...

“There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists.”

Are you still undecided?

“If we don’t need the MX [multiple warhead ICBM], the B-1, or these other weapons systems ... [t]here’s no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction, and as your Senator, I will never do so,” Kerry vowed.,

"I will cancel the nuclear bunker buster program" Kerry. This is the real Kerry. Strong on defense? Are you crazy or just purposefully delusional? Maybe you think China and North Korea and Iran are just going to give up their nukes cause we did? Or Pakistan or India...Psssstttt...They ain't going to do it and no hair brained "good example" is going to make them do it. Get out of the trees and start listening.

In February 1984, Mr. Kerry expressed his concern that Mr. Reagan "has mortgaged our future in order to pay for a bloated military budget." Again, in May 1984, Mr. Kerry said, "The defense expenditures of the Reagan administration are without any relevancy to the threat this nation is currently facing."

Again, wash, rinse, spin, repeat. How about that "mortgaged our future" to pay for military expenditures now? I guess this guy is consistent after all.

Want some more about what he really thought about Reagan? Go here Weekly Standard

Or how about this lovely quote:

At the 1988 Democratic convention, he characterized the Reagan presidency as a time of "moral darkness."

Obviously, Mr. Kerry can try to confuse some of the younger voters who were not old enough to even remember the Reagan years and don't have a clue that Kerry was not only anti-war, anti-nuclear but definitely anti-Reagan. And now he has the balls to call upon Reagan's name to support his candidacy? Is that your plan for us? For you to create your own four years of "moral darkness"? That's what it would be, too. The four years that we lost all sense of morality. Negotiate with terrorist states. Provide them with nuclear material. Withdraw our troops and let Iraq sink under it's own torturous weight. Yeah...can't wait for those four years of "moral darkness".

Well, let's finish up that quote from tonight's debate as he calls on the late Democrat President John Kennedy (who he wishes he was but couldn't even wipe his dog's ass if he'd had the chance)

and John Kennedy and others did

Is that the John Kennedy that told Kruschev to stick it up his ass? Or the one that left the Cubans on the Bay of Pigs to be slaughtered? Or the one that signed orders for more "training" personnel to go to Vietnam which Kerry later protested? Which JFK is he invoking? One thing's for sure, Kerry lacks the charisma of Bubba and Kennedy, so Kerry won't be getting any nookie on the side.

Now President Bush responds, actually sounding like John Kennedy:

Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world.

John Kennedy on Freedom:

We stand for freedom. That is our conviction for ourselves; that is our only commitment to others.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. (Inaugural address, 1961)

A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality.

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.

I hear it said that West Berlin is militarily untenable - and so was Bastogne, and so, in fact, was Stalingrad. Any danger spot is tenable if men - brave men - will make it so.

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility - I welcome it.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

The best road to progress is freedom's road.

The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.

The freedom of the city is not negotiable. We cannot negotiate with those who say, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

We are not against any man-or any nation-or any system-except as it is hostile to freedom.

We would like to live as we once lived, but history will not permit it.

To quote another quotable, you Senator are no John Kennedy. But I know somebody who sounds a whole lot like him.

Let us continue, Senator Kerry responds:

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

First, let me quote the real JFK again:

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

News flash for the undecideds, you should look up the CENCOM and DOD information on fighting in Afghanistan. You might not be familiar with the terrain, but it is a mountainous country. The alleged sighting of Osama bin Laden took place in Tora Bora. A mountain stronghold. Tanks and 10,000 troops just don't march out of no where, up 3000 ft, through snipers and ambushes, in secret. That is how the Russians were defeated. They had such large forces that they couldn't maneuver quickly and without getting handily hammered by the Mujihadeen hiding in the mountains and caves.

Second point, our main troops were no where near Tora Bora (for the reasons stated) when the punch came down. Not because we didn't have enough, but because we were using the special forces that Sen. Kerry is so fond of. The Northern Alliance and special forces guys were the ones that were there. They called in air strikes that surely killed enough Mujihadeen to satisfy Mr. Kerry. It would have taken days and to get to the top of Tora Bora and the bad guys would still be gone.

Another quote:

Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

One other point, if you think that Osama bin Laden is our only enemy, you should go back and live in your trees. It'll be safer for the rest of us. To date, we've eliminated 3/4 of his leadership skills and we haven't seen a tape or heard the voice of OBL in over a year. The only person you now see is his once side kick, Zawahiri. What do you think happened to him? Also, please note that all sorts of little Islamist terrorist sites can be found on the web threatening America and her allies. Osama is not our only threat. Believing that would be truly taking your eye off the ball.

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John Kennedy, May 18, 1963

Summary only...

Real War: Sun Tzu and The Art of War - Iraq

This evening I was reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". This is a treatise written by a Chinese general on prosecuting war. His treatise is taught in most military universities and used in conjunction with business. It was made famous in two movies: Wall Street with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen where Douglas's character explains how Sun Tzu's tactics work on Wall Street and a movie with Wesley Snipes "Art of War" action thriller.

As I read Sun Tzu, I could not help but see the basic tactics we and the enemy use in Iraq. The question must be, who is best able to turn these tactics to their advantage? Who understands all of the tactics explained by Sun Tzu and turn them to their advantage?

What Sun Tzu says about war in general:

1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

He goes on to talk about the first condition: Moral Law

6. The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

When reviewing these seven standards, he indicates that he can predict victory on those marks:

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise: --
13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law?

[I.e., "is in harmony with his subjects." Cf. ss. 5.]

(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
(5) Which army is stronger?

[Morally as well as physically. As Mei Yao-ch`en puts it, freely rendered, "ESPRIT DE CORPS and 'big battalions.'"]

(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
(7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?
14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

Want to read more about Sun Tzu and how he might apply to Iraq? Go to the inner sanctum:

In short, good cause, good leadership, ability to operate in all weather conditions and landscape, most disciplined, most well armed, highest trained and most capable of performing consistently without breakdown of discipline or strength, are the reasons that victory will be obtained.

If we look at Iraq, we can see both our enemy's and our own compliance with these seven aspects:

The Enemy

• Believes he has the high ground on morals because he is fighting the infidel or the occupier
• Only part of the group has any practical experience as leaders and fighters. Those that have been participating in guerilla warfare for years against their own government or in Afghanistan or Sudan or any other number of places. But these are limited resources. The other parts of the enemy are less experienced. Not capable of organizing well. Mostly performing ill defined hit and run operations that leave them exposed and easily killed.
• Discipline is dependent on which group of the enemy we are fighting. Within the salafi/wahhabi Islamists, discipline is hardcore. Fighters that do not perform or argue with the leadership are quickly dispatched. However, groups like al Sadr's Mehdi Army are far less disciplined, ready to break ranks and do as they are want, regardless of their leadership. The Ba'athist element is somewhere in between with smaller groups able to keep iron fist discipline and others being very loose and not completely able in operations.
• The enemy is weak in numbers, materials and leadership. As much as they are able to obtain supplies and money, they must scramble for those materials as well as shelter and the resources are not stable.
• The enemy, divided as they are in aims and ideology, does not have consistent discipline and reward. The Zarqawi Islamists are the most capable, then the Ba'athists and Sadr militia after. By this they are separated and the last two, Ba'athi and Sadr militia are easily defeated as we see their current scramble to negotiate

In contrast, the US and it's allies have the following:

• Belief that they are performing the moral objective of protecting the United States and providing freedom. Regardless of certain incidents, they do not torture or behead their captives. This has important connotations later in Sun Tzu's treatise.
• Generals that have been well trained, fought in Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia and Afghanistan. In both failure and victory, they were taught valuable lessons about how to handle insurgencies and other small or large operations. They are also able to adapt to changes, though, as a larger force, not always as quickly.
• The military is capable of doing both air and land operations. They have the ability to operate in extreme heat and extreme cold, day or night.
• Military discipline in simple and straight forward. The Uniform Military Code of Justice meets out discipline on a large scale while the officers can recommend them for lesser justice or discipline including things like tying their guns to them, extra PT or other duties, etc. Rewards are mental and leadership based. Ribbons and promotions are the same in many branches and liberally awarded for performance.
• Without a doubt, this army and it's attendant branches are very strong. Not only in size but in ability to continually be supplied, have it's weapons replenished, etc without having to rob banks or kidnap victims.
• Military training for officers and men are vigorous within their disciplines. Marksmanship is a needed and required skill for all. The only lacking might be direct training in urban warfare, although, it has come to my attention that the military takes all data from after action reports and runs it through programs to analyze and add to their training. They are able to do this while rotating the same units in and out of the region. Resupplying and providing upgraded training to enhance their experience.

These are the first basic concepts of Sun Tzu which applies to the enemy. It denotes certain weaknesses of each group that can be targeted and exploited for advantage. The most extreme weakness is it's division in goals and ideology. The greed and power hunger of it's non-Islamist leadership or that of Muqtada Al Sadr. The inability to remain consistently supplied. It's lack of control and leadership over it's "armies" particularly Ba'athi or Sadr.

The salafi/wahhabi group are another story all together and will require other applications of war to insure victory. Their weakest link is size in numbers and availability of materials. Suicide bombers are not as replenishable as you might think.

Based on these seven principles, if you were Sun Tzu, who would you pick to win victory?

Summary only...