Urlaub... of a sort

Hello all,

Just a quick note to let my loyal reader(s) know that I've not given up on expressing my views on those things that confront our Republic. (Nor have I given up hope that some readers will likewise contribute to the dialog).

My family and I are in the final stages of an overseas PCS move. For those with military experience, you will recognize that term as one that entails picking up and moving the family, household and life via a bureaucracy that only the US Military (or perhaps the Italian government) could conjure up.

We've crossed the pond, and after nearly a month in a hotel, have finally moved into our rental house. The national telephone company has a month to connect our phone, and only then will we know for sure if we can get broadband Internet in our house. No earthly idea when it will be connected, if we can have it at all.

This is a long way of saying that my ability to post to this blog is drastically curtailed. But fear not, I am accumulating notes, thoughts and future postings, so when we get good connectivity, the flood-gates will open and there will be more to read than you will want to look at.

Until then, please consider this like an Italian summer: everyone is on extended vacations, and nothing of importance gets done.

Ciao!

To represent

It occurs to me that we ask a lot of our representatives in congress. Sure, we give them lots of perks, and we lavish staffs and other trappings of power and near-nobility upon them. I’m not feeling sorry for them.

All the same, I can see where it is a bit of a minefield for some. And when we, their constituents, don’t pay much attention, I can see where they can run afoul of their constitutional purpose.

rep·re·sent
(r p r -z nt )
tr.v. rep·re·sent·ed, rep·re·sent·ing, rep·re·sents 6. a. To serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for. b. To act as a spokesperson for.

In the strictest sense, our “representatives” should subjugate their own beliefs to those of their constituents, and always vote the way the majority of their constituents want. Effectively, they would become proxies through whom their constituents speak and act.

But, on the other hand, we elect people who (purport) to have the most similar viewpoint as we do… so that in our stead, they will likely vote the way we would.

There are times that a congressman will “vote his/her conscience”. But is this their place if the majority of their constituents desire them to vote a different way? (Similarly, if a Senator is elected as from one party, and then changes to the other party in mid-term, isn’t this something of a fraud on the voting public?)

Often, I have stated that our elected representatives should show some leadership, and lead their constituents to understand why something the majority doesn’t want really is good and necessary (or conversely, why something the majority does want isn’t the best idea, and something else is the proper direction or selection).

But, we don’t elect our Senators and Representatives to be leaders, we elect them to represent us in Washington, whilst we go on about our lives.

This, it seems to me, to be one of the gaps and seams that occurs, through which our “representatives” end up not really representing us at all, but representing narrow slices of “us”. This is also the gaps through which they fall prey to self-aggrandizement (Sen. Byrd), self-enrichment (Rep. Jackson) and gross unaccountability (pork, earmarks, Sen. Kennedy).

As with most things, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. More eyes on our representatives in Washington (and in State houses, and town halls, etc.) the less corruption and graft we will endure. (One reason the “McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act” is so odious and counterproductive… but that is grist for another time). More people actively involved in what their officials are doing. More people engaged, vocal and knowledgeable. But, this runs counter to the very human reasons we send people in our stead to these representative bodies in the first place, doesn’t it?

American Heroes

It has often been said that the generation of Americans that came of age, and conquered, the Great Depression and World War II, were the "Greatest Generation". Given the shear magnitude of both situations, and that they prevailed, I've always found it hard to argue with calling them "greatest".

What I wonder, and worry about, is the question of whether the current generation, or one in the future, when so called, would rise to the occassion as well?

When we first kicked off Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, many pundits proclaimed that this generation had risen to the challenge. No doubt, our servicemen and women in harms way have done just that. But has the generation as a whole?

My mother went to work in an armament factory to support the (WWII) war effort. Many other women, and mothers, went into war factories, became the iconic "Rosie the Rivetter". Those catagory "4-F" who could not serve, went to work in jobs vacated by healthier citizen soldiers. People grew victory gardens, collected scrap metal and went without for the war years. By comparison, today "the Army and Marines are at war... the rest of the country is at the mall". Can today's and future generations, pampered and accustomed to safety, fractured by partisan ideology and weakened by a massive criminal immigrant population that isn't assimilated into our society... ever hope to rise to the occassion?

It is what keeps me awake at night.

Here is an example of the shoes that future generation will have to fill [ Hat tip: to L2 (another Great American) for sending this obituary my way]:

AN AMERICAN HERO
Eugene Fluckey, iconic admiral credited with daring sub
raids

By Matt Schudel, Washington Post, July 2, 2007

WASHINGTON --
Rear Admiral Eugene Fluckey, one of the greatest naval heroes of World War
II who was awarded the Medal of Honor and four Navy Crosses for his daring
submarine attacks on Japanese shipping, died Thursday at Anne Arundel
Medical Center in Maryland. He was 93 and had Alzheimer's disease.

Admiral Fluckey, a native of Washington, was a pioneer of submarine warfare and among the most highly decorated veterans from any branch of the military.

In 1944 and 1945, as commander of the USS Barb, he became a Navy legend for his nighttime raids that sank dozens of enemy ships along the east coast of China. His bold forays were complicated by continual barrages from Japanese airplanes and boats and by shallow waters that often forced him to bring his submarine to the
surface.

On Jan. 25, 1945, Admiral Fluckey embarked on what Navy officials, seldom given to hyperbole, called "virtually a suicide mission -- a naval epic." In "an exceptional feat of brilliant deduction and bold tracking," in the words of his Medal of Honor citation, Admiral Fluckey found more than 30 Japanese vessels in a concealed harbor protected by mines and rocky shoals. Evading a cordon of armed escort boats, the Barb slipped into the harbor on a moonless, cloudy night and scored eight direct
torpedo hits on six large ships. One of them was an ammunition vessel, which
exploded and caused "inestimable damage by the resultant flying shells," according to the Medal of Honor citation.

As Admiral Fluckey watched from the bridge, the Washington Post reported in 1945, "Japanese ships were erupting in the night like a nest of volcanoes."

The Barb fled at high speed "through uncharted rocky waters thick with
fishing junks," pursued by two Japanese gunboats. Because of the shallow water,
the submarine had to stay on the surface, dodging obstacles and steady fire for
a full hour before reaching the safe depths of the open sea.

"The significance of that mission," said retired Navy Captain Max Duncan, who was
the chief gunnery and torpedo officer of the Barb, "was that we completely
disrupted the entire shipping system the Japanese had developed at that
point in the war."

On other occasions, Admiral Fluckey maneuvered his submarine so close to shore that he could bombard coastal installations with torpedoes and guns. On its final patrol in 1945, the Barb became the first US submarine equipped with ballistic missiles.

On one mission, Admiral Fluckey selected eight commandos from his crew to paddle ashore in rubber boats and place a 55-pound bomb under railroad ties on the northern Japanese island then called Karafuto. As the men were rowing back to the Barb in darkness, the pressure-sensitive charge blew up a 16-car troop train. It was the only time in World War II that US forces set foot on the soil of the Japanese home islands.

Admiral Fluckey and his 80-man crew were credited with sinking 29 ships, including an aircraft carrier, destroyer, and cruiser. He destroyed more gross tonnage than any other submarine commander. For his wartime exploits, he became known as "Lucky Fluckey" and the "Galloping Ghost of the China Coast."

"He was extraordinary," retired Rear Admiral Robert McNitt, executive
officer of the Barb, said in a telephone interview. "He immediately gained the
full confidence of his officers and crew. He made a point of walking through the
submarine several times a day. He knew everybody on board and knew a lot
about them."

Admiral Fluckey sometimes violated Navy regulations by stashing cases of beer in the officers' shower. Whenever the Barb sank a ship, everyone on board was entitled to a cold beer.

In addition to the Medal of Honor and Navy Crosses (second only to the Medal of Honor), Admiral Fluckey received the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and a host of lesser decorations. His greatest achievement, he often said, was that no one under his command ever received another well-known medal: the Purple Heart.

"He was absolutely confident and absolutely fearless, but fearless with good judgment," McNitt said. "He brought his ship and his people home."

Eugene Bennett Fluckey was born Oct. 5, 1913. He graduated
from the US Naval Academy in 1935. He was nearsighted and knew he would have
to leave the academy if he failed an eye exam. After studying optics, he
designed a pair of glasses for himself and, with exercises, restored his
vision to 20-20.

He joined the submarine corps in 1938 and served in the Pacific before taking command of the Barb. After the war, he became the personal aide to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, the chief of naval operations.

Later in his career, Admiral Fluckey served as director of naval intelligence and commanded amphibious units and the Navy's Pacific submarine force. He headed the electrical engineering department at the Naval Academy and led a fund-raising campaign for the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.

In 1992, he wrote a dramatic account of his experiences as a submarine commander, "Thunder Below!" It won the Samuel Eliot Morison prize for naval history.

His wife, Marjorie, died in 1979 after 42 years of marriage.

Admiral Fluckey leaves his wife, Margaret, of Annapolis, Md.; a daughter from his first marriage, Barbara Bove of Annapolis and Summerfield, Fla.; four grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren.

In recent years, Admiral Fluckey and his wife helped run an orphanage in Portugal. He also would treat the aging veterans of the Barb to cruises in Alaska and on the Mississippi River.

"He was imaginative, very decisive, and very quick, with a great sense of fun," said McNitt.

.

Am I Satan?

Am I Satan? I’m sure there were times my parents wondered that very thing as I was growing up in the 60’s and 70s. Perhaps my darling spouse has also wondered this very thing….

But I digress.

Recently, I received an interesting email from a long-time correspondent, taking umbrage with my post of June 26th, titled “Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me.". Here is what he said (I’ve made no corrections for spelling or grammar):

If I was pres, I would surmise we have two choices. Pass this bill or
invade and take over central america. because of the war in Iraq, we dont
have the resources to take over central america. The poor who live there
will continue to send their sons here to send money back there so they
can buy clean water and not drink out of the mud puddles, pay for a roof
tht doesn't leak, pay for medicinne when their children get sick,
etc.

I am a Christian. Your position is no different from
Islam. Islam says, Kill them". You say, 'Just let them die".
Both views of Satan.

Delete me from your list, you SATAN.

So, being a thoughtful American, I have to wonder: Is my erstwhile correspondent on to something?

After honest reflection, I have to conclude he is not.

There are many bad places in the world. Places where people live poorly. Places where people barely eek out a living, or are perpetually hungry. Places where people are repressed and can only dream of a portion of the freedoms we Americans take for granted.

We Americans help these people where we can. Our government spends huge sums of our tax dollars on direct aid, and works in many ways with other governments to help them help themselves. Our people individually donate vast treasures via church and civic organizations, targeting everything from famine and water supplies to democracy, rain forests and adoption. Occasionally, we even send our sons and daughters into harm’s way to help change a regime and give the people an opportunity for self-determination.

The responder has nobly spent much time in south and central America on medical-humanitarian endeavors, and has singularly sought to help one particular individual from Nicaragua, going so far as to donate one of his own kidneys, and spend undoubtedly vast sums of his own money. I recognize his sincere and righteous heart, and applaud his concern for his fellow man.

But, as sad and bad as these many places are, and how seemingly futile our governmental, charitable and direct assistance may seem…it is NOT a reason to accept unbridled, criminal immigration into our borders.

National policy must be made on the macro level, with macro concerns. While there are certainly individuals in Guatemala with leaky roofs and the need for medicine, who send their children to America to work in honest jobs to send money home… policy can’t be made for these people. Policy must be made for the vast invasion of criminal immigrants who are in our country undocumented, working (if they are working) at jobs that drive our wages down and not paying taxes; behaving in ways dangerous to our citizens (and themselves); sapping our resources by use of government assistance to which they contribute little if anything; not assimilating as true citizens of our country; and sending vast quantities of monies out of our economy back “home” for many reasons other than leaky roofs and medicine.

Our society, through our police and judicial systems, confiscate the ill-gotten gains of those engaged in illegal activities. Drug dealers loose their cars, boats, homes and cash, even before they are convicted in court of the crimes they are accused. Thieves loose their booty and belongings. Even white-collar criminals must pay steep fines (look at Scooter Libby as an example). Never is it an excuse that they needed to commit their crimes to feed their family, pay for medicine or provide a roof.

Why do we continue to allow the 12-20 million criminals in our midst, who are continuing in criminal activity daily, to not only keep the results of their criminal activities, but even send $20 billion or more annually out of our country and our economy?

We need to remember, we must be concerned with America and Americans first. As national policy, those that are in our country illegally, for the purpose of helping others outside our country are a problem that must be solved.

All religions teach that one must take care of one’s own family and people first, before going out and helping others. Logic tells us that in terms of international relations, much the same must be true. Our honest, heartfelt concern for others cannot be justification to allow all that we hold dear to crumble around our feet.

The responder also believes we have only two solutions. I disagree. We have the solution of closing off the ability for criminals to enter our country illegally, and work to remove those criminally already within our borders. (I addressed this in a post Saturday, June 23, 2007, “How to Easily Remove the Criminal Immigrants from the USA”) Then, we continue to work with the governments of these places to address their own problems internally, while opening LEGAL immigration channels to these people within reasonable limits. Even with legal immigration, we need to make sure such immigration benefits American interests first and foremost.

Does this view make me a Satan? No. I think not. What do you think?

Fairness? A practice, not a doctrine

There was a time, not too long ago, when the FCC had a little rule called “The Fairness Doctrine”. Basically, what this rule did, was cause the broadcasting entities to devote roughly equal time to opposing views. If it aired 30 minutes of “conservative” content, it needed to air 30 minutes of “liberal” content.

Fairness, sounds very American and even-handed, right?

Well, sometime back in the Reagan era, this rule went away. Good news for “conservative” talk-radio, bad news for “liberal” talk-radio.

You see, when left unfettered, “conservative” talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others do well, because they get market share. “Liberal” talk radio, like “Air America” don’t do so well, despite massive infusion of donation from dedicated liberals. It seems in the marketplace of ideas, liberal ideas just don’t sell, while “conservative” ideas do. It is classic free-market economy and capitalism in practice.

Now, many on the left of American politics think the rise of “conservative” talk-radio helped cause the republican take-over of congress in 1994. Perhaps, they are right. Undoubtedly, by comparing and contrasting the two philosophies to a large audience, the American people voted what made sense to them… and brought in a more conservative legislature, and ultimately executive body.

This, of course, alarms the left-leaning portion of the leadership, and now that they are once again in the majority in both houses of congress, they would like to remove this perceived advantage for the conservatives. They want to go back to a version of the “Fairness Doctrine”, a move that would effectively remove “conservative” programming, because no business could survive devoting equal time to a message that doesn’t sell. Just look at the demise of “Air America”. So, as the thinking goes, the conservative voice would be quieted, and only liberal messages, as transmitted via the “liberal media” would be heard. No counterpoint, and no serious ideological debate means liberal views would prevail.

Conservative programming on America’s airwaves, internet, and cable programming is a product, just like cars, TVs and food. Do you want the government telling you that you must buy equally from two vendors? Do you want the government dictating that such a product be removed from the shelf of ideas, because not enough people buy the competition? If not, tell the Congressmen you employ (those that work for you) that you do not want a return to the days of limited viewpoints in our media. Tell them no return to the “Fairness Doctrine”.

Postscript: As with most things, the folks that advocate a return to the “Fairness Doctrine” totally ignore when they get beneficial airplay. John Gibson from Fox News highlights one such occasion in this commentary on the subject.