Rescuing our schools - Part 2: The Problem

So what's the problem with American education? "Problem? What problem?" Believe it or not, there are a few people who deny that there's a problem. If you've never talked to kids or their teachers during the past 20 years, you might think everything's A.O.K. However, confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as our own personal experiences will testify, and as revealed in the endless reams of statistics being kept under President Bush's federal program "No Child Left Behind" (and other state-level programs), I think it's safe to conclude that our system's broken.

• We know there's a problem when students trash their schools and disrespect their teachers--even resorting to physical violence.
• We know there's a problem when psychologists report one out of 10 teens suffer clinical depression.
• We know there's a problem when 25% of high school youngsters don't graduate.
• We know there's a problem when the U.S.A. is 39 out of 50 nations tested in basic academic skills.
• We know there's a problem when universities have to lower standards in order to fill seats in freshman classes, and then have to create remedial courses in basic courses in order to prepare them for university-level work.
• We know there's a problem when employers complain that American universities are not graduating enough scientists and engineers to fill their positions, requiring them to turn to India, Russia, England, and other countries.
• In summary, the evidence is overwhelming, so we needn't argue if there's a problem, but must turn to solving the problem: Why is our once famous educational system broken?

O.K., now that we've laid a foundation, it's time to define more exactly the nature of "The Problem" if we are to seek solutions to it. It's all well and good to fire blunderbusses in any direction and say, "The system's broken--our kids aren't getting an education." But we need to go further and try to get our arms around specifics.

Doing so isn't easy--the problem is so large and involves hundreds of thousands of teachers, administrators and support people who deliver something we've labeled "education" (it's the largest industry in the U.S.A.), it's hard to "get one's arms around it." It's appropriate to use the adage of the blind men who were told to feel an elephant and then report what it was they examined. Each of them was able to relate bits and pieces of their "feelings" and "impressions," but until someone was able to help put the pieces together that make up a coherent picture, the elephant tended to remain a mysterious entity--threatening and revolting to some, curious and bizarre to others. So to begin shaping the nature of the beast, we must have a common basis for understanding what it is we're "feeling".

It's very helpful to review briefly our own history, which impacts significantly on our system like no other country in the world. When our much revered forefathers set out to establish a new country free of King George III's tyranny, we inherited essential British attitudes and a system of education that was mostly a privilege of the "upper crust." Education had always been a private matter delivered by families of the privileged classes who hired learned tutors in philosophy, religion, mathematics, Latin, and science. Education was rarely something delivered to women, who instead were taught the "social graces" by their mothers. However, the enlisted men who fought and suffered the years of our struggle with Great Britain were largely "dumm as drumsticks" to quote a patrician in those days. They were mostly farmers and tillers of the land, with a smattering of shopkeepers--socially barely one step upward. Their officers, of course, were educated and members of the privileged classes.

Historically, education for the masses was an unthinkable notion--even by the most enlightened liberal thinkers--until the Industrial Revolution began to demand specific factory skills of workers--more than those possessed by farmers and tillers of our agrarian society. In response, beginning in Europe, formal, organized education began to take shape to fill these needs. Simultaneously in America there arose a school of thought that had been influenced, quite understandably, by a revolutionary idea that followed from the successful American political revolution--the republican (note, in the small 'r' meaning) notion that education belonged to "the people"--a notion that was born in the Declaration of Independence's opening paragraphs:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--"

Those few words began to enter the vocabulary and consciousness of even the lowliest American classes--in fact, in a short time, they became the official mantra of a whole new political class that would reach its most influential zenith almost 200 years later. Their impact on education was profound. Armed with the sentiments expressed in this powerful stimulus to the American Experiment, well-meaning citizens came to believe that everyone, no matter what their station in life or the level of individual native capacity, deserved--by constitutional right--as much education as possible. The idea was that, in the popular vernacular of today, "education levels the playing field"-- presumably toward creating a truly egalitarian society. This revolutionary notion was considered the most important stepping stone to pursuing that elusive state: happiness--an exclusive American concept of the meaning of life.

The flowering of this sentiment occurred in massive numbers after World War II when, in an effort to absorb into the economy the millions of GIs being mustered out of service, the once-cloistered universities, heretofore reserved mainly for the privileged, were opened to anyone with the money to pay the tuition--and the generous GI Bill supplied millions of young veterans just that.

It followed quickly that high schools opened their doors to a wider segment of the population--even if it meant readjusting its standards to accommodate more students. Until the early 1950s, high schools and universities filled the demand of America's voracious need for managers, technicians, scientists, engineers, and most facets of the liberal arts professions: psychologists, sociologists, librarians, statisticians, and yes . . . teachers. At the university level, the curricula were shaped and aimed at society's needs and qualified students became "experts" through a rigorous and demanding process. High schools too aimed their students to become proficient in the essential building blocks: math, reading, science, with a smattering of the "old" subjects like Latin, Greek, philosophy and (in parochial schools) religion.

But things began to go horribly wrong around the late-1950s. Some say a national psychosis was introduced into our cultural psychology by the apocalyptic fears that came with the nuclear age in Cold War with the Soviet Union was behind the New Age--a national mode of escapism, as it were. Whatever the reasons, respectable liberal thinkers began to consider--in all social affairs of the nation--the impact of the words, "All Men are created equal . . . and are endowed with certain unalienable Rights . . . pursuit of happiness." A new political movement dedicated to implementing the ideas embodied in these words grew quickly--their proponents viewed school curricula too restrictive, both in their breadth and depth and in terms of the people shut out of the system for various reasons: poverty, political repression, class and race prejudice, and (although rarely voiced) native ability. They were able to shame people into silence, or were successful in shouting them down, if they persisted in resisting the "self-evident" truths in the words "all, created equal, unalienable Rights, pursuit of happiness."

Reality was replaced with excessive idealism by well-meaning progressive thinkers and their followers, but they became so enamored with the progressive ideas embodied in those words that the balance between theory and reality was lost in the enthusiasm of a new era. That enthusiasm was given a sudden, enormous political boost in the 1960s by JFK's era dubbed "Camelot" and the "Age of Aquarius" (the "me" Age) by their most dedicated practitioners. Reinforcing this "new era" was the music and dress code of the Beetles and their imitators; "pot" and peyote were recommended by Timothy Leary and other darlings of the "New Age" as a way to experience "mind opening." Free love, imported from daring films and books from socialist Scandanavia, was institutionalized in a new Hollywood genre of porn in films like "Deep Throat." Widely practiced among hippies of the time, it was undoubtedly encouraged by the invention and introduction of the "pill" in the 1960s.

Nietzsche's nihilism was reflected in Time Magazine's April 8, 1966 cover that asked "Is God Dead?" Karl Marx again became fashionable on university campuses, creating a newly minted political movement that quickly spawned a spate of radical factions of every imaginable kind, including the "Symbionese Liberation Army," a small group that kidnapped newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst, who strangely became one of them and took part in Los Angeles area bank robberies. In summary, the 1950s and 1960s were decades of intense turmoil, vast national uncertainty, experimentation, and social and political bombast. It was during this social upheaval that "education for everyone" was considered deficient and outmoded--in terms of both curriculum and the methods of delivering it in the classroom. Experimentation became the main sail of the teaching profession.

At Kindergarten through Grade 12 levels, "New Math" and "New Reading" methods were invented. No more sounding out words in learning reading--it was now said that "word recognition" was now "in." No more rote memorizing of "boring" multiplication and division tables--"cognitive understanding of these fundamentals was now "in." Curricula were delivered in a "free, less regimented" atmosphere in which kids could study what "felt right" for as long as they wished. Teachers were supposed to cater to the "needs" of their students; they were advised not to become "authority figures," but "facilitators of learning. Older teachers in the system were admonished to join this revolution and if they didn't, they were the first ones to be retired or advised to seek other employment. Education in the 1960s was profoundly changed by those who promoted the "It's all about me" generation that the Age of Aquarius had ushered in.

At the university level the liberal arts were also profoundly affected. Here, experimentation went to new levels. Teacher training was shaped in such a way as to make graduates with Bachelor and higher degrees vessels of the new educational philosophies and methodologies. "Social consciousness" became the raison d'etre of "higher" education; the New Age professors created new courses in racial sensitivies, cultural appreciation--in a word, the "basket weaving " courses. No need to bother students with "hard" courses such as algebra and calculus, chemistry or biology; instead, in order to fill the liberal arts graduation requirements, they were substituted with "introduction to mathematical principles" or "general philosophy" and in science, "history of science" or "appreciation of science" courses. In a word, this was truly the era that started the "dumbing down" of America.

Where we are today: Fortunately, most youngsters nurtured in this period have forgotten this era in meeting life's demands; today they look back on it with a certain nostalgia--either positive or negative, depending on how retarded their lives were because of their education in this era. During the past 10 years, a palpable trend has been underway--there is a slow, tortured desire to return to "the basics" at the K-12 levels--but you don't turn around a giant ocean liner on a dime; it takes time to build new keels and to reorient the ship toward a different course. The main exception to this "corrections trend" is in the liberal arts departments on most American university campuses where the Aquarius generation of "intellectuals" sought permanent haven as professors. Unlike "real life," the Ivory Tower makes few "real world" demands on professorial theorticians, so that their habitants today continue to live out their fantasies and--worse--infect the young and impressionable who enroll to seek "Truth," thereby delaying their maturity and entry into the "real America." Purging campuses of this generation will probably not be complete until they die out--literally.

At this point, you're either with me or not. If I haven't convinced (or reminded) you that America's educational system is truly broken, then don't bother reading Part 3 ("The Purpose") of this series. Instead, I suggest you direct part or all of your 2005 tax refund to your local School District to signal that you're happy with the way things are.

Rescuing our schools - Part 1: Introduction

Where angels fear to tread--

On December 21 of the year just past, I made what "professional educators" would call a naive--even ignorant--promise on this blog to offer clear and practical steps toward recapturing and reforming the education system that was snatched from us about a half-century ago.

My interest derived from the curious experience I had during my brief stint as a high school teacher of Russian and German languages in 1961-62. In a word, I refused to cooperate in an experiment that had my "forward-looking" teacher colleagues all agog. The experiment involved, among other things, not limiting my language classes to eligible students, but offering them, in a loose-knit kind of schedule, to any and all students, whether academically eligible or not. I would teach all comers in a kind of "round-robin" arrangement where I would be available all day long to students who wished to "sample" my classes. I was told that attendance would not be monitored and that I would not issue traditional grades; in fact, performance would not be measured, except to the extent that the students "were satisfied." My reaction was immediate: I rejected the notion as being foolish and unworkable. My principal took my recalcitrant attitude up with the county administrators who evidently relented to my "old-fashioned" methodology, at least long enough to humor me as I organized the first language programs in this particular high school. I insisted on rigorous exercising in the language as much as possible during the 50-minute long, five-day per week classes. Testing was frequent and carried out as another student learning tool. My colleagues were not happy that I was not participating in their "revolutionary" experiments.

I didn't know it at the time, but I had landed smack-dab in the middle of the "revolution" widely sponsored by the Left (which had also given birth to the "progressive" hippie movement on U.S. campuses in the late 1950s), and had the support of growing, powerful teachers' unions (National Education Association and the newer American Federation of Teachers). Because of my refusal to cooperate with new curricula and teaching techniques in my very first year as a new teacher "on trial," I was ostracized by most of my colleagues as educationally "insensitive." If you're interested in a little bit more about this personal experience, you can scroll down on this blog to an entry entitled "Who hijacked our education system?" (August 28, 2005) .

I mention this by way of introduction because I had just entered the teaching world with so much enthusiasm for imparting the skills I had acquired to those who were coming behind me, but left a short time later disillusioned and somewhat bitter. As the years rolled by and I acquired a perspective that comes with maturity and time, I watched our system of education rapidly deteriorate into confusion on several levels:

(1) Teachers became demoralized and were continuously swindled on several levels,

(2) Administrators became cogs in an ever-growing bureaucratic, dogmatic machine,

(3) Parents became confused and neutralized, but worst of all,

(4) Students began to dislike school and even hold it and their teachers in contempt.

Everybody has come to understand, intuitively or by direct contact with any level of education in America, that the system is broken and is in serious need of reform if our country is to survive, much less to regain our competitiveness in a world that has grown rapidly smaller. The following cartoon, published last December in our little local paper, illustrates our common knowledge: Something's seriously wrong. Unfortunately, no one has yet undertaken serious steps to fix the problem,* although there is an overabundance of pundits who daily continue to comment on our nation's shame and embarrassment.

*No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a recent attempt launched by the Bush Administration with the intent to fix it, but it is clearly failing because there is no political unanimity behind it and, most significantly, it's a bureaucratic monstrosity that is drowning schools in the maintenance of endless statistics--it's like frantically trying to patch the enormous hole in the Titanic with rolls of duct tape, while simultaneously demanding meticulous record-keeping of the number of feet of tape used, the cost, the source of the tape, the man hours used, who applied the tape (broker down by race, disabilities, level of skills, etc.). Much more on NCLB in subsequent parts of this essay.

Since leaving my teaching post so disillusioned and after the demands of day-to-day responsibilities of raising a family and making a living are behind me, I now have the luxury of time to consider the results that have been percolating in the cauldron of my mind the past 45 years. I think I know what the problem is and how to cure it--assuming, of course, that Americans will summon the political will to carry it out.

I'm not sure how long and in what form my solution will take. I suspect the enormity of the problem I've assigned myself could take hundreds of pages. If I thought such an exposition might have a significant impact on a wide audience, I would undertake the task in whatever length and in whatever formats required. For starters, however, this blog will serve as a repository of the "essentials"--an outline--if you wish.

I am anxious to use this Internet Age "blog" to record this outline for one important reason: To interact with readers and thinkers who undoubtedly will help widen my thinking and thus ultimately contribute to the value of the final product. (Note: Unless I am directed by contributors to exercise anonymity on their behalf, I will record wide attribution to anyone who contributes to this essay--negatively or positively.)

I promise to try and avoid being pedantic, long-winded and academically obtuse. If I drift off into old university-acquired habits, I hope someone reading this will alert me forcefully.
So as to make the whole exercise as palatable for both myself and readers, the essay will be done in pieces--this being Part 1, the Introduction.

Please make comments--either directly at the end of each posting in "Comments" below or by using my separate e-mail (on the "Profiles" button, upper right-hand margin).

Israeli Air Force updating GPS coordinates

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Is he a madman or just pulling our chain?

It's reported that Mr. A continues to rile the West, even the reluctant Germans and Mr. "Smooth" Chirac. In response to the Iranians' removal of the U.N. seals from their uranium enrichment facilities yesterday, the London Financial Times reports today:

French President Jacques Chirac warned Iran Tuesday that it would commit a serious mistake if it ignored the international community on its nuclear program. And German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that with the latest step Teheran had "crossed lines which it knew would not remain without consequences." Steinmeier also said he had asked IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to evaluate the dangers of Iran's move.

I can't imagine the redoubtable Mr. A--who undoubtedly is acting in league with the theocratic government of mullahs--misreading both the Europeans and the U.S.A. to the extent of begging for retaliation. But I suspect they are. However, surely he hasn't forgotten that the Devil's "country of the proven and willing" just a few air miles southwest of Teheran has been watching his country's nuclear program with increasingly intense interest? Or does he think they're on Uncle Sam's leash?

And has he also miscalculated China, who surely has more than a passing interest in Iran's possession of the bomb? China has been playing the oriental inscrutable role with respect to its relationship with Iran, but it's a fair bet that they'll countenance an upstart bunch of religious fanatics on their flank having an equalizer--especially not in the hands of a young, apocalyptic radical.

I reckon President Bush's newly minted doctrine of preemption in foreign policy is being looked at in a much more receptive light by European, Russian, and Chinese leaders. And no need to worry about jawboning with the Israelis--they're in if no one else is, and they're perfectly capable of taking care of the job in short order. Their Air Force has run various air strike scenarios over many times since their strike on Iraq in 1983. You can bet their cockpit GPS instrumentation is up to date.

As for my personal attitude: I still remember vividly the seizure of our embassy in Teheran in 1979 and the embarrassment I, along with most of my countrymen, of the year of humiliation we suffered while the theocratic nuts toyed with their hostages, making the U.S. and its president, Jimmy "Peanuts" Carter, the laughing stock of the world, setting off the "paper tiger" image of us that to this day underlies the impunity with which terrorists continue to operate. It would appear that Mr. A (who some think was one of the young terrorists who led the attack on the embassy in 1979) thinks he's going to call Uncle Sam's hand again. With Dubya at the wheel, that'd be a serious mistake.

If asked, I'll do grunt flightline work on Israeli airbases and help the Jews launch their attacks. Just call on me--I'll pull away the chock blocks.

Shooting themselves in both feet

Judge Samuel Alito's Travails

Here we go again! If you recall the confirmation of John Roberts last Fall, it's deja vu all over again. Although I'm tempted to rant (again), I'm restraining myself, because it does nothing but add to the increasing number of gray strands in my ever-thinning mop. I can't afford to put more of it at risk so soon after the Roberts trial.

The Dems continue to demonstrate why they lost all political power in the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branches and, astoundingly, they still don't "get" it. Senator Edward Kennedy, whose irritating upper-crust Boston accent rings from my TV set in the background as I write this, continues to fail to understand the function of his own nest, the U.S. Senate, but the Executive and the Judicial branches as well. I wish one of his staff members would write a pithy essay on Government 101 for Kennedy, although it's possible that Kennedy doesn't hire staff members who possess that knowledge either.

He and his leftist brethren appear to believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of every aspect of American life: economics, morality, education . . . you name it--in their minds, it is that small body of nine lawyers who hold the fate of America in their hands. Therefore, according to the Left, the Court is and must be politicized, that is, it must function in terms not of the law but in terms of whatever societal whim should be placed before it. By any means, they are desperate to make the Court an institute of social engineering and legislation--something our Founders clearly never intended.

But that's why the Left are trying to claim as one of their own the retiring Justice Sandra O'Connor, whom they so lovingly describes as the "swing vote"--that is, "a Leftist vote" in cases of a 4 to 4 tie between the nasty conservatives and the enlightened liberals on the court. The insidious aspect of their frantic effort to politicize the "swing vote" is that they're trying to establish the function of the Supreme Court as a political entity-- not a judicial one--conveniently overlooking the fact that the U.S. Constitution and its founders did not intend that body to be a microcosm of the 535-member legislative houses of Congress, but a pure instrument of jurisprudential oversight, whose members exercise a non-political role. Do the Dems simply not understand that the Court was designed as an institution to address legislation passed by Congress and the states (where state jurisdiction is challenged) as to constitutionality? Or is it a dangerous attempt to reshape the Court's function.

As long as the Dems are so far out of power in Washington and across the nation, the specific, narrow view of the Court's "job description" as our Founders established it, is unacceptable to Edward Kennedy and his ilk; they prefer to slough off their own responsibilities as legislators and look to the Supreme Court for relief. They don't understand that their attempt to eschew their responsibilities and turn the third major branch of the U.S. government into an their own instrument is precisely why Americans have rejected their party several times during the past two decades. Thus, in desperation, believe that if they are able to gain control of the Court, they would be able to recoup their lost political power.

It's a shameless display of ignorance and their helplessness. And the irony is, by taking their hypocritical stance on television with the nominee, Sam Alito, they don't realize that they are merely reinforcing in middle America's mind (wherein lies the Republican power) the ignorance, duplicity, and effeteness of today's American Left. If they continue their incoherent and one-theme performance during the remaining days of torturing a brilliant legal mind of similar stature of Justice Roberts, they're only reconfirming why Americans will continue to reject the Democrats at the polls.

Add this to the daily performance of the Dem's official court jester, head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean, and Republicans have little to worry about at the polls for the next couple of decades.

WMD truth finally revealed!

URGENT NOTICE

Be sure to check out this website and be prepared for explosive revelations about the mysterious, lost WMD. Heavy hitters (lots of 'em) will reveal the truth about Saddam's so far undiscovered cache that the Left has been using to bash President Bush unmercifully the past three years. You can also read a preview of the revelations (scheduled to be released at the intelligence summit conference on February 17-20) by journalist Steven Hayes in The Weekly Standard's just published article . Among the several heavy hitters participating in this important conference will be James Woolsey (above), former Director, CIA. February should be an interesting month.

Fizzled out whistle blower?

Why isn't the whistleblower getting media attention?

Russell Tice, an ex-NSA (National Security Agency) analyst went public last week in a TV interview with Amy Goodman, director of Democracy Now. In the hour-long interview, Tice confessed he was responsible for the present uproar inside Washington's Beltway and on the public media around the world. Although he said he was unable to discuss specific operating details of the electronic sweep allegedly performed by NSA at President Bush's direction ("because I don't want to walk out of here into an FBI interrogation room"), Tice left no room for doubt that he was the whistleblower.

Tice said he was still waiting for a response from the House and Senate intelligence subcommittee chairman, to whom he faxed a letter stating his willingness to testify before their committees. He said it was probably too early to expect a response, because he had sent the fax during the Christmas holidays. His voluntary testimony, he said, was conditioned on being treated under the provisions of the "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act."

Tice fingered the past NSA Director (General Hayden, now deputy director of the recently created super-spy bureaucracy headed by diplomat John Negroponte) as well as the present NSA leadership, all of whom he says had to been authorized by President Bush to go around FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) procedures to spy on Americans.

Asked by the TV interviewer whether his termination was connected with his explosive revelations, Tice said he was fired in May 2005, months before he decided to blow his whistle. The actual reason for his firing was, according to him, his dissing the FBI over what he thought was its incompetent handling of a report he pressed his security officer to pass to the FBI for investigation. It seems he reported a fellow NSA worker for engaging in what Tice believed was espionage. Evidently, Tice was dissatisfied at the FBI's handling of the case (that is, dismissal of Tice's allegations).

Asked if his subsequent decision to whistleblow the electronic eavesdropping might be seen by the public as retaliation for his termination from NSA, Tice admitted his timing might be seen in that light. Tice's reason for his revelations? His answer (paraphrased): His self-appointed role in protecting and preserving American Democracy, etc., etc. , ad nauseum.

After hearing Russell Tice's interview last week, I assumed his confession would be instant "big news" that would be picked up within minutes of his live interview. Instead, the reaction has been silence. Which leads one to speculate. Was Tice shown to be a confessor for the personal publicity he anticipated? Or perhaps his further revelations would be severely damaging to intelligence interests? (Maybe, after all, he did walk out of the interview into FBI detention?) Or perhaps congressional authorities, in collaboration with the FBI and his former employer, have decided he's a self-serving fraud?

Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now organization owe a follow-up to her explosive scoop that has so far fizzled.

Only in America!

Cold beer nixed in Missouri!

No joke! The news media report this morning that a Missouri state legislator has introduced legislation (suggested--no kidding--by a grade-schooler's research) that would make beer under 60-degrees Fahrenheit illegal to sell or transport.

Seems the young future scientist presented convincing (in Missouri, anyway--which may explain the ludicrousness of the issue) evidence to Missouri's lawmakers that people drink more beer when it's too cold or, expressed tautologically, Americans reject and thus drink less warm beer ( it should be noted that in Germany, this would not hold true, inasmuch as in many parts of that world beer-guzzling nation, patrons often dunk battery-driven "beer warmers" in their mugs if tap-served brew comes out too "cold").

The pending legislation would put at risk any seller and buyer of beer caught with beer measuring under 60 degrees.

What's next? Missouri's Highway Patrol testing the temperature of any six-pack being transported by an unfortunate driver? I can envision an alternative to a hefty ticket and appearance before a local magistrate: Buying some ribs or chicken and inviting the beleaguered patrolman to an impromptu picnic at the nearest roadside rest stop. And why not? Missouri's in America.

Competing lawmaker mentality: Water ecology. The beer-temperature legislation rivals the proposal of a newly elected councilwoman in our little desert town. Wanting to impress her constituency that she was up to the task, she proposed a city law that would require homeowners to install pool covers on their outdoor pools when not in use--the idea being that the move would save water lost to evaporation in the desert heat. Her suggestion hit a snag when a more experienced fellow-councilman asked her how she proposed to make sure home owners were complying by covering their pools, most of which are located in their backyards. The lady stammered, paused, and the council moved on without further discussion.

But don't laugh! After the council session a wag suggested that she introduce her legislation at the state level--where it'd be more likely to find endorsement (a greater number of "professional" lawmakers, you see) and--given the wider application throughout Arizona--could theoretically amount to water savings in the millions of gallons, while simultaneously stimulating the growth of an industry: pool cover manufacturers. Given the Missouri cold-beer experience, the suggestion might be a sound one.

The Washington Mobster

He's even dressing the part!

A mobster is exposed! One assumes that Jack Abramoff and his associates will surely do time after ratting on the many congressional contacts to whom he generously shared what appears to have been very ill-gotten gains (from various Indian tribes around the country). Some might even believe it follows that Congress is on the verge of collapse, and anyone receiving money from the crook for whatever reason is also tainted. Of course, if the Left weren't scared to death that party stalwarts will be long on a list the federal prosecutors are busily compiling, they'd already be trumpeting Abramoff's extortions and embezzlements as constituting a massive "Republican Cultural Scandal."

I too am outraged, but not because congressmen were receiving "tainted" money for their campaign re-election war chests (mainly by promoting legislation that would benefit Indian casino business ventures)--that's legal and old hat in Washington. What enrages me is that Abramoff crafted an almost perfect scheme to scam our Native Brothers on their generally miserable reservations. In recent decades they had finally discovered the perfect way to rake in the big bucks with minimal capital investments: the Halls of Gambling that much of America seems incurably and insatiably addicted to. The ironic aspect of this growing industry on the reservations is that they're finally realizing in spades for what their white oppressors did to them in the 19th century: Legally fleecing them cleanly.

As to the outrage that the media are expressing--and it seems so far successful in whipping up their readers in middle America--placing the focus on Congress and the 35,000 registered Washington lobbyists, it's a case of completely misplaced emphasis. I've got my own (great big) beef with the elected big free-spenders of our (legally) confiscated money in Washington--and I've no doubt there may have been some legislators were directly engaged in the fraud that Abramoff was perpetrating. But they probably amount to precious few.

Recently, I had an exchange with a blogger, a (Leftist) professor of economics at a major university, over his over-zealous condemnation of politicians (especially G.W. Bush). His assertion was that our representatives, everyone one of them, are corrupt to the core and should therefore be fired, and replaced with "honest citizens" (under a system Karl Marx referred to the "enlightened proletariat," enroute to Eden or Communism) who would, overnight, bring everlasting peace, harmony, and economic equality to America. When I responded to his apocalyptic view of American government by citing a few facts against his pure illusions and fabrications, he became livid and denounced me as "obviously an active member of The Conspiracy" (I presumed he meant Hillary's "vast Right-wing conspiracy"). Proffering this kind of worldview is what severely damaging the very foundation of American governance. The professor would also contend that Jack Abramoff is a White House undercover "plumber" doing the nefarious work of The Conspiracy. The mainstream press accounts of Abramoff's criminal activities during the past decade are simply framing the professor's view of American politics.

However, I stand in stark contrast to that view of the "lobbying scandal." I don't see it as a "lobbying scandal," but as the gullibility of so many who were defrauded by Abramoff, and the weakness of a few Washington operatives. I also happen to believe our 200-plus year old system, with all its warts and fault lines, is still the best, proven system ever invented and has provided me and mine a standard of freedom and living undreamt of by even my own father. And lobbyists have been an inherent element of our system even before the Constitution was concluded, when interest groups tried actively to influence the framers of our Constitution to shape it to their own visions and perceived needs.

While I recognize it's fashionable to attack lobbyists and try to cast shadows on legislators who accept donations to their political re-election war chests, I don't see myself as political posture as "fashionable." The fact is, Congress couldn't operate (not under the present set-up we like to call a "free-market") without having the court attendants helping legislators to acquire knowledge of the 1,001 things they and their staffs must know in order to fulfill their duties to their constituencies. (Please don't get side-tracked here--I recognize a strong case is made for far less legislation, which would eventually have the effect of cutting down on the size of government, reducing the federal budget, and eliminating most of the excess flow influence through monies throughout the Halls of Congress--all interesting libertarian-like arguments--for another day.)

There's no doubt the lobby system tempts and it also may exert undue pressure on otherwise honest legislators--that's simply a fact of life. Former congressman, now MSNBC TV pundit, Joe Scarborough, made that observation last night in an interview with MSNBC TV interviewer, Chris Matthews, that those who cross the re-election campaign coffers with silver will get first attention from the firms for whom lobbyists work--"it's a fine line [between being tainted and honest brokering]" he said. But when an elected legislator falls for and partakes of the forbidden apple, he or she must bear the full weight of the law and ethical shame.

Just what constitutes "the forbidden apple"? It's clear to me and most Americans (excepting lawyers and politicians who try to wiggle out of accountability): After accepting money for legal re-election campaign purposes, if a legislator agrees to draft legislation or vote the way a lobbyist's client wants without considering all facets of the issue, then that's corruption. Or, as in the recent case of Air Force Vietnam Phantom (F-4) jet fighter pilot ace, "Duke" Cunningham, if a legislator accepts gratuities clearly out of proportion to the inherent sense of propriety (never mind the limits specified in the House and Senate Ethics guidelines), that's corruption. In other words, we have the smell test of common sense and famous "I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it" test. Honorable people know what corruption is. Less-than-honorable people know. Only truly evil individuasl wouldn't know, but the optimist in me says we send very few of that kind of people to represent us. No legislation is necessary in the wake of Abramoff.

The real story here is Jack Abramoff and his immediate willing associates who scammed eager but innocent people into channeling huge sums of money into Abramoff's several companies, in the naive belief their money would insure the success of their casino operations, through favorable decisions from the Department of Interior (via the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and from Congress as well. Their naivete was overwhelming naive! Without doing basic due diligence, they trusted a crook enough to turn over millions of dollars to him personally, or to dozens of fake lobbying companies. Any congressional electee--and officials, including congressmen, their staffs, and career or appointed bureaucrats found complicit in the multiple fraud schemes devised by Abramoff--should be shown no mercy after juries pass their verdicts.

Is there a "cure" that would effectively end the temptation of green--the "apple"? Perhaps the assignment of independent oversight bodies inside Congress and the bureaucracy, accompanied by the certainty of vigorous prosecution would curb the worse excesses. But to advocate the elimination of the lobby system is foolish and ignorant. Lobbyists not only represent corporations as well as the likes of the Indian gaming industry, they also represent thee and me in ways we seldom appreciate: Insurance of various kinds: medical, vehicle, property; retirement benefits; drugs and medicines; legal and judicial abuse; travel;business; education--an endless list of interests to a nation of 300,000,000 souls. In fact, lobbyists are a vital conduit to legislators. To suggest their elimination would throwing the baby out with the bathwater and would paralyze the nation almost immediately.

Christmas wishes from a Hungarian blogger!

The wonders of the Internet! Here's a link from Hungary that will warm your Christmas cockles.

Be sure your speakers are turned on! Great rendition done in 1954 of Irving Berlin's well-known "White Christmas." Accompanying visual is great!

Merry Christmas to all who wander onto this site.

Coming soon: To fix a broken system!

Everybody knows it's broken, but nobody does anything about it!

But now your humble blogger, having thought about the problem for more than 40 years, will soon post a clear design--not more obfuscation or politicization--for a practical overhaul long overdue at the critical levels, K through 12.

Except for the pernicious political grip professors presently exercise on most university campuses in the liberal arts studies, the change in science, math, engineering, and related studies will be reflected in the arrival of students already well prepared, motivated and grounded in "thinking"; their numbers will quickly replace the enrollment of foreign students who presently constitute 50% of those departments.

America will then resume its role as the clear leader in education--a condition required if we are to compete among rivals who are surely bent on assuming the mantle of our once-undisputed greatness as a vibrant, innovative people.

Stay tuned.

Attempted rebirth of Camelot, USA?

TIME MAGAZINE'S 2005 PICK

Bono, Bill & Melinda: Gimme a break!

Not so long ago, I congratulated myself for having survived the 1960s more or less intact. I was able to shed any lint that may have brushed off onto me from the phony Camelot era.

And meanwhile, during the past decade I’ve come to pay little or no attention to Time Magazine’s annual naming the person having made the most impact on the world—mainly because the magazine some time ago moved its original definition to include the thing, event, or . . . well, just about whatever happens to occur to its editors as politically correct--natural disasters, concepts, ideas. . . . whatever might attract the most advertising revenue for the week.

This morning, CNN aired a special on this year’s choice (little wonder, since CNN and Time Magazine are bugs in a corporate rug) swooning and bearing clear evidence that PC-ism, akin to the best days the do-gooder flower children had to offer, is being reborn. Those ushering in the renaissance: Bill Gates (with wife, Melinda) and Bono.

It seems the Gates--the richest couple in the world--have been unloading their money—34 billions (that's "b") of it—as fast as they can on a lot of philanthropic causes. As admirable as that may be, their redirected targets in Africa, led by their new pal, the rock star Bono (a jazzed up copy of hippiedom's rockers) , lends an up-to-date face to international raising of money. It's particularly 21st century that Bill and Melinda would engage the world's best known rocker as their shill who warms up millions of his international fans with his guitar and high-level amp noise to extol the Family Gates while simultaneously urging other celebs to join the “cause.”

What's the “cause” this time around? Bono, in his indefatigable (is it Irish or Brit?) accent, explains that, with the lavish spread of the Gates’ money, “we will finally defeat AIDS” (would it be too presumptuous of me to be highly skeptical of this claim?). Furthermore, Bono continues, “we can wipe out hunger on the planet” (again, my skepticism is showing). Finally, he assures us, “love, not war,” will finally cure mankind’s ills (I'm confused--I thought he said it was the Gates' money--but I digress).

This might have been but one more rich man's attempt to assuage his conscience--and that it undoubtedly was, but now they're adding an interesting twist to this renascent Camelot. In a brief clip where Bono isn’t singing or rocking—he's holding forth at an Honest-to-God revival meeting somewhere in Africa. Not even a guitar in hand--only a microphone, belting out the stock revivalist phrases, just like the best of ‘em—Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart and the rest--working the crowds into a frenzy.

It’s not just “Just Give Peace a Chance” or “Kumbaya,” etcetera, all over again. This time there’s a clear attempt to link it with Jesus. It's almost as offensive as the charities that use the phrase "Junk for Jesus." The next career move for Bono--maybe even Bill Gates (who must be getting bored with his duties at Microsoft)--my instinct leads me to guess, could soon be a presidential appointment to some goodwill ambassadorship.

A not-so-surprising strategy—with the support of Time magazine and other corporate giants--perhaps will be the most successful of all past attempts to benefit its sponsors: Bono, MTV, Microsoft Corporation, as well as dozens of designated "charity" organizations. But it strikes me odd that, given that the targets of this giant media event are overwhelmingly black Africans, the "music" genre ("rap") plied mainly by American blacks--with a few white exceptions like Eminem--is conspicuously absent in this coalition of the rich and willing. Does this signal some kind reverse race card? Or am I being too sensitive?)

In the end, what about the mesmerized millions who have little to hang onto, save a thin filament of hope these super stars are expert in raising? And when the spotlight turns to other themes in other parts of the world? What then?

Shall we simply surrender now?

The president delivered his Saturday radio spot (televised on CNN) this morning. He was short, sweet, and to the point. And he was pissed! Rightfully so.

On two counts: First, the Senate is balking at approving a renewal of the Patriots' Act (and it's due to expire in two weeks). He did not try to hide his anger--he iterated that the Senate is irresponsibly interfering with the security of the nation. Second, the New York Times, having held from publication a full year the knowledge that he had authorized the National Security Agency to monitor certain communications between suspected terrorists at home and abroad, finally spilled the beans yesterday.

So now begins another in a series of bad weeks for the president. To get it started, Democrat Senator Russ Feingold, the official Democrat response to the president's statement, had a tantrum, saying that the president's attitude and actions were unprecedented and shocking.

We may be sure the president's detractors are honing their straight razors and will be slashing wildly the next several days. The usual stable of Democrats (Pelosi, et. al.) and the Loony Left will be joining forces to do their best to undermine the Administration--in full view of the world: both our friends and our enemies.

I've been trying my best to remain circumspect and slow to react to the deep political division in our country, but this is the last straw! It's time to call a spade a spade. Gloves off!

Those American citizens who have been ragging this president since 9/11/01 and before, going to such lengths as to declare him to be a Nazi subversive, responsible for everything bad that happens in this country and on the planet--including hurricanes--are marginal creatures. I am now beginning to seriously doubt their dedication to the defense of this country. If these people were rational, I'd go one step further and agree, with David Horowitz and Ann Coulter, that they are real, live traitors! But suspecting that they lack sound minds, I'll step back short of that accusation and simply call them irresponsible.

The rabid anti-Bush, anti-American, self-hate, self-defeating attitude that grips this country must cease. This country must take immediate stock of where we are headed. The media must get their collective acts together. Bureaucrats inside our government must cease their illegal and traitorous "leaking" because of their narrow-minded, misguided pettiness--they must be rooted out and prosecuted for breaking their security oaths. Responsible academicians, business and spiritual leaders must quickly and decisively condemn the trend that is plunging the country into chaos. If we're going to insist on citing the Constitution as a vehicle designed to hasten our own destruction, then we've truly lost our way, and have sullied the vision of the men who wrote that blueprint.

Where are those rational voices? Will they step forward? Or are we destined to go down to defeat because of the irrationality of the Loonies and the opposition's quest for power? Or is history repeating itself, and the Huns are finally on the verge of ravaging the ramparts of freedom in the world's longest surviving Democracy?

It might be less painful in the short term if we simply surrendered now.

Who will be teaching whom?

Iraqis arriving for training in interrogation techniques

Local military affairs reporter for the Sierra Vista Herald (Sierra Vista, Arizona), Bill Hess, reports that Major General Barbara Fast, the senior Army officer responsible for setting up military intelligence interrogations in Iraq--and presently commander of Fort Huachuca (pronounced "wha-CHU-kah") in southeast Arizona, where Army interrogators are trained--has arranged for the visit of several Iraqi military officers to her military interrogations school.

As I noted in this blog (October 24, 2005), it's curious that General Fast--the Pentagon's darling with respect to interrogation policies--not only emerged unscathed from Army investigations over the abuse scandals that broke into the news in early 2004, but was rewarded by being placed in charge of the school that trains military interrogators.

Reformed or revived interrogation techniques?

In light of recent international news reports about severe maltreatment of prisoners discovered in Iraqi military prisons, one wonders whether the visiting Iraqi officers will be receiving information about the latest American interrogation techniques or whether the Iraqis will be instructing General Fast's school on the latest Iraqi techniques. After all, Iraqi prison and military officers under Saddam Hussein developed expert methods of torture and interrogation techniques during his 30-year reign.

Whatever General Fast's plan for the Iraqi officers' visit, at least it's good to note that this is her first public appearance of any kind since she took over command of Fort Huachuca last Spring. Since then, she has been maintaining a very low profile--to the extent that she's not even listed, in any capacity on the fort's public website. This announcement is one of her rare public interchanges in almost a year.

It would be edifying if General Fast would explain her role in the Abu Grahib scandal as related to the overarching theme for which she was responsible: Military intelligence interrogations in Iraq. Her co-commander in this effort, Brigadier General (now Colonel) Janis Karpinski--the only senior officer to be charged in the affair--would also be grateful if General Fast would explain her role and how she has managed to emerge from the mess with "clean hands."

Hasta la vista, baby!

Apologies to any weak sisters reading this; it and my stance on torture must be painting my self-portrait as Attila's spiritual guru. Fact is, I'm normally a gentle soul--except when our collective stupidity rises to intolerable levels.

Tookie, the Govenator just kissed off your last chance, in case you didn't catch his famous one-liner. And so now it's time to pay for being the big, bad, fearless anti-social malcontent you were (and whether you still are or are not, I don't frankly care one whit). Bid your lawyers "adios," then reminisce--until they call you for that final walk--about your letters of nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize (what a joke!--the Swedish Nobel Selection Committee must have been co-opted by the hashish, free-love crowd that distinguished the "creative, sensitive" sides of Sweden in the 1960s).

There's still time before midnight tonight to also dedicate a few copies of those kiddies' books you wrote with such loving, tender insight to some of the bros' kids, many of whom are still being reared in the tradition of violence and the primitive lifestyle you founded. You must take great pride in the fact that the bros and their broods still populate and are still propagating their existence in your nationally-based criminal gangs that still prey on people in the big cities.

Yes, yes, I know you say you found Jesus a long time ago, and despite the fact that most people don't believe your epiphany was genuinely from Above, --I'm easy. Most people would say that your seeing the Light is a boringly typical jail-bird's discovery soon after he realizes he ain't so tough any more, being left to pace a 9 x 12 cell night and day. I'd get Jesus too--for real--if it'd ease my conscience and might even turn out to be a ticket out of jail with the help of a bunch of Hollywood creeps enrolled in various New Age Enlightenment sects!

Well, pardner, the jig's up, as they say! Unless a tsunami washes away San Quentin Prison this afternoon, you can thank the U.S. legal system (not God, you creep) that gave you 20 long, unnecessary years of appeals and the time to feign your "rehabilitation." Twenty years that your many victims, dead and alive, did not have to contemplate and build their lives!

Pack your spiritual bags, Tookie and get ready to meet either your Maker or His Nemesis--if you're really a repentant Man of God as you claim, you ought to thank also California for providing you a shortcut to His throne. If I really believed you were a truly remorseful, repentant man, I'd say "vaya con Dios," but candidly, I doubt that my lip-synching that phrase would do you any good.

Instead, my counsel is: Lie down, don't fight the leather straps, and when they turn on the microphone to carry your words to the spectators' gallery, apologize to each victim's family for the unspeakable pain you have caused them the past 20 years. Then, if it gives you comfort, ask the padre to make the sign of the cross over your body and then take the needle like a man.

Oh yeah, you ought to thank California that they did away with death by strangling at the end of a noose or smoking from your eyeballs in "Old Sparky"--both rough by-ways to transcendence. You will go without agony--a luxury you didn't accord your victims. By the way, do not say as you exit, "until we meet again"--'cause we really don't want to have to put up with you again, bro!

A short primer on torture!

Torturous Tortured Logic

BE FOREWARNED! My instinct on this subject is to really let go. But doing so would probably obfuscate the subject as much as any of the many commentaries before the public these days. So I'll restrain myself and rely on Ambrose Bierce, my favorite journalist-gadfly, who wrote before he disappeared into Mexico during the Mexican Revolution:

"Endeavor to see things as they are, not as they ought to be."

Anyone unfamiliar with, for the first time intending to listen to the do-gooder, high road, halo-burdened crowd should get themselves a barf bag before they settle in.

One of the most practiced silver-tongued advocates of the “no-torture” debate waxed eloquently at length on Meet the Press yesterday. He was so slick that I actually paused a few seconds before I barfed.

Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina, made his very well practised case like this: The future of humanity rests on the U.S. making Senator McCain’s “no-torture” amendment, passed last week 90 to 9, federal law, applicable to all U.S. agencies, contractors, or representatives. The Senator’s curious amendment would also forbid any “degrading, coercive, and inhumane” treatment—hopeless muddying the letter of the law whenever our agencies seek critical information that might save American lives or treasure, in conventional or unconventional war times.

In other words, according to Graham, we should go along with voluntarily strapping one arm behind our collective back in any struggle with an enemy, because (loud, extended drumroll please!): Americans should represent the “gold standard” of the highest form of ideal human behavior, so that lesser nations (and inextricably linked lesser human beings, it follows in their logic) will be impressed, instructed, and therefore will follow our high-meaning example. Not only will this bring love, peace, contentment, and positive spiritualism to the world, but doing this will save the world from plunging into moral chaos akin to evil doers such as those found in the circles of Al-Qaida & Co.

My barf was extended, hearty, and complete!

Let us get real for a few seconds: Man, no matter how high-minded he might like to be thought of, acts first and foremost out of the instinct to survive—as any psychologist will confirm. Close behind the survival instinct is the instinct to win; granted, this is nearly as strong as the survival instinct, because it is often seen to be irretrievably linked to the survival instinct—particularly pronounced during wars between individuals, nation-states, and business competitors.

In an attempt to see things as they are, and not as they should be, we can quickly see the fallacy in Senator McCain’s amendment. First, voluntarily subscribing to such a high-minded standard will not automatically assure one’s entry into the arms of Jesus or into a state of Nirvana. Second, enemies bent on winning at any cost will have little regard for the rules we might establish—surely, the jihadist beheaders have taught us that.

Let’s face it: Torture, no matter how lamentable, is a practice that is permanently embedded in the dark side of our psyches and will not easily be exorcised by many Amendments or Sermons nor excite us to action when told about how morally reprehensible the practice is. Just as Eve was programmed to succumb to her base instincts, causing mankind’s permanent “fall from Grace,” so it easily follows that a squad of tough, kill-and-survive Marines, under fire and threat of beheading if captured, could hardly be blamed if they did not stop and prepare a Japanese tea ceremony for their sword wielders. Especially if they thought their captured adversary might be harboring information relating to their survival.

Even if the preachers and Ivory Tower do-gooders believe that laying down some abstract set of laws will someday contribute to a finer, more pleasant association between competitors or combatants--it is silly, unrealistic, and unthinkable to condemn those who must employ it under stressful, life-threatening situations.

The best we can or should expect is to limit the application of torture to those “stressful, life-threatening” situations and not to allow it to spread, as it easily would, among the those on the sidelines and not directly affected—as happens in crowds that are driven by an irrational crowd psychology we have yet to understand (take as an example, yesterday’s violent beach riots against Muslims over the weekend in Australia--they spilled over onto the constabulary charged with preventing loss of life by the mobs). To this reasoned extent, military and other U.S. agency managers must always be in charge and must promulgate clear rules and procedures for when, where, and how torture will be applied. Such rule-making authority must extend downward to the level where the "action" is--not upward to the some congressional oversight committee or government entity remote from the scene.

Just one critical exception to all this! Absolutely banned should be any form of torture involving forcing opponents to listen to any recorded materials (visual or aural) by Barbra Streisand! Such a form of torture would be simply too barbaric and beyond the pale.

Sounds brutal and "primitive," eh? Sure, maybe, I can handle that accusation. But until someone revokes man’s first motivational instinct—self-preservation-survival—I’d rather we deal successfully with it, than fall prey to the vultures of those who don't give a damn about high sounding slogans. So doing would simply constitute surrendering whatever positive values Occidental societies have achieved, especially during the past two or three thousand years (including those mores from “foreign” cultures that underpin our current social order).

Pass the word to your congress people--especially to the suspiciously hypocritically sanctimonious Senators Graham and McCain:

I want to survive, so that we can look forward to building a more idealistic society where perhaps all men who share the planet will have purged themselves of the primitive instinct of survival.

Ciao, Machiavelli!

I don't like minor bureaucrats toying with national security

The case of the “compromised" CIA employee, Valerie Plame

Thank God this jet-set, wannbe lady spook finally resigned (more accurately, “retired”) yesterday from her desk job at CIA headquarters at Langley! She and her out-of-work, minor diplomat hubby, Joe Wilson, managed to wring every bit of undeserved attention and anti-Bush wrath possible—with the more-than-willing collaboration of the Washington Post and the New York Times, to the delight of Democrat party leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of Congress, the vast array of Lefties, down to and including the weirdos (not to forget the clownish Democratic National Chairman, Howard Dean).

Both she and Joe are products of JFK's mythical "Camelot" era--moved on from recreational pot-smoking (“Yes, I inhaled, and I enjoyed it,” Joe declared in one of his many staged interviews these past months) to mainstream respectability and the fat paychecks of federal jobs. Joe won an appointment with the State Department's Foreign Service in the 70s and worked his way up a mediocre career ladder to an undistinguished early retirement. Valerie, a converted campus flower child of the Camelot era into an upward moving mainstream, avowed feminist, snagged a desk job as an analyst in CIA and married Joe.

Joe trudged through his 25- year career to qualify for a fat government pension. And when Valerie passed her 20 year-plus mark a couple years later, they decided to fold their government-paid tents to enjoy their pensions and perks that amount to more than $100,000 annually--an amount that will continue to support their high-flying lifestyle: An upscale home in a fashionable Washington suburb and their expensive trendy convertible import that moves them back and forth to the A&P in style.

But now to the unexciting, meaningless Washington-only game: The "leak" that so far has cost taxpayers about $700,000 for a special Department of Justice investigator (Patrick Fitzgerald) to answer the profound question: “Who outed Valerie Plame in the CIA?” Although Americans outside Washington could care less, the Left is doing its best to make the "leak" the Second Watergate, so we're forced to be conversant about it.

Before you plod through this recap, remind yourself about the theory the Left is advancing for the Administration's supposed willful "leak" of classified information: Vice President Cheney (and maybe the president himself) was seeking revenge on Joe Wilson who was trying to neutralize the administration's case for going to war with Iraq (over the question of whether Iraq was "nuclear capable" if it had acquired "yellow cake"). How was Cheney supposed to have done this? The Left's answer: By outing Joe's wife as a CIA "operative."

Now ask yourself: "Wouldn't a highly experienced politician like Cheney (who knows Washington inside and out), had he wanted to seek "revenge," have found a more effective, more mature, more rational, and less risky way to "get back" at Joe? Think how silly this theory is--considering the many other options available to Cheney.

Here are the elements of this Machiavellian affair:

(1) Since 1984, because a disgruntled CIA spy, Phillip Agee, had earlier revealed the names of real U.S. spies in the U.S.S.R. and elsewhere (resulting in the deaths of the outed spies) it has been a federal crime to willfully reveal the identities of CIA deep cover agents (i.e., spies). This law is the foundation for the byzanntine floss that the Left has woven; they claim that Valerie was a CIA spy, and therefore whoever had outed her had committed a serious federal crime. But let's look closer. . . .

(2) Valerie undoubtedly had a “secret” assignment or two (in the CIA, most all their work, even including routine work such as culling open sources for information is at least “confidential”—if not “secret”) during the course of her career but, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, she was never a “deep undercover agent” in the sense most people associate with the CIA--she was always one of the stable of CIA desk analysts, who constitute the majority of employees. The only "spy" work she did was to classify "secret" (or above) her correlations of open-source material with occasional bits of covert files intelligence. These analysts may, when it's convenient, call themselves "spies," but it's a questionable stretch.

(3) It’s well known in the bureaucracy and among the mainstream media people that both she and Joe, along with factions within the CIA and State Department, have long harbored anti-Bush political sentiments--over time, they have only barely tried to conceal their intentions to do what they could to wound and undermine the president. (It's worth noting here that Bush's first Secretary of State, Collin Powell, did nothing to discourage this in-house corrosive culture during his four year tour of duty.)

(4) Joe and Valerie's predetermined strategy--an effort coordinated with sympathizers inside the State Department and the CIA--played out as follows:

a. When Washington area intelligence agencies were searching for evidence of Saddam’s WMD stocks and/or intentions to acquire them, Valerie, from her position within the CIA, suggested to her bosses that her hubby be sent to Niger to research rumors of Iraq’s attempt to buy uranium ore (“yellow cake”), which British intelligence had endorsed as true.

b. Why CIA paid a non-employee to do this bit of intelligence research for them remains a question that eventually deserves to be answered. Nevertheless, on the strength of his wife's recommendation, the CIA paid Joe for this junket. After a couple weeks of sipping “lots of mint tea” with his African hosts, he returned and, with the apparent blessing of his CIA paymaster, “leaked” his trip report to the Washington Post, in which he left the impression that Vice President Cheney had requested his research and which concluded that Iraq had never made attempts to buy the nuclear ore. Upon reading Joe's op-ed, Cheney was understandably bewildered, so sent his Chief of Staff, "Scooter" Libby, to find out who Joe Wilson was.

c. From this point forward Cheney, his chief of staff, and other White House people were drawn into a morass of confusion deliberately exploited in order to discredit the Bush Administration. It was now that Valerie's name surfaced (Robert Novak wrote the now infamous article that first named her as a CIA "employee"--to this day, he hasn't told the public his source). As if on cue, the CIA requested the Justice Department investigate this as a breach of the "outing-of-spies law."

(5) Here’s where the non-story morphed--among the Inside-the-Beltway mavens--into a story that doggedly persists for no rational reason at all, except that it is being revived on a daily basis--abetted by the help of the news outlets inimical to the Bush Administration: The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and a long list of lesser pundits.

a. It's maddenly frustrating that Robert Novak, a long-time Washington insider, has remained behind the scenes ever since his article started this hullabaloo--leading some to believe that Novak provided enough information (while exculpating himself) to cause Fitzgerald to think he could nail someone high up in the Administration for the (as yet) alleged crime of outing poor little Valerie, while exonerating Novak himself for the "crime." However, that Fitzgerald couldn't make anything out of his two-year investigation except for a dubious "Martha Stewart" indictment (for allegedly having lied to Fitzgerald about some detail in the course of the investigation) of Cheney's Chief of Staff, "Scooter" Libby, lends serious doubt to the validity of the entire investigation.

b. Before Fitzgerald's weak indictment, as if to "help" the investigators, wrote a long op-ed piece in the Washington Post, “clarifying” his (non) relationship with VP Cheney (he said the CIA had tasked his intelligence research and that he "assumed" this was at Cheney's bidding). Then he flat out lied that he had discovered, examined, and found the documentation alleging Iraq's intent to purchase uranium ore to be forgeries; furthermore, he wrote that he reported this to Cheney. How Joe got his facts so mixed up he hasn't explained, but the documents he claimed to have examined didn’t surface until six months after his African trip, well after he wrote his penurious op-ed piece. Maybe Joe had been reliving his pot-smoking days when he wrote the piece, because also made another gaffe--he himself “outed” Valerie by confirming, for the first time since Novak's article, that she was indeed a CIA employee. Then, as though an afterthought, he embellished the truth some more by suggesting the little wife had been a long-time undercover spy, so that now her career was ruined.

c. Judith Miller, a long-time reporter for the New York Times, mysteriously enters the picture. It turns out that her involvement was a total--if odd and apparently unrelated--diversion to the Joe-Valerie plot. Judy was supposed to have been privy to which administration officials were involved in the "leak"—but as it turns out, she unnecessarily created high drama out of this refusing to cooperate with Fitzgerald about her alleged knowledge of the "leak" and spent 85 days in a federal cell for all effort in Alexandria, Virginia.

d. Bob Woodward, the Washington Post’s super-star journalist who, with his sidekick Carl Bernstein, reported the Watergate Affair in the mid-1970s, even came forth--albeit belatedly after Fitzgerald's indictment had been served--to confess that he too had some inside knowledge who might have been the original culprit (Bob has yet to enlighten all those inside the Beltway waiting with bated breath for his revelations).

The entire process is an exquisite tragic-comedy woven from nothing and promoted entirely out of proportion by President Bush's antagonists. It would have been a simple Beltway caper of no consequence had Fitzgerald concluded early on the emptiness of the accusation. But for reasons we can only speculate about at this stage (was it personal or professional ambition that drove him?), Fitzgerald pressed on and finally had to be content--presumably to save face--with convincing the grand jury to issue a dubious, weak “Martha Steward indictment" (the details of which are still unknown to the public and will undoubtedly be dropped by Fitzgerald, thrown out by an Appeals Court, or found by Libby's jury to be false).

Look at this expensive, distracting, mean-spirited affair from an arm’s length distance: Is there any, I repeat any, significance to this non-story that would warrant the screeching and beating of breasts--not to mention $700,000 and two years of a staff of DOJ investigators who could surely have been used more productively in prosecuting pressing matters (such as the War on Terror)? Has anyone, including the CIA, suggested that Valerie's outing as a career employee has done the slightest damage to national security? The answer is clearly "no." But the whole affair illustrates the outrageous Machiavellian mindset of Washington’s politicos who do not demonstrate the slightest restraint in the face of an enemy in their quest to topple a president for the sake of ascendancy to power.

But even more insidious is the realization that these minor bureaucrats, Joe and Valerie and their faceless colleagues inside the government, are allowed--with impunity--to play fast and loose with the country's security. Most disturbing is the revelation that two of the most important bureaucracies in the government—the State Department and the CIA—are riddled with insiders who believe they should determine the standards of governance and may do so by undermining the very government who is paying them-- instead of producing the intelligence Americans are paying for and deserve.

It’s high time these politicized bureaucrats (starting with the small fry like Joe and Valerie and working up the food chain to the very top, if need be) be rooted out, fired, and-- if there's clear evidence--prosecuted to the utmost the law allows. At minimum for breaking their oaths of secrecy to which they are required to subscribe as an inviolate condition of their employment, for which we the taxpayer-citizens are paying.

They’ve been playing fast and loose with this nation’s security far too long. But to continue to tolerate this reckless, anti-American behavior is especially pernicious during wartime—a condition of the state that permits prosecuting violators up to and including treason. And please, don't let them get away with the weak-sister "First Amendment" argument that they have the right (and moral duty) to speak up whenever they believe they should "for the good of the country."

I worked among these "elite" bureaucrats in Washington; after that enlightening three-year experience, I can assure you of this: you should not want bureaucrats mucking around with your security by making unilateral, politically motivated decisions that undermine or replace the purpose of the people we Americans voted for to represent us. We should prefer our elected representatives make all decisions about governance--not a bunch of spoiled malcontents who imperiously appoint themselves as guardians of the "American way of life."

Are the Saddamites winning this hand?

A Straight beats a Flush--right?

What the hell kind of a trial is taking place in Baghdad? The prosecutor’s duty, evidently, is to introduce witnesses--like an emcee at a charity drive-- and then just “let ‘em rip.” No questions to focus the witnesses on issue of the trial—just rambling monologues. Then up jumps Saddam or his half-wit half-brother and they start to rant and rave, sometimes making veiled threats about the testimony against him, but more substantively about the lack of smoke breaks; too infrequent changes of underwear; how the judges are American puppets; how Saddam is still "dah man," etc. At the end of the first (and only) full day of court time, Saddam tells the chief judge to “go to hell” and stomps out, vowing not to return the following day (and he didn't). If you've a penchant for self-flagellation, check it out on CourtTV (when the trial's actually taking place from time to time), or click here for a blow-by-blow transcript.

Then there’s the gaggle of defense lawyers sitting to one side, saying little of substance--one assumes they will come to life at Saddam's beckoning--presumably because the old dictator has clearly taken charge. Even nutty Ramsey Clark (the former Attorney-General on President Jimmy Carter’s painful four-year watch), one of Saddam's lawyers, is not given the opportunity to say much—which must frost him considerably, since he undertook the task hoping to get more international attention as the anti-American extraordinaire. So far, he's only been allowed an introductory remark, urging the judges to conduct a fair trial and, at the admonition of the chief judge, had to go buy a black robe out of respect for courtroom tradition in Iraq. I suspect the real reason he hasn't said anything is because he's as confused as everyone else.

Then there’s the blue curtain, behind which alleged witnesses testify—presumably because their lives would be in danger because of their courage (audacity?) in testifying. O.K., O.K. so we understand that Iraq’s a dangerous place, and that Saddam loyalists seem to be in charge of the country's violence. But shouldn’t someone (the witnesses' lawyers perhaps) help them write—or at least edit—their statements? The rambling, James Joycean style suggests . . . well, whatever.

One of the many U.S. Department of Justice lawyers who has been consulting the Iraqi court after Saddam’s capture held forth on C-SPAN a few days ago. He averred that he and his colleagues have spent many hours the past couple years providing the Iraqi court extensive research and procedural advice, so as to augment the judicial system that had "decayed" during Saddam's reign. Man, if our DOJ boys really invested that much time trying to "refresh" the long unused judicial system, please don't ever send that team to represent me--even in a no-contest divorce case.

I have the same sinking feeling I suspect President Bush and his administration are now experiencing: Someone made a bad mistake to hold Saddam’s trial in Iraq. Their initial theory was that handing Saddam over to Iraq would constitute a grand gesture that would also serve to assure the citizenry that we, the United States, were not “occupiers,” but are there to only serve Iraq’s needs until it is able to get on its own feet. At the time, Bush was operating under the impression that the Iraqis would be made even more grateful (than they were supposed to have already been) for Saddam’s capture, they would “feast” over the spectacle of Saddam’s trial, right there in “River City.” Evidently, the thinkers in the White House and in Foggy Bottom didn’t game out the “what-if” scenario in which Saddam’s bold take-over and contempt for the “Puppet Court” would energize not only Saddamites, but also reawaken a long-ingrained nostalgia for the dictator--unarguably a masterful "law and order guy"--who made the streets safe (except for the occasional unexpected visits from his henchmen, for whatever transgressions he pronounced).

To think of carting Saddam off to the Hague, as was the case with Serbian president Milosevic's, is now clearly out of the question—doing that would not only offend the present Court and its political supporters, but would give substance to the charge that, in fact, Saddam’s trial is an American-inspired “puppet trial.” And pulling the plug on the live TV drama that Saddam is creating would also invite the charge that Americans are censoring the old dictator! And, as the benevolent guys who won the freeging war, we sure wouldn't want to be accused of that, now would we? After all, we also have to show sensitivity for the weak sisters here at home, too!

Poker players will recognize that we’ve been out-bluffed and we're now being forced to play our hand or fold. Before letting the Iraqis work him over in their judicial system, perhaps we should have anticipated that the ancient land of Babylon has bred some pretty shrewd players easily capable of competing in poker with the best of the West Texas barroom rowdies or the more prim East Coast Ivy League set.