ID cards: who's on first?

Flip-flop on National ID Cards

It wasn't that long ago when it was the political Right that jerked its collective knee reflexively, whenever the subject came up ("Real Americans don't carry ID cards!"). In case you haven’t noticed, the flip-flop on National ID cards is complete. It was carried out with the same subtlety as the classic 2004 campaign “Kerry cherry” (“I actually voted for . . .” etc.).

What's going on? According to the Left, it boils down to (surprise, surprise) suppression of voter rights. Today their argument goes like this: Issuance of ID cards is a nefarious right-wing scheme that would return the country to the days when black voters were banned from voting, by imposing "just another form" of long-since outlawed reading tests and poll taxes.

That was the presentation one of the many ACLU fellow-travelers made yesterday (9/28/05) during his 30-minute presentation on C-Span One’s Washington Journal.

The ACLU and its allies now reason that to require a photo ID of all American citizens is first and foremost a right-wing racist plot designed to reduce voting by Afro-Americans, the poor and the underprivileged. Continuing this foray into silliness, the argument goes that proposed legislation pending in Congress would deny eligible citizens an ID card because of overly strict requirements to prove citizenship. In addition, they say that thousands—maybe millions—of senior citizens, the hospitalized, and the ill would also be disenfranchised. How so? Because these good folks, the C-SPAN guest explained, wouldn’t be physically able to present themselves at ID-card issuing authorities because of their infirmity. This particular Left-wing advocate also threw in what I’m sure was his own ad hoc epiphany--inspired during a heated exchange with a caller who questioned his thin logic—namely, that the pending congressional legislation would accept nothing short of an original birth certificate as adequate evidence of citizenship.

So what’s the real beef? As plainly as we folks who live in the desert near the border with Mexico and who have to daily deal with the “invasion” can put it: Illegal immigration is an extraordinary and growing drain on our social and education resources—aggravated by voter fraud.

Ever since Chris Simcox, America’s self-appointed immigration “sheriff”caught the attention of the American people last April with his Minuteman Project, movement toward border control and immigration reform is finally beginning to surface, even if at a tortoise-like pace. This legislation recognizes that the first critical component in devising realistic immigration reform is our ability to know who are and who are not legal residents. Sincere parties to the reform movement agree to this logic, and most agree that this would be most efficiently accomplished by issuing National ID cards.

However, what has been happening in recent months is that taxpayers in the border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas) have been growing increasingly impatient in light of state budgets that are spiraling out of control due to the costs of providing free social, educational, and medical welfare to illegal immigrants.

Voter pressure for reform coincided conveniently with the National ID card controversy last November when Proposition 200 was put to the citizens for a decision. We responded decisively with a loud collective “no”! "No" to automatically doling out our taxes to anyone who asks, without being able to establish their bona fides. Proposition 200 is straightforward and simple: It requires everyone, citizen or not, who seeks social welfare or who wishes to vote, to present adequate verification of their resident status with an "acceptable form of evidence." Even among us rank and file “Joe Voters” in Arizona, Proposition 200 was a very welcome and easy-to-understand no-brainer.

Unfortunately, after the citizens spoke the Left--led by our Democrat Governor Napolitano-- has been busily doing everything possible to block implementation of the Proposition 200, citing their worn-out mantra that citizens would be denied their rights by having to show identification--and besides, identification cards are an unconstitutional imposition. In January when our will was supposed to be implemented, the Governor directed her Attorney General to seek a temporary injunction. After her blocking action expired a month later, the Governor has continued to drag her feet--for example, she refuses to define for state employees what form(s) of identification they should ask for and accept as "appropriate" forms of eligibility. Should hospital emergency rooms deny patients services if they aren't legal residents and/or citizens? Or should public schools stop accepting the children of "undocumented" immigrants? For that matter, should the children who have been enrolled for several years be disenrolled if their parents can't present "appropriate" forms of eligibility? Admittedly, these are sticky questions. So implementation of Proposition 200 remains in limbo--many Arizonans say their will is being deliberately thwarted.

But the plot thickens! As though trying to appease our protests, the Arizona Governor, along with Bill Richardson, Democrat Governor of our neighbor New Mexico, this summer declared a “state of emergency.” She still hasn't explained to us and we are not sure what that move was supposed to accomplish (for example, the National Guard hasn't been called to man the border--in fact, at the border, it's business as usual), but Proposition 200 still goes unimplemented, by virtue of benign neglect. What we suspect was tactic designed to the Arizona masses, Governor Napolitano made the news for a couple days by sending U.S. Attorney General Gonzales in Washington a bill for a whopping sum she calculated Arizonans have paid to maintain illegal immigrants. So far, General Gonzalez has not responded with the hopeful words, "The check's in the mail" and in the meantime the “invasion” continues--we Arizonans continue to pay for the "invaders."

This may be the crux of the problem: Fully understanding the scope of the illegal immigration problem requires realizing that Arizona has long been especially vulnerable to voter fraud at the polls. Arizona requires absolutely no form of identification of voters at any level of registration—nothing, nada, nichevo, nichts! If you’re an illegal immigrant and have been “urged” to vote, you don’t even have to register in advance. You simply walk up to any voting station and request a ballot (which are, of course, conveniently printed in Spanish, if that should make any difference to a coached, illegal voter). The volunteer workers are not allowed to question or impede your intention to vote, nor ask for verification of your eligibility. In fact, one of the helpful attending citizen-volunteers will even assist you, in case you’re not familiar with voting booths and other unfamiliar devices. The only snag you might run into is having showed up at a voting station not corresponding to the local address you choose to use upon your arrival. But not to worry! Friendly volunteers will direct you to the proper location to receive your vote and, if you don't know where it is, they'll probably take you there. Arizonans don't want to be thought of as not being friendly to "voters.”

The galvanizing theme of the ACLU and their allies in their campaign against National ID cards now becomes crystal clear when you hear their key piece of logic (made repeatedly on C-SPAN yesterday): Issuing National ID cards would "prevent widest possible voter participation.” That’s about as close a confession to the truth of the matter, when you consider how requiring an ID card would check the corrupt interests that have too long usurped the rights of citizens who respect the privilege of a special American sanctuary--the voting booth.

Now you know! From an "insider-taxpayer" in Arizona.

Assessing Journalism

ASSESSING JOURNALISM

Maintaining a blog is demanding. The discipline of writing every day (and, hopefully, while thinking at the same time) is a task I haven't had to fulfill for several years. Not that I don't have ideas--the environment is much too filled with them. It's a question of assessing them and trying to decide what makes them worthy of massaging and, most important, what will attract the interest of readers. That is, what might be "important" or "interesting" to me may be so far out of the loop that I end up writing for one person--myself! That's just about as narcissistic an activity as I can imagine.

The New World of Journalism! In search of an anchor, since my last post on 9/25/05 I've been surfing the Blogosphere several hours a day--to read what others are writing, in search of clues I might profit by in my struggle to give my writing (and thinking) a little bit more oomph. As anyone who surfs the Internet discovers, entering the Blogosphere is like logging onto infinity--one moment you're reading the musings of someone in Phnom Penh, the next in Bolivia, the next in Semipalitinsk . . . places I've never heard of--and I'm pretty well traveled. It's fascinating to find out that people are, as the cliche goes, pretty much the same anywhere. As charming as that is, the fact is, the horrible realization begins to make itself distressingly palpable: The clear majority of bloggers I've read so far are living a life of "quiet desperation" as some philosopher (was it Jean Paul Sartre?) observed. Thus the Internet becomes for them their psychologist, their priest, their counselor, their friend--or at least so they hope! It seems to be a cold, dark infinity out there (or did I miss the sector that's emitting positive, creative light?)

Except for an occasional little jewel that came squirting out of the ether, I wasn't particularly fired up with fresh insight or inspiration after several hours of searching. So I've decided to turn back to examine the fundamentals of writing. Let's start with: What is the purpose of any form of writing? It's to teach, to amuse, or to inform. I've dabbled in all these forms, but I've decided that, in order to contribute something meaningful to "life," journalism--the old-fashioned kind-- is my choice and should be the choice of anyone who wants to make a difference with words.

What's "old-fashioned" journalism? There's lots of room in the New Age Blogger World for old-fashioned journalism. This brand of writing assumes the practicing journalist is first an honest person, dedicated to plying the profession with belief in the "noble purpose" that used to be observed before the Watergate era of journalism drastically altered the "noble" part of "purpose." After Woodward and Bernstein, the purpose shifted to "gotcha" scoops,with emphasis on political leaders. And yellow journalism took on a very deep tone, wherein peer recognition became so important that practitioners resorted to inventing stories. The epitome of blatant immorality was achieved by New York Time's Jason Blair. The sickness wasn't restricted to the younger generation: CBS's Dan Rather's inflated ego led him to believe he had become an infallible national news "institution," entitling him to bear false witness in front of his viewers.

My kind of journalist must be detached long enough to be able see through the "noise" (i.e., the trees in the proverbial forest) that obscures the "truth" we're seeking. Then he or she must capture that "moment of truth" with just the right number of words, chosen for their economy, yet capable of maximizing the "illumination" of the forest. Even the lowly cub reporter, assigned to a period of professional purgatory to the local police blotter should strive to invoke this spirit by examining its apparent lifelessness with the goal of "reading" the unfortunates who appear on it, as well as the system that put them there.

Should we demand that journalists have advanced degrees? "Cerebral" writers are almost universally terrible writers because they have never been encouraged to learn the wonders of the economy of thought or wordcraft. In fact, just the opposite! While traveling the road to their academic credentials, they're actually encouraged to bloviate. They learn early on to hide the fact that they don't really understand their subject, or they have little or nothing to add to the subject. What they learn to do is "repackage" the knowledge that a few great thinkers have already recorded. In order to do this successfully and appear to be honest students, they must "attribute" their plagiarism effusively (with footnotes, etc.) while rearranging, repackaging, or rephrasing original knowledge. That's why their articles in "peer journals" and their books that university presses publish are usually always huge tomes that evidently are valued by weight, as opposed to content. The material usually appears to be so eclectic because of purposeful (albeit often unconscious) obfuscation, it ends up on "required reading lists" of their hapless undergraduate students. PhD candidates are required to pass through a gauntlet of the extraordinary demand to "pad" their theses with words--a process that can take years before receiving approval and awarding of the sheepskin. Then, after finally ascending to professorial positions within universities, the new PhDs soon encounter the dreaded "publish or perish" dictum that must be fulfilled if they are to secure their career safety net of "tenure." Intellectual padding never ends in the life of an academic. Students mostly learn in spite of this form of writing, beginning with their very first essays. It's the rare academic who can meet the honesty and truth standards of journalism. I say, let them continue to write for obscure, scholarly journals--not for mainstream journalism where truth is the object.

I'm modstly qualified to reveal this little secret about academe, having been "inside" it as student. While enroute on that road to intellectual serfdom, I managed to snag two advanced degrees, but when the time came to commit my time and energy to bid for that vaunted ultimate sheepskin, I simply wasn't able to muster the conviction that I would be able to--as they say in the PhD business--"contribute to original knowledge." That's the caveat by which PhD candidates are urged to believe that whatever their thoughts or their word-processors henceforth might produce will be so profound or significant enough to justify using the pretentious and slightly misleading title "Doctor" in front of their names.

O.K., so why require journalists to have a college degree at all? There happens to be a solid case for this proposition. It might surprise some people that journalists don't need degrees, certificates, or any specialized training, for that matter. In fact, there are excellent reasons why non-journalists may well make better practitioners than the ones who have come to believe in their self-importance by virtue of academic degrees awarded by journalism schools. Among the many examples I could cite, my favorite is Mark Steyn, a regular contributer to National Review, who writes brilliantly in any genre he chooses; by his own admission, he has little more than middle school education. Boasting a bit more formal education, there's Andrew Ferguson, who has cut a wide swath in "mainstream" journalism as well as the Blogosphere (although he seems to shift his Weltanschauung a bit too often for my comfort). In fact, my "alma mater," National Journalism Center, capitalized on the assumption that better journalists could be moulded if they participated in six-month long, intensive, hands-on internships without being previously brainwashed by formal university-issued journalism degrees . The success and presence of hundreds of NJC's graduates at all levels of the media over the past 30 years bear concrete witness to this proposition.

So to aspiring "old-fashioned" journalists, take heart! As a motivated thinker dedicated to searching for "truth," you will begin as a liberated functionary in the world of communications. Your task is essentially two-fold: (1) Discover the "forest" with the power of your native-given mind, and, (2) Describe it in such a way that a photograph reveals itself quickly and easily in the minds of your readers. (A note on my earlier comment about "detachment": You needn't be an emotionless, insensitive zombie in the course of searching for "truth," but you never to allow your emotional "content" to color, distort, or spin the truth or--as taught in journalism classes--you must never become "part" of the story). After discovering the "truth" in your subject, you definitely should allow your personality to influence your wordcraft--that's how the good and great journalists achieve distinction and fulfillment in their profession.

A reminder to journalist-aspirants: Your path may not be easy to practice, but at least it's easily visible. Academics may pad their pages with colorless, meaningless words and they may obscure truth using the label "academic freedom." Faddish journalists will come and go with rapid regularity. And bloggers . . . well, in this wild and wooly, unregulated medium, they will have to prove themselves responsible and capable--time and the market place will separate the wheat from the chaff. Your and my kind of journalists have only one goal. Their domain is to practice and deliver economical, bright, illuminating images that reveal the truth--from the first day out on the hustings.

Potpourri

ODDS & ENDS

The following are seven items I’m not able to treat in depth (probably to your relief), so here's my quick take on these bits of Americana.

iPods & American Concentration Camps: Time Magazine (September 19, 2005) reports admiringly: Steve Jobs is a techie-business genius for making the tiniest, thinnest, most powerful device yet, due to hit Wal-Mart in time for Christmas shopping. Why is this one on the left better than the one shown on an old Newsweek cover? Answer: You can now store up to 1,000 songs and various photos on the one on the left. Therefore, Time predicts it's going to sweep the iPod market (I guess that means teenagers and wastrel young adults who use these things). Someone actually asked me a couple weeks ago why I didn’t have an iPod (until then, I hadn’t the vaguest idea what it is). Although I'd like to think I’m the kind of guy who tries to stay on top of the "tech curve," here’s one gadget I can’t imagine I’d ever be interested in paying for! You've gotta wonder at the emotional level of an average adult over the age of 35 (or a serious adult over age 21) who needs the continual din of noise blotting out the brain waves 24/7. But, struggling to be "cool," I tried hard to imagine under what circumstances I might possibly use a collection of up to 1,000 songs and photographs on a credit-card sized device. The only thing I could come up with is after the Black Helicopters (see my earlier post on conspiracies) have relocated me to a concentration camp--it might be a way to while away the hours after periodic torture sessions by Blackwater Security forces! You do know, don’t you, that the Loony Left has pinpointed these secret camps, authorized by the president and established by ex-Attorney General John Ashcroft? Except for a few camps that contain Muslim and profiled Muslims being held incommunicado and who are daily still being swept off America's streets in the aftermath of 9/11, the others are being maintained in mothball status--ready for action at the drop of an Executive Order (or something). Oh? You didn’t know all this? Well, check it out yourself on American Concentration Camps where you’ll also find lots of other links, in case you want to become the complete expert on the subject.

x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x

Long Overdue. Finally! Dr. Laura Schlesinger, the tough-love, radio therapist shock-jock, announced it yesterday (9/22/05). In a steady, pitched rant, she revealed how the Association of American Psychologists has finally and officially debunked the two-decades-long scam that gave false comfort to thousands of stressed, wannabe-liberated females, while terrorizing thousands of parents and growing into a huge industry. During sessions in the shrinks' offices, women were coaxed to “recall” how someone in the past had sexually abused them--usually someone in the family. Then when these unfortunate patients begin to recall, under increasingly intense coaxing--usually over a period of time (naturally, it typically takes a number of high-priced sessions to achieve full results)--the ladies were instructed by their therapists to accept the fact that all their present problems stemmed from this deep repression (requiring more hourly therapy sessions, naturally).

Even more evil was the related industry of psycho-terrorism that was shaped and wielded by zealous psychologists who "discovered" yet another facet of the human mind which they called the "repressive sexual abuse" syndrome (or some similar mumbo-jumbo). Left to practitioners to experiment with this invention among the inner circles of their university laboratories would have been one thing. But before this hypothesis had been thoroughly tested and rejected as "high art of ridiculousness," the zealots rushed their "discoveries" to the public where they were promoted to the level of modern Salem witch trials, abetted by prosecutors who lost all sense of judicial objectivity and prudence. Hastily trained in this newly discovered syndrome, psychologists wrote manuals on how to coax innocent toddlers to “recall” how their caretakers, teachers, and parents engaged in wild sexual abuse--typically involving bizarre and physically unlikely instruments such as egg beaters, toys, knives and so on. Thank God, this insanity finally has been roundly debunked, although this comes as scant comfort to the citizens wrongly humiliated and imprisoned.

Now, if only someone would also take a shot at the hopelessly distorted and confused field of “Applied Psychology”—to examine how average, normal citizens are being harmed with a lot of Freudian and post-Freudian mumbo-jumbo instead of exposing them to a few basic concepts such as “ethics,” “honesty,” “personal accountability,” and the difference between “good” and “bad.” But then that would mean the rapid demise of a very large industry, including the most recent evolutionary monster that was spawned by the massive failure of Applied Psychology: Pharmo-Psychology: (Definition: "If you can't make 'em conform with psycho-babble, then give 'em a mind-altering chemical --works every time.") A middle-aged psychiatrist I talked to a couple years ago could scarcely contain his excitement over the success he was having with the Orwellian techniques. He outlined how frustrating his career had been for 15 years using applied clinical psychology. "So when I took up the 'pharma' route, I was astounded! I began having a response rate of 90 percent almost immediately." When I asked him (innocently) whether "response rate" meant "cure rate," he lectured: "That's not the point. The fact that a nearly comatose patient, after a few doses of lithium, may actually begin to respond to his environment--now that's exciting." I had the feeling my psychiatrist friend had not leveled with me about some important issues involved in his mind-alteration experiments. When I asked him if he knew the chemo-biological reasons for the reactions, he was incredulous: "What difference would it make if I knew why?" Well, O.K., doc, whatever! What I do know is that the nasty tentacles of this "exciting" new industry already have reached down into classrooms where its practitioners are doping our tots with Ritalin and other new compounds-- whenever teachers complain that their charges display "attention deficit disorder-like symptoms"-- turning them into compliant little zombies, and incredibly--with the complicity of parents! I'm sure glad my kids finished school before this Brave New World descended on them.

x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x

Dr. Laura scores again! Until yesterday, I hadn’t heard much of or about this hard-hitting radio talk-show therapist . But what I heard yesterday raised my hopes for America's eventual restoration. That would mean the discrediting and discarding of a scam that has been perpetrated on American womanhood the past 30-plus years: The liberated woman, as preached by the School of American Feminism. Besides having irretrievably damaged a full generation of women, it is now completing the “demasculinization” of the country's male species. Ever since my own wife became infected with this new gospel and even after trying to understand and accommodate her quest to “find herself” (a slogan later modified by U.S. Army recruiters: “Be all you can be!”--recently morphed into "An Army of One"), I had been trying to figure out what I had done to deserve this treatment. I soon encountered the second stage of a fully liberated feminist-in-progress: Her demand that I surrender my manhood by asking me to compromise the traditional family environment and rearing of my two sons (10 and 15 years old). That was it! I would brook no compromise. Our negotiations came abruptly to an end--divorce was the only option, even though taking custody of children meant the significant redrawing of my ambitious mid-level military career, and considerable disruption and disorientation of the kids. Until now I’ve often been judged as a rigid and an unsympathetic person who, for everyone's better interests, should have found a way to compromise my sons' needs to accommodate my wife's experimental path onto which she had been lured by the surging Feminist Movement. Dr. Laura is now signaling that, in the long painful haul, I am being vindicated in my decision, and that one day, in the not-too-distant-future, the damage that the “Women’s Liberation Movement" has done to an entire generation of men, women, and children will have run its course. Thereafter, we will be able to reconstruct ourselves by nurturing wholesome, uncomplicated relationships between men and women that constitute a healthy family unit--thus returning us to the natural order of things.

x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x

Ohmigod! Ted Turner turned diplomat??!! Sometime this week Ted returned from an unofficial trip (hopefully) to North Korea. Reportedly, he made the trip in order to personally bless initial successful multi-nation efforts in negotiating North Korea’s nuclear program into some sort of suspended animation (in return for promises of lots of critically required things like food and development of the country’s infrastructure).* These days, Ted is increasingly incoherent to my ears. This time, as incredible as it sounded at first hearing, he reported the following: He saw no evidence of hostility toward Americans, even on his tour of the DMZ (hosted, of course, by North Korea). He also saw lots of happy, smiling children—not the thousands who are reported in the Western press as starving. In summary, he allowed as how America can now turn to solving other problems, because the half-century long problem between the U.S., South Korea, and North Korea had finally been solved. Sounding a slightly “radical Left” note, Ted added, “North Korea was never really ever a threat.” Well, the only note I should probably add is that Ted’s slurred speech suggested that he was probably thoroughly soused the entire time he was on tour with Club North Korea and still hadn’t sobered up when he gave his report to journalists as he debarked in LAX. He didn’t say, but I trust he was going to call on and relate details of his diplomatic efforts to his ex--his nutty “flower child” soul mate, Jane “Hanoi” Fonda.

*Don't anyone hold your breath. This sounds suspiciously like the "deal" the Clinton-era Secretary of State, Madame Albright (who also gushed about how "sophisticated" and "charming" Kim Jong-il was) arranged in 1997: Korea promises (wink-wink) to shut off its nuclear weapons enrichment program in turn for American billions in wheat and other grants and subsidies. Remember what happened after Bush took over? The tin-horned, fine cognac-swigging dictator-clone of his deity father, reneged on the bargain with a hissy fit. Simultaneously, he made great public theater out of reopening the country's nuclear facilities, declaring he would resume his weapons production. The motive, of course, was to pressure the new American president who correctly tagged the rotten throw-back to Atilla the Hun a member of the "Axis of Evil." How is it that we Americans seem to fall for anyone who grins nicely, doesn't show the blood of his victims on his dinner jacket, and is able to charm the likes of the doddering fool, CNN's mogul Ted Turner?

x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x

Why do I feel safer? Honestly, I’m not making this up (although I will confess that the thought passed by me briefly after Governor Kathleen Blanco fell apart when Katrina stared her down). I caught the following quip while pounding my keyboard—it came from our blaring TV set in the living room (I keep it on—occasionally the other half of my brain catches significant tidbits). It was a feminine voice responding to one of the endless inane finger-pointing questions from TV interviewers about the New Orleans disaster. She said: “I can’t put my finger on it, but is it wrong that I feel safer knowing a man is heading emergency planning efforts?”

This lady evidently hasn't heard about Mayor Nagin of New Orleans.

x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x

Louis Farrakhan--his latest outrageous statements: White supremacists blew up the levee nearest the black section of New Orleans (I’ve a certain amount of tolerance for conspiracy theories—see my blog post “Is that helicopter overhead coming for me?”—but this goes well beyond my capacity). Speaking of helicopters, Louis has taken it another step--evidently, he's contacted the same spaceship in orbit that was supposed to pick up the California bunch who thought it was waiting behind the Hale-Bopp Comet a couple years back. Louis announced that Allah willed this vehicle and its purpose will be soon known by all of us. And then there’s his pronouncement that Katrina and approaching Rita are instruments of Allah's revenge on the corrupt infidel country, the United States. He called the hurricanes “righteous winds of Allah” (this metaphor reportedly was issued in a recent fatwah by Iran’s chief Shi’ite Iman). If there weren’t so many loonies running loose in the country and ready to believe this and any other nut with a slick conspiracy line, I’d say let’s color ol’ Louis as a vaudeville clown. However . . . .

x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x-o-x

Fascism. I’ve had it with those misguided, under-informed people who are misusing this word these days. On C-Span this morning Jonah Goldberg, a politico-comedic writer online reminded me how this word is being so widely and innocently misused by the “sheeple” (sheep-people) who mimic loud political orators using it maliciously. Worse than that, it’s being misused by the Loony Left as a terrible sword to wound political opponents. This latter group also includes academic progressives on many American campuses, as well as the salon-set embedded in various fashionable propaganda organizations--such as the Dr. Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee, down the line to Michael Moore's moveon.org and his patsy, Cindy Sheehan (who today, if you didn't catch it, was spanked by Big Momma herself, Hillary--yes, that Hillary, who is trying to nudge to the political center, and you can't do that by letting "fringies" take your spotlight).

If people had an inkling of what fascism was and how it was employed from 1920 through 1945 by National Socialist regimes in Europe by functionaries of the sickest regime in mankind’s history, then they would be ashamed to use the word "fascism" to characterize an American president or the people in his administration. Because the Leftie Loons have been reading and using his books today, it was unfortunate that all Josef Goebbel's books on how to manipulate "sheeple" weren't also destroyed the day he and his Fuehrer destroyed themselves, their wives and children while cornered like rats in the Berlin "Fuehrer Bunker."

The Nazis' worst nightmare R.I.P.

The Nazis' worst nightmare! R.I.P.

Talk about pit bulls ! Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi headhunter extraordinaire, was pronounced dead yesterday at age 96. After a half-century, he is credited with locating and coordinating the snatching and take-down of more than 1,000 widely scattered remnants of the short-lived Thousand-Year Reich, including S.S. Colonel Adolph Eichmann, the icily efficient administrator of Hitler's Endloesung ("final solution") of European Jewry.

Mr. Wiesenthal had all the credentials he needed to undertake his self-appointed mission. He spent the war years in Mauthausen concentration camp (near Linz, Austria) as a condemned Jew who, when the American Army liberated him, weighed only 99 pounds. In fact, only a couple days before, with dozens of fellow inmates, he stood looking into an open pit, waiting for bullets from the execution squad behind him (inexplicably, the executioners did not complete their assignment that day).

In 1947, when it became apparent that the governments of the Allied Occupation Forces, for reasons of their own, were not going to ferret out and prosecute the thousands of Nazis who had scattered like rats in the spring and summer of 1945--ending up in sympathetic villages throughout Europe, but mostly abroad--Mr. Wiesenthal established his own Nazi-hunting project.

Wiesenthal was trained as an architectural engineer, not a businessman. So from Day One the project was a shoestring venture, usually tottering precariously on the verge of bankruptcy. Until a Foundation was established in honor of his work in 1977, he worked mostly alone out of the same one-room office in Vienna. Typically, he was always dependent on voluntary office help and had his hat out for contributions. Because he was always on someone's hit list, it's amazing that he was able to live out his very full life in a city known for high intrigue since the Hapsburg Dynasty. At a minimum, to most governments and their working agencies, he always remained that nutty cousin of embarrassing family lineage, who they nervously wished would remain out of sight, hidden among the unseemly and unmentionable family skeletons.

Of course, the U.S. was one of the most nervous post-war uncles, given the fact that it made extensive use of Nazi scientific and intelligence assets immediately after V-E Day--the most widely known, of course, being Herr Werner von Braun, the Nazi's "rocket man," with headquarters at Peenemunde, a village on the German North Sea Coast. Von Braun, of course, became America's bosom pal who led the American space program to victory against the Soviet Union with the Apollo moon landings in the 1970s, using his vast knowledge he had acquired lobbing thousands of "buzz bombs" and V-1 & V-2 rockets onto London during WWII. It's therefore understandable that the U.S. was very late (in the mid-1980s) in establishing an official, active anti-Nazi "search and identify" unit in the Department of Justice. Today, while it's noteworthy that the few bright, enthusiastic government lawyers assigned to the DOJ-Nazi unit are cleaning up the odds and ends of Wiesenthal's work, it's certainly anticlimactic. More significant, however, is a chapter in history he wrote, containing a pertinent, if laconic, political science lesson for us today.

A brief political science lesson: The lesson is that we must rely on reality, as it presents itself (or is perceived) in order to protect itself or to compete successfully among nations (or both). These days, it's fashionable in the salons of political science circles to argue that it was (at minimum) amoral that we compromised many of our professed legal and moral democratic standards by using Nazi brains and administrative skills to achieve our national goals. Or later in 1973 in Chile that we were wrongly complicit in toppling the (perceived) communist physician, Salvador Allende, and replaced him with a pro-American head of state, today's much maligned General Agosto Pinochet. Or more recently that we used the loathsome talents and geopolitical advantages of Saddam Hussein's Iraq to block Iran's anti-U.S. ambitions in the1980s. Ah yes, it's also engaging that, in hindsight, we make much of the newly framed popular paradigm, "future unintended consequences," which can and do arise unexpectedly from today's actions. But, as anyone over 35 should already have learned from personal experience, one has to deal with what is known today--not what one might better know tomorrow.

Those remaining Nazi Fluechtlinge from justice, still desperately trying to maintain low profiles in blue-collar sections in big U.S. or European cities, or in nondescript neighborhoods in countries like Costa Rica, Guatemala, Venezuela, Panama, and Uruguay, are undoubtedly breathing a sigh of relief--the pit bull's grip has relaxed a bit. The U.S. DOJ-Nazi unit, in cooperation with several European agencies, is down to rooting out old, mostly infirm, low-level functionaries such as Ukrainian and Lithuanian concentration camp guards. Considering that they're all by now well into their 80's, these efforts seem anticlimactic at best. I believe we may comfortably conclude that Wiesenthal has won the main battle in his personal war with mankind's worst nightmare-turned-real. It was fitting that he turned the tables and became the real-life nightmare of the Nazi Partei-Genossen. We are all indebted to this man who would not let mankind forget. Let us hope his legacy lives on.

Job well done, sir. A life well spent. . . a true Mensch! R.I.P. Simon Wiesenthal.

A belated postscript: Wiesenthal has his detractors; this link is one of them and is presented for readers who wish to evaluate these contentions more closely. I take no position on any aspect of this "contrarian" presentation, mainly because I haven't researched it.

An e-mail zinger

FROM THE MAIL ROOM

I just received this e-mail from an anonymous (of course!) reader of my foundling blog-effort. I thought I ought to share it, because: (1) it is instructive in certain respects and, more important, (2) it's the first response of any kind--from anyone--since I launched last month.

Hey, a**hole it's clear your [sic] a f***ing reactionery [sic]. Your [sic] thinking with the wrong end--try reversing polarity and maybe something will come out that makes sense. And maybe you will also discover how to say something with the fewest possible words. Here's [sic] a couple of examples. In your "God" article, you could have reduced it from a boring 3,500 words to this: "God sucks." Want more? In your "Education" article you could have written: "Education sucks." How about your "Black Helicopter" article: "Government sucks." And on John Roberts, "Biden sucks." Get the picture? As it stands now your blog sucks. If you don't unsuck it, the next time I write, I'll tell you what I really think. --Anonymous

[sic] indicates the uncorrected original
* indicates my redactions

My answer: Thanks for your "suc[k]cinct"counseling. I do understand your main points, which are: (1) I should be writing for people who have the attention span of an in-vitro embryo. (2)And the perspective I should convey ought to be as devoid of as much reality as possible--right?

I can hardly wait to get your future follow-up counseling. While I struggle to learn to apply your principles of writing in future posts, I suggest you'll find something nearer your liking by logging on to those websites that spout easy to read and understand one- and two-syllable hate slogans the authors pound out hourly--Michael Moore being the dean of this style. If you prefer more conventional thinking, you can always check with Democratic National Committee under Dr. Howard Dean, or Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. There are hundreds more, of course, but knowing how much you appreciate intellectual depth and breadth, I've cited only the creme de la creme.

Conspiracy here, conspiracy there!

Is the black helicopter overhead coming for me?

I just got through viewing two hours of a DVD entitled “In Plane Site,” produced by Dave von Kleist, a San Francisco TV/radio newsman-turned-conspiracy-theorist, concerned exclusively with the 9/11 attacks. The presentation—a collection of slo-mo shots of the filmed attacks and some basic factual research (dimensions of a Boeing 757, etc.)—was not conclusive by a long shot, but . . . . well, it was interesting and thought provoking. Von Kleist’s contention is that the attacks were not “as advertised. ” If they weren’t, then the conspiracy before us, is:“Who prompted the attacks? How? Why?” Von Kleist doesn’t venture to answer these questions, but others do—if only indirectly and by innuendo--a too-frequent habit of conspiracy advocates and why I find them less than credible.

Is Able-Danger connected? Frankly, I wouldn't have bought von Kleist’s DVD had I not happened to catch Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pennsylvania) on C-Span, briefing the press on September 15th. He described Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaffer’s involvement in the Defense Intelligence Agency’s “Able-Danger” task force (now defunct). Representative Weldon, not known to be a shaky-flaky type, is currently protecting Schaffer who is being encouraged to blow the whistle on what appears to be a clear cover-up of Able-Danger’s 9/11-related intelligence revelations.

In brief - the DIA “Able-Danger” Project: Using mostly open-source analytical techniques, Schaffer said the project identified several of the 9/11 terrorists more than a year before the attack, and associated their activities with upcoming attacks. He decided to alert the FBI about the dangers his project had uncovered. For reasons yet to be explained, the DIA nixed this sharing of intelligence with the FBI. A few months later, when Schaffer was on a covert mission in Afghanistan in 2002, he personally briefed a group of 9/11 Commission staff members about Able-Danger’s findings. The puzzling question is why this vital intelligence never made it into the Commission's final report. More puzzling and alarming was Schaffer’s discovery, upon his return to the DIA, that not only had the project been mysteriously shut down, but all of his office's extensive records and research had been "routinely" destroyed. When Schaffer inquired of his two-star boss, he was ordered emphatically to “drop it.” Since July, Congressman Weldon has been fully engaged and is unilaterally (so far unsuccessfully) trying to get the 9/11 Commission to respond to a simple question: “Why didn’t you include the findings of Able-Danger in your report?”

Self-analysis: My correspondents, friends, and acquaintances—sometimes to their exasperation—know me to lean very heavily to the side of skepticism when it comes to conspiracy theories. It’s true, probably because I’ve been trained to look for facts before believing allegations.* Furthermore, as a general principle, I find it hard to believe that large groups of people, especially government bureaucrats, are clever or coordinated well enough to keep secret massive number of details in the spectacular plots such as are alleged in the JFK assassination, the Roswell Incident, or 9/11—especially when you consider the hoards of reporters and bloggists hovering about--all hungry for a Watergate-type scoop. Not one whistle blower has come forward to expose the alleged government cover-ups of these spectacular events. Von Kleist's DVD and Congressman Weldon have caught my attention, because the conspiracy-theorists are alleging that 9/11 was carried out by people other than Islamic radicals--an outrageous allegation that should be put to rest if possible.

* A British author, Jeffrey Hale, defines my “academic mindset” this way:

The idea that particular groups of people meet together secretly . . .to plan various courses of action, and that some of these plans actually exert a significant influence on particular historical developments, is typically rejected out of hand and assumed to be the figment of a paranoid imagination. The mere mention of the word 'conspiracy' seems to set off an internal alarm bell which causes scholars to close their minds in order to avoid cognitive dissonance . . . .

O.K., now that I’ve confessed to a certain degree of rigid mind-set, I also freely concede to his description of people who do act secretly and in concert with others in order to promote their own interests:

At any given point in time, there are dozens if not thousands of competitive political and economic groups engaging in secret planning and activities, and most are doing so in an effort to gain some advantage over their rivals among the others. Such behind-the-scene operations are present on every level, from the mundane efforts of small-scale retailers to gain advantage [over their competitors] by being the first to develop new product lines, to the . . . attempts by rival secret services to penetrate and manipulate each other. . . .

Now that I have acquired a more balanced psychoanalytical perspective, it's time to do a light examination of the subject, to see whether we ought to take a closer look at 9/11/2001. In doing so, I confess a certain tension building: The question is already beginning to gnaw on me: “What if I discover that the press accounts of the 9/11 attacks were not ‘as advertised?' ”

A Brief Survey

As a reminder, perhaps the oldest unsolved conspiracy theory of note are the circumstances surrounding the death of the Jewish prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. After almost 2,000 years, no one has been able to satisfactorily or conclusively explain the mystery of Jesus’ disappearance following his execution and interment. Unfortunately for many of us, it has been explained away by yet another mystery (transubstantiation), spurring not only continuous debate and conflict among rival religions, but established the Catholic Church and all the splinter groups that followed.

The Roswell UFO wreckage,1947: Controversy still swirls around the alleged wreckage of a crash-landed UFO and the discovery of at least one injured other-world alien on a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico. This alleged event became a instant conspiracy-theory event when the local newspaper reported its findings, which were then denied almost a day later by the U.S. Air Force. The Roswell Incident still provides grist for the conspiracy mill in the form of endless TV “documentaries.” It also provides a modest income to the folks who run the “Alien Museum” in downtown Roswell. (Between 1951 and 1954, I attended New Mexico Military Institute in Roswell--that was just a four years after the alleged event--but I never saw an alien, unless it was the dreaded upperclassman known as “Blackie” from Lawton, Oklahoma; “Blackie” tormented and hazed me for nine months during my first cadet year as a “rat.”) The local rancher’s discovery and the later revelation of the secret Area-51 range in nearby Nevada have spawned variations on the basic conspiracy question: “Why is the government covering up its knowledge of UFOs and related events?”

JFK’s assassination, November 1964: Within hours of Jack Ruby’s murdering Lee Harvey Oswald with a point-blank shot in the gut during his transfer to a secure facility from Dallas police department, conspiracies instantly became an industry—mainly because Oswald continued to claim, even seconds before Ruby murdered him, that he was a “patsy” and had not shot at or killed the president. Questions arose at once. “Why did Ruby, small-time shady owner of a seedy nightclub, undertake the assassination of the assassin on his own?” Then there was Oswald’s strange life after his discharge from the Marines—renouncing his U.S. citizenship, settling in the U.S.S.R. after marrying a Russian girl, declaring himself a Communist, making trips to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, and a secret trip to Cuba. Without Oswald to ply with these questions, many normally clear-thinking people became skeptical of LBJ’s Blue Ribbon Commission that blamed the deed on one odd young man, who launched one very savvy bullet from an old mail-order Czech-made bolt-action army rifle from an unlikely distance, not only killing JFK instantly, but wounding the accompanying Texas governor. Oliver Stone’s 1991 epic attempted to throw in as many of the theories still around 30 years later, but Stone’s conclusion that the CIA was the culprit didn’t put an end to the mystery. The question still circulates: "Who really killed JFK and why?"

9/11/2001, the World Trade Center, Tuesday morning

Here's a summary of the “as-advertised” event as outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report:

Mohammed Atta and 18 other Al Qaeda terrorists hi-jacked four Boeing 757 commercial aircraft at the same times from separate airports in Boston (Logan Airport); D.C. (Ronald Reagan Airport); New Jersey (Newark International); and Herndon, Virginia (Dulles Airport). When the airplanes were airborne, five terrorists on each flight, (except for the Boston flight, which lacked a fifth), using box cutters, hijacked the flight crew and commandeered the aircraft by taking over the flight controls. The first strike was on the south tower of the WTC. The second was on the north tower 15 minutes later. The third was on the Pentagon. The fourth, almost 45 minutes late taking off from Boston, was circling back toward Washington with the White House or the Capitol Building as its target, when passengers heroically prevented the terrorists from completing their plan, causing the plane to crash into an open field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing all on board. President Bush, visiting an elementary school in Florida, was advised after the second plane struck the WTC, then waited seven minutes before leaving the school room. All 4,873 IFR flights aloft and all other air traffic were ordered grounded for almost three days following the attack, except, as it was later revealed, special flights that exited the U.S. carrying resident-members of the Saudi royal family. President Bush announced that the responsibility for the attack was Osama bin Laden with training headquarters in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden confirmed his complicity in TV tapes. In November U.S. and allied forces attacked Afghanistan, scattering Osama and his Taliban friends into the mountains. A pro-western government was elected a year later. The U.S. and Pakistan have been searching for Osama bin Laden ever since.

The 3 main variations on the 9/11 theme:

Except for the U.S. explanation for the attack (variant #1 below), the reasons for the attacks in variants #2 and #3 are less developed in specifics, but whispered in innuendos and implications. They all are rooted in the scenario that President Bush and his political neo-cons, together with “corporate oil interests” and in league with the Bush family's royal Saudi friends, actually prompted and underwrote the attacks.

Variant (#1): That Osama bin Laden’s recruits were trained, coordinated, and used in the manner widely reported in the world press; that is, the passengers, crew and hijackers on commercial airliners were sacrificed in airliners used as piloted missiles. Of course, conspiracy buffs reject this explanation.

Doubters point out problems with this variant:

The photos of the bellies of the airliners that seem to show an unusual pod; pronounced flashes, just before the airliners impact the towers, are theorized to be triggering devices of "bunker busters" that explode just before impact. In the case of the Pentagon impact, the outer wall impacted by the alleged Boeing 757 showed no airplane, only a ball of flame; one camera showed a date-time stamp of 9/12/01, one day after the actual event; news TV shots show the outer wall with a 16-feet diameter hole--much too small to account for an aircraft with a wingspan of 124 ft. and a vertical stabilizer height of 44 ft.; the outer wall around the 16-ft. hole did not collapse until approximately 30 minutes after the impact; no debris of the aircraft was found inside or outside the impact site; no human remains were found. In the case of the Shanksville crash, the impact site (photographed soon after the impact) is questionably too small and is said to be showing grass growing on the sides of the cavity; furthermore, they point out that there are no signs of debris near or around the site.

Variant (#2): That a secret cabal of conspirators, authorized and empowered by the president of the United States, using hijackers and civilian aircraft as “diversions,” directed the attacks with other military assets: A remotely controlled F-16 fighter (not a commercial Boeing 757), rigged with a “bunker buster” bomb supposedly attacked the Pentagon, and three other Boeing 757-type aircraft, also rigged with “bunker buster” bombs and special electronic guidance pods on their bellies, were involved in the WTC and Shanksville impacts.

Problems with this variant:

I haven’t discovered how the conspiracy theorists explain the obvious: If the U.S. military was involved, where was it carried out (the rigging of aircraft with electronics and special bombs)? And what happened to the passengers in the commercial aircraft we know disappeared--if not into their targets, then what happened to them? And, as I always ask, how is it that these extensive preparations involving hundreds of people were made in absolute secrecy--not producing a “Deep Throat” or even one low-level whistle blower?

Variant (#3): That someone outfitted the two towers and the smaller adjacent 42nd street building with explosives sometime before the aircraft strikes; this, as best I can discern the theory, was necessary to insure that the powerfully strong towers would collapse under attack by the large Boeing 757 aircraft—that is, the aircraft strikes in and of themselves would not guarantee their collapse.

Problems with this variant:

The theorists present scant evidence to support this, except for some news sound bites shortly after the collapse of the twin towers, with voices saying they heard “explosions,” before the actual collapses similar to commercially controlled implosions of large, multistoried buildings. And purportedly, the building manager of the building at the foot of the WTC towers, was taped saying: "I pulled the plug on it." While this scenario is conceivable, it seems highly implausible that crews of expert dynamite riggers would have spent hours planting explosives in these skyscrapers without some non-plotter not noticing and reporting the activity.

The motive for the U.S. attack on itself--according to conspiracy theorists:

To occupy and colonize the Middle East, thus creating not only expanded and secure oil and natural gas resources, but also obtaining the following beneficial outcomes:

--Provide a powerful geopolitical position from which the U.S. would be able to influence the direction of political and economic events in the Near and Middle East,

--while exercising an enormously powerful fortress on the doorsteps of Russia and China, from which defensive and offensive military-political campaigns could be launched for the next 100 years

--Islamic radical governing Iran would be neutralized

--Russia’s historic desire to move to blue waters to their southern underbelly (control of the Turkish straits and the Bosporus Straits out of the Black Sea) would be blocked or “controlled.”

--Saudi Arabia and the Emirates would be grateful and obedient for American military and economic protection, while guaranteeing the U.S energy sources at stable, reasonable prices, through an OPEC now dominated by the U.S. and that would continue the Saudi’s firm-fisted price control and production policies.

I'm very partial to this Bismarckian thinking of the conspiracy-theorists (their thinking happens to coincide with some of the thinking attributed to those dreaded "neo-cons"). If the U.S. could pull it off, it’d solve many future problems for decades to come. Furthermore, the idea seems to comport with the general thinking that “neo-cons” like Paul Wolfowitz and fellow-thinkers are said to favor and have been promoting for many years. First, even if such a neat, epic scheme exists, I am suspicious that Mr. Wolfowitz or the combined efforts of conspirators in the Bush-Saudi dynasty could successfully coordinate the thousands of people and details that would be required to execute the plan over any given span of time. And once more, I find it hard to believe that the massive planning--of such sweeping, epic proportions--would not have come under the scrutiny of the "fourth estate" by now. Of course, the conspiracy-theorists will answer my objection by emphasizing that The Master Plan has been under the most secure lock and key governed by extraordinary classification policies.

Ummmm . . . maybe! But does anyone remember Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who came upon and photocopied the “Pentagon Papers” in 1973? This document was also a super-sensitive, highly classified set of papers that contained the details and “the real story" of U.S. involvement in and planning (military, economic, and political) for the Vietnam--including post-victory planning. Daniel Ellsberg, a mid-level government employee, copied and delivered it to the Washington Post. Today, if there exists a similar “Grand Scheme” for a new American "imperialism" under heavy lock and key, surely it’s just a matter of time before it makes its way into the public domain.

Do the conspiracy-theorists have solid grounds on which to pursue the conspiracy angles? My old “rigid academic mindset” still whispers to me, “Don't believe them without solid evidence.” However, I freely admit that today I am a little more sensitive to good, sensible questions that are ignored or left unanswered by responsible government officials. In particular, I'm very concerned about the Able-Danger affair. With the facts we now have, something just doesn't smell right. Does my concern signify that I have unwittingly joined the ranks of the conspiracy theorists?

During my stint in the DIA in the Pentagon I recall the impenetrable wall called "need to know" could be slammed shut at the drop of a hat--and it was always a hat belonging to some general. The highlight of Colonel Tony Schaffer's last days in DIA, according to his own testimony, was that a "two-star general" told him to back off and forget Able Danger. This is obviously one of those unanswered questions: "Why was Able-Danger intelligence ignored?" And "Why was the DIA project shut down, in light of our new watchfulness under the Homeland Security Act?"

There's no question about it-- many questions are left begging for answers, but in the meantime I am not going to succumb to the paranoia that the helicopter whirring overhead my house at one-o’clock in the morning is bringing the secret police to lock me up--some part of my brain tells me that it's our local hospital medevac helicopter coming from or going to Tucson with an unfortunate accident or heart attack victim.

John Roberts vs. Joe Biden: game, set, match!

Game, set, and match! or “You can go to the showers now, Senator”

Photos right: Will the real professional politician please stand up? Er . . . on second thought, please sit down.

The Scene (9/13-14-15/2005): The Senate Judiciary Committee’s partisan hearing for D.C. Appeals Court Judge, John Roberts, nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Photographers crowded cheek to jowl on the floor in front of the U-shaped, magisterial dais draped in pleated red felt. Seated facing his Democrat and Republican Inquisitors at a table covered in government felt, an imposing, boyishly handsome man. He's extemporaneously and confidently fielding--without notes, briefing books, or the whispers from aides--Senators’ questions, most of which are reasonably restrained and orderly, because of Chairman Arlen Specter’s firm rein on the committee's proceedings.

Enter Senator good ol’ folksy ‘Joe’ Biden. Senator Joe tried unsuccessfully to test Specter’s strong hand. You see, good ol' Senator Joe had a plan to uncover the too-perfect nominee, but more on that below. Joe Biden, after 32 years in the Senate and having achieved his fellow Senators’ grudging acceptance of the informal title of “Senior Senator”--he's just never been able to gain control over his hugely overblown view of himself and his imagined importance--especially when any kind of camera is nearby. Joe, like the other senators on the Committee, had a 30-minute session to question Roberts, but he just didn’t get it! Specter refused to allow him to run over his allotted time, after Joe had spent 20 minutes of his 30-minute limit grandstanding and overacting before allowing Roberts to respond. Poor ol' Joe chafed, objected and then pouted when he couldn't get additional time--under his privilege as a "senior senator."

Ah, yes, good ol’ Joseph Biden (he prefers to be called “Joe”—he wants everybody to think of him as just a regular guy), Democrat Senator of Delaware. Delaware may be a Mighty Mouse in stature, but it's clearly a Goliath when it comes to business. Corporations everywhere love Delaware because it’s a little like the off-shore havens for companies and individuals who crave maximum freedom, less taxation, and minimal oversight of their business activities.

As I said, Senator Joe was bent on “finding the truth” about this suspect nominee of President Bush, one of the most qualified candidates ever to come before the Senate for the Supreme Court—an admission from even many Democrats, on and off the Committee. Problem is, Joe just isn’t sufficiently on an intellectual par to joust the law with Roberts—he had long ago proved this insufficiency during his law school studies at Syracuse University where he had to resort to plagiarism to pass at least one course.

So instead of trying to take on Superstar Robert's legal mind, Joe figured he might have an even chance of making points with his famous touchy-feely, emotional approach--to demonstrate to TV viewers that the Judge may be an intellectual legal giant, but that he lacks a common “Good Heart” (great tactic, Joe, ‘cause everybody knows mean-spirited Republicans don’t take care of the folks). This tried-and-true emotional-appeal approach has always worked well for the senator, starting with his first senatorial campaign in 1971-72. So he laid his trap, using the endlessly controversial “right-to-life” issue--you can't get more emotional than this one, unless it's whether the pledge of allegiance should contain the words "Under God." (Note: Out of respect for the reader of this essay, the following is an extremely abbreviated version of Joe’s actual presentation--but you'll get the flavor of the senator's intention from this snippet.)

[Biden with his most sincere demeanor for the camera.]“Judge, now we all know you can’t answer specific questions on matters that might come before you on the bench, and I don’t want you to. What I want to do is to look at things from a human perspective, you know, like us regular Americans would. So pretend you’re the father, mother, son, daughter, or other relative of a senior citizen, clearly at the end of his or her normal life span, or maybe comatose after an accident [Joe’s really crafty here—he’s referring to the recent Terry Schiavo case that made so much national news], lying there helpless, hooked up on artificial life support systems . . . someone you love and admire. And, taking it one step further, let’s say that this person had told you, before he or she had arrived at this unfortunate state, that they wouldn’t want to live artificially like this. And it’s in your hands—it’s up to you, not someone else, to decide. Now, like I said, just pretend you’re a regular person—not a judge or high official—just a person like me or anyone else in this room. What I want to know is, what’s inside your heart, judge . . . forget the law for a minute, quit thinking like a lawyer. You know how we lawyers think [good try, Joe, trying to elevate yourself to Robert’s intellectual level]—we’re always trying to cross the T’s and dot the I’s, but I don’t want you to do that here. Just tell me what’s in your heart. Please, judge, the American people have a right to know What. . . Is . . . In . . . Your. . Heart. Look deep inside your heart, Judge Roberts. As a human being, a person, a caring person. Please tell us. Tell us what's in your heart, Judge. We Americans deserve to know!”

Roberts, without even clearing his throat, looked sly ol' Senator Joe in the eye and briefly summarized reality: (1) Because the right-to-life issue is a running controversy that inevitably will be back in Court sometime during his own future tenancy, he would be breaking the judge’s canon of ethics if he were to give a “heart-felt,” personal opinion that would be later held against him—resulting in self-recusal, and (2) In his capacity as an future impartial Supreme Court Justice, he is obligated never to put his “emotions” in front of the facts, which litigants would expect him to evaluate impartially. “Facts,” he reminded Joe, must always trump “feeling,” if the law is to be respected and justice achieved. That’s why, Roberts explained, for good or ill, the universal symbol of justice is the blindfolded lady holding a balancing scale. Touche, Senator Joe!

That was it—short, simple, anticlimactic, and diplomatic (as much as Roberts could possibly be, having to talk about the obvious to a mature politician). In his brief response Roberts had managed to destroy Joe’s simplistic—o yea, juvenile— attempt to substitute logic for emotion, while simultaneously depriving the good ol’ senator from scoring any political points with even the most touchy-feely listeners out there on the fruited plains.

Senator Biden has succeeded as a life-long politician because his electorate is tiny (Delaware’s total population is a mere 783,000--less than Tucson’s population) and has, in its best years, an electorate turnout for national elections of about 30,000). But more important is that Joe discovered a long time ago that if he sidles up to the business-legal community that Delaware nurtures as the nation’s “friendly incorporater,” his longevity would be virtually guaranteed for as long as he wants. It requires just the sort of “good ol’ boy” image that Joe is comfortable with and finds easy to exude. This image would not only ingratiate himself with the business scions that call Delaware home, but would be an adequate cover for his lack of native intellect and/or legal skills. To demonstrate his versatility, if you've listened to this eight-term (32 years) pol over the years, you'll realize that Joe has acquired several regional dialects (ranging from Alabaman back-country to Bostonian upper crust)-- both in idiom and accent. He's also able to put on a terrific “aw shucks” routine that would disarm the hardest ladies in any local garden club in the country.

This time the Senator failed to score. In fact, he probably managed to create a considerable back-lash component, even from among his own Delaware constituency. The problem is that Judge Roberts has been successfully fine tuning his mind and his personality since he was a high school student at the demanding, all-male La Lumiere Catholic boarding school near La Porte, Indiana. As some pundit commented recently, he’s almost too-perfect a nominee to replace the late Justice Rehnquist who, ironically, was one of Roberts' many friendly stepping stones on his way to the pinnacle. It is evident that the Senate Judiciary Committee, left and right of the aisle, recognizes that when a giant the likes of Roberts comes along, equipped and willing to serve this country in such an important capacity, you'd better snag him before he gets too discouraged.

It’s likely that Joe’s Delaware voters also recognize and admire these qualities, in spite of Senator Joe's failed attempt to find some dreck to dump onto the nominee. Yes siree, Senator--I’ll bet on John Robert’s genuine “Good Heart”—based on what he’s done with his mind, his heart, and his life, all of which came across well on the picture tube--as opposed to the twisted, hard-hearted image you hoped to shape from Judge Roberts' dedicated, disciplined life.

After Roberts' three-day marathon ordeal, it was clearly "Game, Set, and Match!" Senator Biden, you've proven yourself to be the consummate professional Washington politician of whom Americans have grown weary. More than once, you've immodestly confessed on the Sunday talk shows your belief that your greatest strength lies in being possessed by great common sense--the "gut" feelings you often use to make decisions in the Senate.

We note with alarm that you believe you should now elevate your "feelings" to the office of the U.S. presidency in '08, and that you've already started an "exploratory" effort in this direction. Joe, based on your performance the past three days, it's our "gut feeling" that it's time you head for the showers.

Tatooing: finally "respectable"?

Socially redeeming or demeaning self-abuse?

Not that long ago, tattoos were something "respectable" folks never talked about, much less acquired. Now, however, it seems we've landed in a different era in which it's not only O.K. to talk openly and even admiringly about tattoos, but some even consider it a socially redeeming activity for the middle and upper classes to dabble in.

I should begin by confessing how relieved I feel about finally publicly airing my attitude toward tattooing: I can imagine it must be a little like how a homosexual feels when making his/her debut out of the closet!

In my solid middle-class, aspiring-to-be-upper-class upbringing, a tattoo was clear and convincing evidence of . . . well, how to say it without appearing to be unduly nouveau blue blood . . . no, there's no other way to say it: Low Class. Trashy. I wasn't formally schooled to acquire this attitude; our family never discussed tattoos. We talked about a lot of things at the dinner table, but they were usually "uplifting"-- never such trivial and anti-social subjects such as tattooing. My sister and I intuitively knew tattoos were Low Class. My disdain for them probably derived from my Dad's silent treatment, but it was probably also connected to the vulgarity of tattoo themes we saw on drug-crazed biker toughs and their molls in photo essays in Life Magazine. A skull and crossbones, a heart pierced with an arrow over "Mom" and similar crude scrawls were sufficient proof to us that those who sported these abominations were either criminals or unappealing anti-social types.

The only tattoo-wearing class that seemed to escape our condemnation were enlisted navy swabs-- probably because the tattoo had a certain honorable historical naval tradition going back at least as far as Admiral Nelson. Popeye's anchor tattoo on his forearm that swelled after a slug of spinach also helped soften too harsh judgments about our sailor boys who wore tattoos. That notwithstanding, the lingering subliminal taboo effect was unquestionably at work during that fateful moment in the spring of 1955, when I had to choose which service to enlist in: Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, or Marines.

I passed up the three water-oriented military recruiters in Denver--I shuddered at the thought that, after basic training, I'd have to go with my fellow trainees into one of those seedy tattoo parlors outside the military bases. Tattooing, I understood, was an obligatory rite of manly passage for any young sailor or Marine. I wasn't about, just for the sake of camaraderie, to bear "Mom" or a skull and crossbones on my shoulder the rest of my life! I heard that the Air Force had no such a tradition of tattooing its enlistees--so it was into the wild blue yonder after signing an enlistment form on March 16, 1955.

Many years later, while reuniting with my sister, I was thunderstruck when I noticed a delicate, discreet flower tattoo on her ankle! I pretended I hadn't noticed. But it threw me for a loop. My mind raced. My own sister? At her age? Had she at some time during all those years I hadn't known her, stepped out of her wannabe-born-to-the-manor caste? Had she been a Hell's Angel moll in a youthful, wild fling sometime during the past 50 years? After all, she had lived a long time in California where, everybody knows, motorcycle gangs and other questionable social experiments originate.

For the sake of reconciling those reactionary, misanthropic thoughts, I'm happy I have since discovered that tattoos are no longer the wide social taboo they once were. Therefore, even though I'd still not dare ask my sis, "How come you?," I've made peace with her ankle tattoo with the discovery that an increasing number of female citizens are practicing this brutish craft today.

That said, I've got to get it off my chest: Although tattoo parlors are now called "clinics," "art centers," and other euphemisms, in my mind they're still "parlors," a word that to me connotes something akin to a 1940s or 1950s seedy pool hall or . . . a tattoo joint. Curiously, even though these modern parlors are "out" today, boast full-color Yellow Page ads, and are dubbed "socially responsible businesses" by local media in search of Style Section stories, the characters who wield their needles seem to retain throw-back images of the olden, seedy days. For example, the "artists" featured in articles all seem to have that professional grubby look of yore--long stringy hair sometimes done in pony tails (sometimes not), often ear- and nosed-ringed, unshaven, sandal-shod, tee-shirted--hardly the white-coat clinical image one might hope to see of a thoroughly reformed profession. But then, I suspect that's part of the mystique in getting punctured--it wouldn't be the slightly naughty, daring, rebellious act, if it were done in a sterile clinical atmosphere by well-groomed, clean shaven operators.

The only significant difference I've noted is that you can no longer see dirt under the operators' fingernails or their nicotine-stained fingers, because in the full color photo-feature articles, they're shown wearing latex gloves as they needle their clients--undoubtedly an imposition on their artistic freedom, as mandated by state licensing authorities. Licenses! Now that's a welcome improvement, I think. I suspect, however, the state examinations (in those states that require a license) might be less than rigorous, consisting of leading questions such as whether the applicant knows the difference between needle sizes, and other challenges such as TRUE or FALSE: "As long you get their consent, you may work simultaneously on two different clients without changing your gloves."

Is it art? Let's define terms: "Art" in my old-fashioned book means the original expression of inspiration, bolstered by unusual skills wielded by the few gifted among us. In other words, patrons of the tattoo industry have hi-jacked the word "art." So let's use the word properly. If you believe "art" consists of tracing templates on someone's shoulder or backside and then filling in the numbered spaces with a designated color of ink--then you and I have an unresolvable problem in semantics. I associate this procedure with the same level of skill required to complete the paint-by-number kits that sell briskly in artsy-craftsy stores to bored housewives trying to "find themselves" and elementary school teachers unqualified to teach art.

So with your concurrence, let's use a different word to refer to tattooing. How about "craft?" People who deliver tattoos would then be called "craftsmen" or "craftswomen." These are not demeaning terms at all. In fact, they differentiate comfortably between original inspired art, while still allowing for a fair amount of recognition that the tattoo parlor technician is a skilled professional (recognizing the curious need Americans today harbor--no matter what his/her particular toil, it's more satisfying to be able to call oneself a "professional") who must exercise a great deal of care in not screwing up the elegant templates (created by others) on the unforgiving human canvas. Or not transmitting diseases via their needles. Admittedly, that does require considerable critical skill and craftsmanship.

I do have one positive observation to make about today's state of the tattoo craft: It has come a long way from the pirate skull and bones or the "mom" valentine heart. The more successful parlor operator has a bewildering assortment of templates and can deliver just about anything the Freudian Unconscious Mind can dream up--great advances over the crude "mom" of yesteryear. If a young Marine or sailor today must acquire a tattoo, wouldn't it somehow be more uplifting if he (or she) would be able to sport a multicolored Shinto Dragon symbol or a New Age mod comic-book configuration--sure, they'll cost more, but if tattooing persists in our culture, think what an improvement in aesthetics it would mean to the individual, as well as reflecting somewhat less harshly on our society's sense of "taste."

Look, if you or yours want a tattoo, be my guest. But if you do, don't ask me to accept your decision as some sort of socially redeeming or meaningful event. I realize that from time to time, anthropologists, in pursuit of their "publish or perish" obligations to their institutions, go out into the bush somewhere to live with an aboriginal tribe, then emerge "enlightened" several months later. They publish quaint stories in obscure academic journals about the mores and customs of their primitive hosts, even implying that there are some idyllic reasons that we adopt or better appreciate their habits. Of course, after being charmed and amazed upon reading these reports, one realizes it's all ivory-tower babbling.

Practical reasons not to tattoo yourself:

(1) If you need a permanent picture on your valuable and not easily replaced skin to make a "statement," then evidently you've lost or never acquired effective communications skills.

(2) If your self-esteem is so low that you require a permanent picture on your frame, you're emotionally deprived--best you seek a shrink for relief, not a tattoo parlor craftsman.

(3) Despite the "new reputation" being sought by the parlors, they are still transmitting diseases to their smarmy clients . . . it's a dirty little secret you will run across by Googling "tattoos."

(4) No matter how cleverly dermatologists turn a phrase about laser technology in their late-night TV pitches, tattoos are not completely removable without repeat treatments, which themselves will leave scarring in place of the graphics. Furthermore, the process is very expensive, painful, and time consuming.

(5) Tattoos are socially limiting for anyone aspiring to promotion in their careers. I've yet to hear about a company executive sporting a visible tattoo--unless it'd be a tattoo company. Any corporate boss inevitably will view anyone sporting tattoos as suspect. Why? Executives are supposed to be stable, decision-making individuals. In management's eyes an aspiring corporate employee with a predilection to tattooing would, according to corporate standards, identify himself/herself as suffering the emotional afflictions described in #1 and #2 above--neither of which will inspire much confidence in fellow employees or in the corporation's clients who are entrusted to the company's representative. If I were the employer, I'd be thinking, "Why the hell was this guy(gal) wasting time and money getting the tattoo instead of spending time on education of some kind? Will he/she being wasting company time the same way? Will he/she be able to attract the respect of the people he'll be working with?" If a salesperson, "I wonder how his sales prospects will react to that interesting bloody vampire on the back of his hand?"

The misleading social-psychological origins of tattooing:

Aside from the simple desire to adorn oneself--an oedipal reflex some people succumb to--there is another reason others yield to the tattoo syndrome. They have been deceived by the thought that they are subscribing to a desirable social commonality that identifies them with "ordinary" folks: workers, athletes, military, bikers, etc. That notion comes from a remnant-idea left over from the 1960s hippie era, that was originally stimulated by the Marxist premise of class equality, in which we were told is a characteristic of a social order consisting of happy, smiling clones. Curiously, this odd notion still exists on some American university campuses where it is being pushed by "progressive" poly-sci and sociology professors. However, as most people since 1990 know, the alluring Marxist siren songs are proven dis-harmonies that were composed by authors of gigantic social and political scams. Tattoos, therefore, mark their wearers not as shining individualists, but as dull clones who have been dragged down to the least common denominator.

What's disturbing, if statistics quoted by the admiring media are correct, is the growth in popularity of the practice in our country. Would that mean we're headed toward a dull, clone-like society, instead of that shining city on a hill? I'll leave it to others to answer that.

There now, that's it. Tattooing is not a complicated subject. In fact, it's really a very primitive practice that has advanced very little, except for the technology used to inject ink. I've searched my thoughts and done some research in hope of discovering something "deeper" about what attracts a reportedly growing number of occidentals to tattooing. I can't find a satisfying answer. However, I have been able to conclude that just because Fiji Islanders, aboriginals, and other primitive cultures widely practice tattooing, is not a compelling enough reason that we should adopt it or even find it an acceptable habit.