Copyright © 2003 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 13, 2003 

Copyright © 2007

Crime Costs

Until such unlikely time that the sinister chemical of crime is removed from the brain, or the DNA of criminal orientation is discovered, society is plagued with the high cost of penal codes in carrying them out. What with the fiscal crunch of the fifty states, the trend has been “early release” without little back up insuring against recidivism, including drug and alcohol related behavior. Though shortsighted the trend does free up crowded prisons and reduces state budgets on an average of $20,000 annually per release.

All too often, however, without sufficient resources to assist the released, the result is a more costly return to imprisonment. It seems there is an element of “Catch 22" in this; not really, for statistics show that the cost of efficient rehabilitation monitoring is but 10% of the cost of confinement.

Still, there is a better way: such as, why incarcerate—and increasingly longer sentences— for narcotics abuse as many citizens and officials question? There is no question, though, that these addicts are usually arrested as suspects of possession or worse, in perpetrating a crime or even a threat—either way the violators’ environment is questionable. Cracking down on these environments are devastating to the innocent in the community and tantamount to the SWAT approach to terrorists. Nevertheless, it takes but one mugging for the cry to go out—rightly so by those who have experienced the trauma of one—throw away the key.

The answer is in free halfway houses that definitely give the addict a good or sour taste of what it means to be responsible. Those with criminal records, however minor, should be placed in stringent boot camps. The hardened criminal addict or pusher should be immediately drafted into the armed services but placed under armed work detail and possible solitary confinement until ready for basic training.

These alternatives—in themselves costly but not prohibitively— would definitely help the fiscal crisis of supporting the high cost of prisons bursting at the seams.

The Myth of Productivity

 I heard on C-span concerning the depletion of manufacturing jobs as analogous to the loss of agricultural jobs during the first half of the last century. The productivity level of agricultural products was so enhanced that small farms became almost obsolete. The analogy, however, is flawed because the massive shift to the industrial cities was absorbed by manufacturing jobs. Even the increased productivity of manufacturing by virtue of robotic assembly lines in the latter half of the last century, had little effect on jobs in light of the continuing increase in post war demand, including exports.

 From the analogy one is to infer that inevitable efficiency of productivity means holding the line on consumer costs and makes for a viable economy. If this were true, is it not fair to assume that, say the automobile, would be much less costly? And would not the Ford plant in Mexico turn out cars cheaper than does Detroit? Granted there is nothing glamorous about manufacturing employment, so the analogy comforts the average Joe or Jane as free spirits with many options such as a careers with McDonald or Wal-Mart. Of course, the mythology of the productivity level is that this nation’s workers are now free to engage in the miracle of technology wherein glamorous opportunities do exist for those blest with higher education. With the prevalent criticism of today’s sorry public education the myth is hardly an inspiration for the average trying to eke out subsistence. Moreover, this government is against opening up new frontiers of industry related to alternative energy, protecting the environment, and modernizing infrastructure.

 Productivity stems from invention of machinery that can do the work of many or ease the labor time of one. The few small farmers that still exist, no longer use the horse and plow, but rely on John Deere. The hand-wiring of the early radio and tv sets was painstaking, and with the advent of the transistor, has been supplanted by the more efficient press of circuit boards. Linotypists have been sent to pasture by the publishing world –and good riddance to the typewriter.

 In a progressive society this is as it should be, and in no way should one suggest that for the sake of full employment should the clock be turned back; however, honesty should be demanded when the myth of productivity goes too far and portrays it as inventiveness when in truth most of the productivity level owes its laurels to cheap labor abroad. For that is precisely what the myth spinners are really talking about; for in the last analysis productivity means a bottom line by reducing the cost of labor that is metamorphosed into profits, not necessarily lower prices – whatever happened to the cheaper foreign car? And what is the explanation for labor costs at McDonald in New York being higher than in South Carolina, yet are not the prices universal?

 To return to agriculture for a moment, productivity is not all that it seems, what with the flow of illegal immigrants and migrant workers who still have to harvest the old fashioned way and at ridiculously low wages – echoes of “Grapes of Wrath.” Furthermore, in face of the nation becoming overwhelmingly service oriented, there's not much gain in productivity -- still require hard mail, despite e-mail, sanitation and cycling, check-out counters, landscapers, ad nauseam.  As for manufacturing, in a time of a Great War will the US count on foreign countries to mobilize their peacetime factories to wartime, inasmuch as the once great home-grown industries are debilitated? 

Everyone bitches about the plumber who pulls up in his Cadillac to replace washers at $50 a pop; but seldom is there outrage over the cast of “Friends” ripping off the entertainment industry with its one million a show salary, or the indecent, mammoth wealth of Bill Gates, let alone the scandalous acts of CEOs. This nation is infamous for its passion for glamour, and its indifference to the working stiff.

Let Go

 I’m a believer in political dialogue and debate. There comes a time, however, when too much of a good thing must end, such as the over abundance of Democratic candidates. Sharpton and Kucinich have had their say but are going nowhere. As much as I admire Braun’s magnificent reason and balance, there is little hope for her, though surely if one of the candidates should become president, there will be a place for her. Lieberman with his hawkish posture and tendency to swivel at the slightest hint of the tide, is also finished. Kerry is gasping for breath, and relied too heavily on his war record. Edwards, of course, has only the southern vote to count on and that’s not going to happen, anyway.

Future dialogue and debate should be among the stronger candidates so that citizens can read them in depth. The continual volatile crossfire does not lend to intelligent voting. Time is of the essence for the media to hammer away at the position papers of the remaining candidates in order to test their integrity and grit.

For instance, Gephardt must explain what did not work for Hillary is suddenly going to work for him in the area of universal health care, particularly when a relatively simple process of prescription drugs for seniors is controversial, not to mention the shame of not caring for our veterans. Of course, we all know that it is coming but why now?

Dean and Clark have shamelessly run on the fact that they escaped the burden of voting on the resolution to go to war—would they in truth, had they been in congress, actually had the courage of a Kucinich to vote it down? And “everyone under the age of eighteen has health care in Vermont” translate nationwide, and how is that going to help the uninsured? Will Clark, like Eisenhower’s trip to Korea, go to Iraq as President-elect and solve the crisis, and if so how?

These are matters that cannot be covered in a crossfire; those without realistic hope should drop out of the race in order to put the leaders on the stand for cross-examination.

Defining a Democrat?

 D desperation

 E  egalitarian’s demise

 M moderation or muddling

 O omissions

 C  calcification

 R  rearranging postures

 A anything goes to suit the polls

 T  terrorized by the right

 The democrats are uncomfortable as a minority party even though a majority — not electoral — agrees with their views when they stick by them. Unfortunately, they are obsessed with the hopeless aim of regaining the red states.

Defining a Republican

 R  religion is power

 E  errant thinking

 P  public education is failing

 U unabashed self-righteousness

 B  brilliant strategy of deception

 L  labor unions are the enemy

 I   instant dollar gratification

 C  cunning in undermining the general will

 A analysis at its lowest level

 N negativism toward any kind of regulation

 Republicans are a majority because of the electoral college, which in the first place was designed to protect sparsely populated states to negate the great unwashed.

Tiresome Colloquy 

In the “Family of Politics” issue last year of The American Prospect, I suppose a liberal magazine needs the luxury of self therapy in repeating the painfully obvious — what the heck the conservatives harass us obsessively with their trite commentary. Still, I find it vexing to read such commentary as:

Portes’ “Many children of immigrant parents are not living out the American Dream. Until better jobs and schools materialize, they are at risk of becoming the next underclass.”

Coontz: “The most constructive way to support modern marriages is to improve work-life policies so that couples can spend more time with each other and their kids.”

Ooms: “Poverty and unemployment can stress couples’ relationships to their breaking point.”

Sawhill: “Better-educated women are increasingly delaying both marriage andchild-bearing until they are in their mid twenties and even older.”

Gornick: Children need and deserve the time of both parents. But the current social arrangements put a disproportionate burden on women.”

Root: “Younger people, on average, are far more open to inter-marriage than those who grew up in an era of segregation. The trend is a major gain for tolerance and pluralism in America, and families that successfully navigate the challenge of interracial marriage often become more open generally. But large pockets of discrimination continue to exist.”

My, my, such penetrating observations, yet totally meaningless in the matrix of a frightening conservative nation! Portes is whistling in the wind if the professor thinks the low-life status of immigrants is going to change but for all too few that might scrape up an opportunity to enroll in a decent public school, let alone higher education. Perhaps he hadn’t heard that American politics is no longer the breeding ground for Trumans and Roosevelts. The so-called Democratic party today is pre-occupied with trying to make a go of it by desperately squeezing some half-baked compromise from the confederate blue dogs that with the drop of a hat would become Republican.

Coontz, too, is a dreamer: “work-life” policies disappeared from great possibilities of the 40s and 50s when there was much discussion about the coming of the thirty-hour work-week and how to utilize quality leisure time. But even if such wishful thinking became reality — all Republicans would have to be like Javitts and Nelson Rockefeller and Democrats like the late Senator Wellstone — the kids would turn to the internet and rap CDs while Victoria Secret and the Final Four tournament enculturate the parents. By definition poverty is stress! Gone are the days when romantic couples settled for a 25¢ movie and afterwards shared a pretzel stick with their cherry cokes. When young couples today are bombarded with news of the glamor and obscene wealth of CEOs, sports stars, and entertainers while they subsist on minimum wage and know that the political climate has become so insensitive to their needs, it is almost comical to utter the tautology of breaking point.

Sawhill deserves the Oscar for stating the obvious, but forgot to mention that putatively better-educated men keep it zipped up, However, she suggests providing “flexible funding” to the states for sundry approaches to reduce teen-pregnancies as though all states were like Vermont or Massachusetts. Frankly, I would not trust Mississippi, New Hampshire or Florida to do justice.

I have news for Gornick: No matter what era women have always been disproportionately — some would say, naturally — “burdened”, though most women do not look upon time spent as “unpaid,” unless she is saddled with a typically spoiled brat for a partner who feels he is above household chores and caring for his children. The problem lies with the male ego of which, alas, most women are responsible.

As for Root, he wants to take a very personal choice — very much a matter of taste — and turn it into a case for pluralism and tolerance as if to say without blending the skin colors there can never be a tasteful melting pot.

I’ve saved Christopher for last because her stats are all too predictable. Obviously an ethically cleansed Netherlands and a greatly more liberal UK are going to come out smelling like a rose. Here, though, poverty is prevalent among immigrants and persons of color for whom there is no national empathy. Anyone with an ounce of thought knows we are Ugly Americans domestically as well as abroad. The American voter that has resisted universal health care since Truman, that goes ballistic over single mothers on welfare, that has given up on public education in blighted communities, that endorses war sacrifice by rushing to the malls, that applauds the armed services while their own children are tucked away in universities, surely does not give a damn about 

 “a policy package that makes it easier for all parents to combine caregiving with employment.”

  As for dreaming about “higher rates of unionization,” unions today are dreadfully dysfunctional in light of the Reaganomics assault on the nation; and in face of the appalling number of members, fortunate enough to reap benefits by being unionized, nonetheless, vote Republican.

 This professorial colloquy does no harm, but it is tiresome rhetoric that has its roots in the New Deal. We should be discussing ways of weaning the national psyche from myopic interests by educating voters to become sensitized to universal challenges that may or may not directly affect them, but is still in the national interest that every citizen gets a fair return. Liberals are whining cowards who are too lazy to put meat on their skeletal approaches. The primary thrust should be to purchase a cable channel or two supported by unions, publications, such as The New York Times, The Prospect, The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, the Nation, Free Inquiry, and New Republic, along with massive financial contributions from the Democratic Party, grass root and wealthy liberals and bombard the psyche with the likes of the above compassionate insights to counteract the shallow ideologies tossed out by today’s media.

Gun Control

C’mon, you gun-lovers get real! If you’re a gun-collector and really want an assault weapon over the mantelpiece, then you should be willing to buy it without its firing pin. And any hunter who claims his right should not squawk over having to be licensed and tested.

This leads to the responsibility of gun manufacturers: they are the ones that should be under strict control. Their government contracts should be just that. Military weapons are for the armed services and police organizations and no one else which includes gun running to other countries.

Big Blue Blues

 IBM, the once great US corporation up to the 80s that never laid off workers, has been downsizing ever since with mass layoffs in pockets of the country and now five thousand more by replacing them with workers overseas. This is all too emblematic of the corporate world since the 80s.

 IBM apparently has never recovered from shell-shock for giving the green light to Microsoft in the early ‘80s. It should have given the old CPM operating system [at the time far superior] the same license for true competition and ultimately a totally different scenario today. IBM also let cloning get out of hand, even to the extent that piracy PC manufacturers were intimidated by Microsoft to repudiate OS/2. Today, therefore, what else could one expect from Big Blue unable to stand up to its principles?

Apple, too, is to blame for its arrogance in keeping its system proprietary and obstinately pricing itself out of the market while allowing MS to steal it blind — not to mention the wholesale theft of intellectual properties, such as WordPerfect and Netscape. As a consequence Gates was the only kid on the block and didn’t really care about the consumer or he would not have been able to sell products that were bug-ridden so it could rush to mass-market for the satisfaction of the cloning industry hungry for an operating system and willing to give up integrity.

As for Linux — other than for the internet — they are barely out of the primitive DOS box for the average Joe or Jill and will take another five years just to be modestly competitive, while OS/2 and Warp have been dead for sometime — and another corpse, Amiga.

The quasi breaking up Microsoft was only punitive to the extent of Gates’ ego. It hasn’t changed anything. Yet to Microsoft’s credit it remains in Seattle and clearly intends, though addleheaded, to continue to improve its products.

The End Run

Vogue in this era seems to be to skirt real issues and trump up lame excuses to thwart peace and prosperity. George W. Bush is the epitome of this — war of choice, tax-cuts. He learned from Sharon who quickly — what little hope there may have been in September 2000 — crushed six years of Clinton and George Mitchell’s efforts to bring peace to Israel by treading, with armed police, on the Temple Mount and/or Al-Haram al-Sharif, which was precisely the lame excuse on which both negotiating parties stalemated. Yes, a silly religious issue, not unlike the barrage of our own Rightists who insist on bringing up sundry issues like abortion, gay “marriage,” religious monuments in public places — ad nauseam.

Sharon knew that he had the backing of Israel’s majority which should have been content with a recovering economy, was against “appeasement.” Israel, like building a tunnel under a Mosque, is masterly at this ploy of provocation, which Bush adapted with “axis of evil” and “bring them on.” Of course, Israel learned something from our own expansionism — after all, primitive Palestinians are likened to native Americans of the Old West.

Oddly but to a degree I can’t fault Israel for this attitude. Millions of Arabic Jews and Muslims have benefitted by integration and Israeli citizenship; had Palestinians long ago accepted this alternative they would now be at peace— free to practice their faith— and enjoying the fruits of modernity, including universal health care which is the envy of the world. However, it was clear since 1948 that Palestinians were as feverish over their homeland as was Israel over theirs. The fault, of course, rests with Britain and the UN for ignoring the potential dangers.

Nor can one fault Israel after the war of 1948 which hardened them, having a huge death and wounded toll in a nation at that time with under a million population. Nevertheless, this horrendous environment should have been warning enough for the Western countries and the UN to keep the peace.

 Israel has a long list of party leaders who played into the hands of Arafat, giving him tons of excuses to distrust them as they distrusted him. For instance, Netanyahu failed to live up to the Oslo II agreement. Sharon’s over-reaction to stone-throwing and light fire, led to suicide bombings. The first Oslo talks were widely accepted on both sides until the settlers and the Likud party forged strong opposition; in turn, and inexcusably the hard line terrorists wreaked devastation on the Israel population. Tragically, Rabin, man of peace, was assassinated by a Jewish religious fanatic.

Irrational extremism, particularly festered in religion or equally in hyper anti-religion, is the greatest threat to peace at home and to the world.

Liberal Strategy

An unrealistic liberal would obviously prefer Kucinich, Sharpton, or Braun regardless of the cost, just as he chose Nader in 2000. The realistic one — and no less liberal — is trying to decide among Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, and Clark in simple terms: beat Bush, and who can achieve it. Liberalism is pointless — Nader didn’t understand this — when a nation is split in half ideologically by two major parties. If it were divided by four — conservative and moderate on the right and liberal and moderate on the left — it would be possible to establish purity of identity and major influence.

 Then Dean could have said the hell with the confederate pick-up trucks, let’s appeal to those with common sense who are looking forward to a truly prosperous South that only the left can achieve. The moderates would fuss and fume as they in fact did, but they too must be on the side of common sense.

The irony here is that Dean is far from liberal in the current sense, but is liberal in the traditional aspect wherein a liberal is open-minded and always considers the practicum of politics in the spirit of FDR and Truman. Another irony is that he was and is against the war, yet clearly states that we are stuck with the mess as do the others whether for or against with the exception of Kucinich. Standing alone Dean looks vulnerable nationally, but with a running mate of either Kerry or Clark he could be very electable. Yet the same holds true for either Kerry or Clark having Dean as a running mate.

Gephardt, on the other hand, would gain nothing by pairing with one of the three and would have to go elsewhere and I doubt any senator such as Joe Biden, would care to condescend and run with a mere representative. Actually he would be better off finding someone in the business community to soften his union backing, or the defeated governor from Kentucky to moderate his stance on universal health care. Hillary, of course, was right about health care as Truman was fifty-five years ago, but that doesn’t make it right for a successful election as the Republicans proved by scaring the devil out of those relatively content with their employer health plans; yet at the same time health is primary and Kerry has the right idea by guaranteeing that everyone at least has the same plan as Congress.

Thus the true liberal cannot be self defeating as a Nader and has to muddle through to beat Bush and win the some of the “red states.” Alas, in a self-centered society such as ours that has been bombarded by religious nuts, selfish ignorami, and sub culture freaks there is little hope but to be caught up in the fog of ludicrous decisions and try hard to lift that fog so that the nation has at least some vision for a better America.

Why Liberals Are Strongly Disliked — putting it mildly

Those that see in black and white and ignore the grays make for far easier problem-solving. It is no mystery the Bush ‘03 State of The Union offers to “confound the designs of evil men...our calling,... a blessed country is to make the world better.” It is far simpler to accept the statement at face value than to delve into its grays. A pesky liberal, however, is driven by some weird “noble discontent” and expects clarification:

Is evil confined to al Qaeda or to all evil men in the “axis” and beyond, which doubtless would include many within our own borders and those of allies?

 Would it not follow, then, that Clinton should have declared a Holy War against Islam after the attack on the trade center in ‘93, or a declaration of war on self-styled militias in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing? In addition the liberal would want to question if the country is blesséd or simply blest with great fortune and therefore share with the world its good graces — in lieu of imposing the status of religious grace upon others and thus a “better world?”

 The conservatives of both parties blindly perceive liberals as having been “against” Medicare “reform” and prescription drugs without regarding the unthinkable-why the liberals would want to forestall what was hailed the largest social program since social security — why, even AARP was for it! Liberals have never been comfortable with yes/no voting without clarification, such as the resolution to support the war. The handful of liberals in the senate who did vote yes, coupled it with an unheeded qualification that their vote was a strong message to the UN that they move toward stronger sanctions and intensify the hunt for WMD. Somehow in this black and white region this meant a declaration of war against Iraq, not as an ultimatum to the UN.

 In the black and white world of conservatism, the “trickle-down” theory still prevails, especially in light of all the dismal tax cuts. That No-Bid Halliburton is the best company for the job in Iraq is the absolute of the neo-cons, thus closing discussion. Because the Ten Commandments sculpture was ordered out of the Alabama courthouse, since it violates the separation clause, the Supreme Court is now crawling with liberals. Every time the minimum wage is on the floor of congress, the conservatives of both parties cry it will destroy small business; the liberals counter that each time it was increased in the past it had no effect on small business, but a tremendous lift to the workers. The conservative attitude that workers be damned is never reconsidered that workers are also consumers. How many times have the conservatives, despite our being in a state of “war,” have urged the common people to go out and spend? Whereas the noisome liberals suggest tokens of sacrifice.

 Reagan democrats ousted Carter for his malaise, preferring the rosy picture of his successor who ignored the energy independence project that Nixon started! That’s another thing conservatives frown on — liberals thinking into the future — unless, of course, it’s neo-cons’ planning a war or tax cuts downwind.

 Dislike for liberals is symbolic of  conservatives in both parties lacking vision, and totally bereft of what the concept of a commonwealth is all about by clinging to 19^th Century ideology — it is far more important to wave the confederate flag than to wave a ticket to health care to even those waving the symbol; no child left behind means, by God, my child won’t be in virtue of a segregated religious school; “living wage” is there for the taking if “ambitious,” not for the “lazy.” Free trade supplants fair trade in order to suppress wages here. We cannot cut and run from Iraq because it needs our guidance and wealth, though we cut and run from our obligations here all the time.

 Kucinich is going nowhere because liberals need more time for expounding the gray areas than a nine candidate debate will allow — just as well, who would listen? After all, the conservative drive has successfully convinced the majority that if it holds its breath long enough it too will share in the trickle-down lottery.

Medicare: an Exclusive Club

 Ever since Roosevelt and Truman were shot down in their efforts to institutionalize health care, the US has been wary of “socialized medicine.” That Medicare in itself was passed is owed to JFK — nostalgia and legacy. Slowly, however, the nation is more wary of the monolithic determinism of the AMA, the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies dictating the terms of health care. They abhorred Medicare because it acted as a check and balance against the laissez-faire profit motive in assessing costs.

The AMA did a thorough job in weeding out the GP mentality of humane practice that most doctors possessed in the past. At the same time, in its quest for specialization , the profession unquestionably enhanced quality, but also made doctors entrepreneurs at the expense of a caring practice. Pharmacology, thanks to many unheralded but dedicated scientists — many of whom did their research under auspices of universities — has become an extraordinarily profitable behemoth in the marketplace.

The insurance leviathan in crowding out the once Blue Cross low cost premiums, has always been profitable by striking fear into the medical landscape of the consumer as well as the providers. In so doing, however, the motive is not to keep cost at a reasonable level but to increase profits. Putting aside fraud and hypochondria, the vast majority of care recipients are indeed ill and see their doctor reluctantly. The premise that humanity cannot be trusted when seeking health care is the theme of these profiteers and as a result their unique policing methods are astronomically costly and self-defeating, particularly when the co-payment is ever increasing — a sufficient deterrent in its own right.

The ludicrous “medical savings account” often proposed is driven by the same excessive paranoia of prevailing fraudulent practices existing and the self-righteous who believe that their self-styled good health habits will reap rewards monetarily, rather than being satisfied with the simple luck of staying healthy. Moreover, no savings will ever cover catastrophic illness. Alas, there will always be with us the holier-than-thou proclivity adding to the will to divide and conquer the common good.

The common good in health care has always been in jeopardy from the moment Medicare for the agéd was instituted, in spite of its clear need: old people require more health care. Medicare should have been the logical step to Medicare for everyone. In the 60-70s, however, when jobs were real jobs and companies cared more for employees to offer them attractive medical insurance, the need for universal care was not apparent. In this very different era of escalating medical costs, exportation of jobs, and relentless mergers, the health of the nation swings in the balance.

 The fact that Medicare payroll tax knows no age barriers, it would seem logical that the young in lieu of being taxed only on its future ills should be entitled to health care now. Granted, the tax would have to be increased for those without insurance, it would at least erase from the conscience of the nation the scar of over 40 million uninsured, and worse, the alarming numbers of the underinsured enduring unprecedented hardship and bankruptcy. Further, businesses that are suffering by still carrying insurance could get relief and perhaps begin again to pay decent living wages. That today’s average wage is below that of the 70s — let alone working longer hours — is another scar to be erased from the nation’s conscience.

Moreover, the current move to prescription drugs for seniors is another form of segregation which politicians shamelessly exploit with the ultimate result: that of further resentment from the younger who feel shut out and therefore fall prey to the profiteers who really want privatization and no taxes but for war of choice.

Patch Work

            When the so-called military experts state that the fighting men and women in Iraq were not trained for occupation or police duty, I find it laughable. In September of ‘45 there was no leaner meaner fighting machine than the 4^th Marines which was sent in to take over Yokosuka Naval Base. We were heavily armed and ready for the worst but found the Imperial Navy ready to surrender. As a result we quickly became an occupation force ready to defend against rumored counter attacks. Of course, it didn’t happen because the Japanese honored their formal, almost unconditional surrender.

            The problem in Iraq is that there was no formal surrender because the US did not “invade” the nation bur rather raided it. Either way to suggest that the US forces aren’t capable of occupying a nation flies in the face of military logic. The US armed services are trained in defense as well as offense. The problem lies in the patch work war that had been conducted that left open three fourths of the country as potentially hostile with US forces maneuvered into covered wagon circles. In contrast, post WWII had well defined lines of defense.

A Nasty Place

Where have I and the nation been for the last fourteen years since the fall of the Soviets? — our heads have been in the sands of the Middle East. Joby Warrick, a Washington Post staff writer, alerts us to the tiny rogue Transdniester Moldovan Republic “no bigger than R.I.” but a massive dumping ground for Soviet arms during the Soviet Army’s withdrawal. Its chief reason for its existence is a pipeline of arms to fellow rogues and terrorists.

“For terrorists this is [Transdniester] the best market you could imagine: cheap, efficient and forgotten by the whole world,” Warrick quotes Vladimir Orlov, the director for Moscow studies into proliferation issues. The most fearful reason for this is that it is the home of the Alazan rocket now upgraded to the Alan rocket with radio-activity or dirty bombs. If ever a region were ripe for preemptive strike it would be this one — could hardly call it a nation — whose existence is to retain a soviet style police state — controlled by a sheriff! — for its populace consisting largely of soviet military retirees. Its main industry is in munitions production as well as salvaging the decade old dumpster for resale. Nor is there any pretense to defense, Transdniester boldly smuggles arms to those who wish to continue world terrorism.

Again one must ask where the is the Intelligence? How could this nasty little place be ignored? Is it just another episode into the non-preparation before 9/11?

And why is it not addressed now? There unaccounted dirty bombs out there!!

Odd Ball Clutter

 James Joyce said that since “Finnegan’s Wake” took him seventeen years to write, the reader should damn well spend at least five years reading it.

If truth is beauty and beauty truth, then how does one explain Picasso?

If the universe is unbegun and unending but the fourth dimension is hemmed in by finite time is it conceivable to think of eternity as unbegun, unending?

What if the Democrats said the hell with FDR and his big government and de-legislated all of his projects, would that mean that farmlands and the deep south would go back to reading by kerosene lamps, and till by horse and plow, all the bridges and schools constructed by the WPA would self-destruct, Florida would give back to the alligators, without its coffers filled with social security checks, would Gates and Trump be anybody of note without the protection of the Federal Reserve, what to do with all the workers hurt on the job and no compensation, would all welfare mothers be begging in the streets in behalf of their children, would there still be a sprawling middle class? Ted Kennedy would have a heart attack. The conservatives would cry “Free at last!”

If old time journalists had ink in their veins, does this mean today’s journalists have microchips in their brains and TV reporters with video-sound bites in their rumps?

If justice is traditionally blind how is that justices open their eyes to political persuasion?

Political contributions should be but once a year with the understanding that they must get by on 25% of the Salvation Army’s take during Christmas.

Who would gamble on Dean taking the south like Grant took Richmond?

If Creationism is superior to Evolution how is it both stick us with humanity — upright apes?

Did you know that philosophy begins and ends with education?

What good is a widescreen TV if left with the choice of heads lopped off or images fattened?

Blogging is but a venture into volatile publishing — with the plea: stay awhile..

Addendum

In the old days — dating myself here — the Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler, whom I read only to get my juices going over his unmitigated hatred of Eleanor, Franklin, and Harry, I at least was apprised of the irrational opposition to the New and Fair Deals. So, too, with Bill O’Reilly, though not to the same extent since I’m much older and heard it all before, but he is more intense over current culture is why I read him once in a while; and now I could not resist an addendum to my “Why Liberals Are Disliked.” http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/

O’Reilly went ballistic over the controversy concerning the upper class Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue — how many of the average consumer even heard of A&F? — baring rumps and breasts. Aside from the stupidity of selling clothing by portraying the unclothed — on the other hand it could mean who but the nude need clothing; nevertheless, Victoria’s Secret makes sure they feature their lingerie on the models — the catalogue is symbolic of today’s commercial world. Virtually everything but cigarettes is marketable via sex. Super Bowl viewers don’t give a damn that the player of the game is going to Disney World, but they surely pay attention to the scantily clad beer commercial orgies. Actually, O’Reilly used the catalogue to excoriate — now that Clinton is sort of gone — his favorite enemy “The New York Times” that held the

“loud and sustained protests from socially conservative groups and feminist groups, the company announced...it was withdrawing the [catalog.]”

 From this O’Reilly deduces that the Times is implying: “Sure. It’s only those nasty right-wingers and feminists that stirred this up” as though liberals actively opposed the controversy. It never occurred to him that perhaps the liberals find more important matters to oppose than “personal behaviors.”

O’Reilly dangerously concludes with the tone of a Shiite: “in the end the will of the people will prevail....but the proponents of a secular society are fierce.” Forgive me if I miss something here: are we not at war precisely because we fear non-secular societies? As a dirty old man, am I supposed to prefer browsing Islamic Burqa catalogues over Victoria’s Secret’s?

Birthday gift to a sister and a nation's thanks

On my sister’s birthday, December 13^th, she got an extra kick to celebration by the capture of Saddam Hussein. It was particularly joyous to her because her granddaughter had served in Iraq. Seeing this once feared tyrant so disheveled and disoriented was a moment devoutly wished. Here was a man who sent his sons to go out in “glory” while he cowered in a living tomb.

Over the months, in hearing the Democratic candidates criticizing Bush for his failure to find bin Laden and Saddam, I felt it would definitely come back to haunt them. Pointing out rising casualties by self-serving politics bothered me also. Kucinich, on the other hand, is genuinely concerned for the troops’ welfare and in no uncertain terms want them out of harm’s way and to put an end to the precedence of the defense department over the state department.

Except for the boost of morale — in no way do I minimize this, especially among the fear-ridden Iraqis — capture or not has little to do with the current state of war. Saddam’s pathetic portrayal is evidence of his being incompetent to mastermind insurgency — and how could there have been inspirational value from a mud hut? Moreover, it seems improbable to me that bin Laden has access to health care for his frail kidney condition and is probably dead [granted I thought the same thing about Saddam] but even alive how effective could he be isolated in a cave? The continuing resistance in Afghanistan stems from new leadership in Pakistan, the Taliban, and the warlords. Saddam and bin Laden have been stripped of leadership, and should not be equated with a courageous leader who made the ultimate sacrifice at the head of a military charge.

This said, I have been against the war from the beginning. Its pretended aim was to free the world of WMD, not rid the world of but another tyrant who had been a terrorist to his own people — as sickening as that was — but totally contained for twelve years. Nor can it be heralded as humanitarian intervention as was Kosovo, which officially was an autonomous republic, plagued by an incursion of ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, we are nine months into this fracas, and there is no point in dwelling on the flaws of the past. What is important is to muster a preemptive, political war against such a fiasco from ever happening again. We were supposed to have learned this lesson from the bloody Vietnam days.

Copyright © 2003 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 11, 2003 .