And another thing....

Not only do we sell our future to other country-organisms, we also place further burdens on the people of the United States: while the corporations outsource and manufacture abroad, often for marginal gains or tax benefits, fattening the corporate hog (meaning larger bonuses for the CEO), the redundant U.S. citizens are forced to "retrain."

But "retraining" is not the real issue, rather, it is that there are often no meaningful jobs at all for those made redundant. Or the jobs that are left -- within reach educationally or geographically -- are "McJobs." Jobs without benefits, jobs without prospect of advancement ... and THAT is where the loss of corporate benefits actually hits us, the taxpayer, heaviest. You see, the McJob person is also an American citizen, with one vote just as you or I might have. One person with health care needs -- or in fact a whole family to support, each member of which has the same health care and educational needs.

The support system which might meet those needs has been exported abroad where the corporation has no burden to meet any needs at all. How many U.S. clothing manufacturers have been caught running "sweat shops" in Latin America, or Thailand? That Toomy Hoolfiger knit shirt costing you $100, was made in some third world country where the worker is lucky to get a wage, let alone "benefits." His benefit is the ability to feed his children.... Oh, I walked into a "trap." Does this mean I advocate taking the bread out of his mouth, that poor Third World worker? Yes. His relative state of poverty, while pitiable, is of lesser concern to me than the state of poverty of an American and more importantly of negligible concern as compared to the common enterprise that is the United States. Meanwhile, Toomy buys another house in the Hamptons, and his accountant and tax lawyers will find a way to reduce his contribution to the greater whole. Irony is, Toomy votes Democrat.

When you think about it, does the extra $10 million really matter to someone that is already worth $100 million? If they don't like it here, they can just pack up and leave. It is not as though they are pulling their weight, anyway. And they won't leave the world's largest market in the end, either.

When that downsized American has to visit the Emergency Room ... who pays then? We all do. When an illegal immigrant, who doesn't pay taxes, needs emergency medical care, who pays? We all do. But the employer hiring the illegal under the table doesn't. The multi-national hiring phone-drones in India certainly doesn't. Thanks Comcast. Thanks Microsoft. Thanks Symantec. Thanks General Electric.

If America manages to balance its books, America can afford to be generous, America can afford to help those less fortunate. But it is simply Liberal narcotic smoke to think that America can provide wealth and comfort to all the underprivileged around the world: we can't even do that here in our own country. And the rest of the underprivileged world has fertility rates such that even if we were to grow at 5% annually with no debt to service, we could not even keep pace with additional burdens of the new underprivileged persons being born daily.

It is an extremely rational decision: since you can't take care of the whole world, take take of yourself and help who you can. But you have to be in a healthy enough position to help anyone in the first place, and with the current state of American hemorrhaging we can't even really help ourselves, let alone our neighbors. And since our neighbors seem perfectly contented to watch us "bleed out," we need to kick them in their privates to buy a bit of time.

And American have a duty to help themselves too: buy American. Where at all possible, buy goods and services made in our own country. This is not jingoistic, it is a matter of self-preservation.

Survival even.

Free Trade ... a Sham?

Up until about 1/2 an hour ago, I was a believer in "free trade." You know, if everyone builds and sells freely what they are the most efficient at producing -- goods or services -- then it should all come out in the wash.

But this makes some assumptions: (1) that raw materials are equally available -- not that everyone has iron ore, but that everyone has something to use for production or sales, even if it is brain capital; (2) that everyone will play by the rules and allow others to sell or produce goods or services in their countries; (3) that everyone is large enough to be able to participate at all -- enough people; (4) that there are not overarching political needs within certain trading partners that require that the administrators of the country address the problems, even if it means breaking the rules; and (5) probably a treatise-worth of exemptions and special cases ... little countries need protection, we can't pollute but they can, we care about people, they regard people as fungible, etc.

And America has played by the rules, generally, for far too long. Sure we cheat a little with regards to shipping within the US. We also shamelessly subsidize corn, sugar and other agricultural products. We refuse to sell our best electronic stuff or allow foreigners to sell to our military, etc. But we generally play by the rules because it has been in the best interests of our corporate community to do so, to open up other markets for them to profit in ... for the repatriation of the loot abroad.... The assumption being: "we can do it better than they can." Play by the rules so that we can win and when America, Inc., wins, so do the people.

The trouble is that we are no longer winning. In fact, since the fall of Communism and the rise of the "Tigers," we have been bleeding out of our eye-balls. By "we," I mean the American people ... the United States of America. For what is our country but the sum and aggregate of its people? And all the while, we -- meaning our politicians and officials have done a "Nero."

Individual corporations still benefit ... and are keen to promote free trade and trade agreements. That means fat bonuses for the CEO and executive staff. But the employee who lost his job to some Guatemalan ... what about him or her? "Oh, that's all for the better, he or she can get retrained to get a higher paying job. And that is good for America."

No, it is not. You see, when looked at collectively, America is a little enterprise of its own. Its corporations are people engaging in trade (at law, they resemble them, but on an indefinite basis ... as individuals, we tend to die), and its physical people also engage in trade by buying goods made abroad or here with foreign components. And when an enterprise or person buys more from others than they sell -- in dollar value -- they go into debt. Eventually, when nobody will extend any more credit, they go bankrupt: the person from whom they bought all that stuff winds up "owning" the debtor.

If an individual or a corporation, you go bankrupt and there is an auction or a sheriff seizes your remaining goods. Look at the foreclosures in the market! A corporation re-organizes or dissolves. The individual gets a judgment against them, and struggles to makes ends meet. In some countries, they simply starve to death.

A country gradually sells itself to whomever will hold its debt, and also sells pieces of itself in the form of real property and corporations. All because the component organisms that make up the country have contracted a disease which causes them to buy goods and services from the least expensive seller, quality be damned. "Oh," you may say, "that is rational behavior," and for the individual organism in the abstract, perhaps it is. But for the corpus of the whole it is not. Consider a supplement that heightens awareness and mental agility ... nicotine or caffeine, maybe ... helps you think, but poisons the rest of your body. Heroin probably feels good to the individual receptors in the brain, but take too much and you die.

That is: there is such thing as the common good. Not in the sense that we should all become communists and share and share alike. That has proven to be crap. But, the common good of Americans dictates that we need to get our communal accounts into balance. Other countries out there have long looked at the greater whole and diverted our attention to the great talking mask, telling us to ignore that funny old man behind the curtain. Europe has done that for all of our existence as a nation and certainly haven't stopped. The Tigers, China and India do it now, and have accumulated vast tracts of real property, intellectual property, means of production (factories and the trained personnel to run them), and our I.O.U.s in the form of U.S. Government Treasuries.

And now, like the heroin addict, we are dying as a commercial trading nation. We may be the most productive -- per worker -- nation on the face of the planet, but when we buy more from abroad than we retrieve through trade (goods and services) we slowly poison ourselves. Maybe the analogy is more like the Death of 400 Cuts.

Also, we cannot sustain the immigrant flow into this country, just as we cannot sustain the outsourcing of jobs abroad that would and could provide income to thousands domestically. I refuse to believe that we need to import plastic spoons from China: since when does anyone touch them during production anyway? There is no meaningful labor input, just oil and some cardboard -- none of which comes from China in the first place. In fact, the cardboard is probably made from wood pulp imported from the North American continent. And why should we buy Apple Computers ... "designed in California" but made in Shanghai? The assembly is largely robotic anyway. What little loopholes are Apple leaping through to make this more cost efficient "to benefit the American consumer" anyway?

I am not advocating a Smoot-Hawley tariff which plunged the world into the Great Depression (or at least some economists cite that as the trigger), but a desperate need to re-balance our books. In the process, international companies will have to declare themselves: American or not. If not, you face restrictions. If so, you need to start coughing up your taxes. And money cannot simply flow South to wherever the impoverished came from to work here: taxes must be paid, and limits imposed on repatriation of capital ... requiring registration and legal formalities to be observed.

Countries that restrict the import of U.S. goods by tariff, must face countervailing tariffs to balance out trade with that country. We are not asking unfettered permission to raid your national treasury, only that you cease raiding ours. And I don't care if the living standard of your people is less than the standard enjoyed by ours: it is not our duty to bring every person on Earth to the same level ... in fact, I condemn that strongly because of what that would mean: by sheer demographics and fertility rates the majority of Americans would enjoy the living standards of the average Indian (subcontinent). Or lower ... there are a lot of Africans and Chinese. I REFUSE to accept that. It might benefit the CEOs and other corporate fat cats, hedge fund managers, and political the recipients of their largess (Bush, Clinton), but the average American, the component that makes up the organism is and will continue to get hurt.

No way.

Bits and Bobs and why auto mfrs are morons.

So I decided that I need to buy a new car ... or more correctly, a something to carry three kids, their gear, their friends and their friends' gear, plus food and other stuff. That means 7 seats, probably, since I have 5 members in my family we automatically default into 7 seats assuming that one or more kids will bring a friend.

This conveyance will need to do 300 miles most every weekend and about 3 hours per day in the city and suburbs. It should get reasonable mileage -- the 12.5 mpg real mileage of my old BMW X5 will NOT do. I was lucky to stretch it to 18 mpg on the highway. And when I see those Suburbans, Yukons, Tahoes, Escalades, etc. booming down the interstate at 80, you know that they are simply lining the pockets of Middle Eastern types and the odd oil company exec. at 12 mpg (if they are lucky/honest). That won't do either.

So, a minivan? Well given that most of my serious travel is also done during the winter when snow can make conditions difficult, I need AWD or 4WD. That excludes most minivans, and the ones that are "awd" tend to have BS versions of said systems that are a joke for all intents and purposes (95% to the front wheels, until you "need" it). Just last weekend, the going was seriously tough: a 2:20 trip took 5:10. And my current car, a Merc E320 4matic wagon is really good in snow (it has 7 seats, but the rear seats are for small kids). The awd-lite resulted in numerous mini-vans in the ditch, up the banks, etc. So a real 7-seat SUV, with dedicated AWD, then. The trouble with that is no manufacturer makes one that is both good to drive and gets better than 20 mpg. And, ideally, I'd like to get 30 mpg on the highway.

Does anyone make one -- at least for U.S. delivery? No. Why? Because California and a few other states have placed barriers to import of diesel engines that would make this possible. The issue is particulate matter emissions -- but not greenhouse gases. So in California, you can drive a Toyota Tundra with a 7 liter (litre) engine that gets 10 mpg real world, spewing blimp loads of gases, funding Al Qaeda, but you cannot drive a VW Jetta TDi, getting 40 mpg. Or, of course, you could drive a Prius whose real world dust-to-dust impact on the environment is equivalent to a Ford F-150.

In Europe, technology has progressed to the point that 70+% of all vehicles sold are diesels. And Euro Bin-5 regulations are quite strict too. So what gives? It would be easy to say that the auto manufacturers are being held hostage to the greenies in California La-La, Never-Never land. But in truth, while there is a lot to say about that, up until last year the diesel fuel sold in the US was crap. Full of sulfur that caused lots of emissions problems. The oil companies were screwing us and the environment there: it was cheaper to produce the crap diesel than re-tool to produce diesel that burns cleanly. I have written about this before. Yada, yada -- conspiracy between oil companies and engine builders, etc. All true.

But the simple fact is this: we could get hybrid-style fuel savings in the U.S. using diesel engines. A BMW 530d gets better than 40 mg on the highway ... at 80 mph ... because it is about torque. The greenies will say that hybrids do this too, but only with a miniscule poop-box of a car, and at lower speeds. Many of my friends that went the hybrid route have been horrified at the mileage they get with their Lexus 400h and Toyota Highlanders when barreling down the road at 80. My Merc E320 easily bests them (26 mpg at 80 mph).

The next best thing to no fuel at all is the hybrid diesel. The best of both worlds: the non-regenerative engine is efficient where and when it is actually needed, and in the city you can benefit from the regenerative cycling. Mercedes is planning to come out with an S300 H -- a diesel hybird -- for Europe only distribution. What? An S-class Mercedes that gets better than 40 mpg and we can't get one. Typical.

Also true is that out of a single barrel of oil, you can extract more diesel fuel than gasoline. The oil companies would need to re-tool to crack the oil for diesel production maximization. But it is more profitable to make gasoline. And have you checked to see the diesel prices here? Considerably more expensive than gas and it shouldn't be. There is simply no logical reason for that, just what the market can bear -- and to keep people in gas cars.

People need not be afraid of diesels, either: they don't smoke and they don't rattle like a tin can filled with ball-bearings anymore, either. We all remember those dreadful Oldsmobile and Cadillac diesels from the early 1970's that were all about smoke and black soot. They are history. But remarkably, nobody wants to tell the public that here in the US.

So where does this leave me -- and you? The technology exists, but we can't get any of the diesels, the diesel hybrids or the straight hybrids in a format that we really need. At least until ... now. Chevrolet/GM has come out with a Tahoe/Escalade/Yukon with a hybrid format. And you can bet your ass that Lexus will have a 7 seat hybrid soon. The estimated mileage is about 20 mpg. Not bad, especially when you consider what they are shoving through the air (a barn door), but the petroleum-burning part of the system is still a 6 liter V8 gas engine -- albeit with fuel saving cylinder shut-down, etc. But Mercedes sells their 7 seater in Europe with a V8 diesel that gets 26 mpg without the use of a hybrid system ... why can't we get that here? And, on a dust-to-dust basis, this car is FAR greener than any of the U.S. available SUV hybrids.

As an absolute minimum, I want something that is not based on a truck frame and that drives (more or less) like a car. And the American and Japanese offerings are truck-based confections that wobble like drunken sailors along the roads. I am physically nauseous every time I get in one of those. So what to do? I e-mailed the CEO of Mercedes America. I received a nice return e-mail -- from his Blackberry while he was in Germany!! Then a phone call from marketing and customer support. Is the GL 420 CDI coming to the U.S.? No plans for now. What diesel will you offer? The ML is coming out with the 320 CDI, and in certain states you can buy the GL with the 320 CDI, but not Mass or Calif. Later this year, they will sell the "Bluetec" hyper-clean, 50 State version of the 320 CDI diesel. It will get better than 30 mpg in (most) all uses, and even over 45 mpg in the E class sedan. Well. Now that's a start, but....

A 7-seat vehicle needs more than 215 puny ponies (although a mountain of torque) to shove it along, and furthermore, the Europeans already get the car (and mileage) that I, and most likely thousands more want -- AND IT IS BUILT IN THE U.S. But we won't. Instead we will get the GL 320, which will take just under 10 seconds to 60. The Tahoe Hybrid does the same in about 7. I'd like to be green as I can, but I don't want to be Captain Ahab of the good ship white whale trying to accelerate to join the Interstate. Thar she blows!

You see, Daimler-Benz has determined that we don't need this fuel-efficient GL 420 CDI here. Right. Just like the Germans determined that we didn't need cup holders so everyone interested in this class of car went out an bought a Lexus instead. Talk about pissing away your market share. But the vastly inferior GM products are here and ready to go, at 20 mpg and with a hybrid. So what to do? What to do? If I buy a GL with the requisite power, I need to buy a gas-powered beast that gets 14 mpg at best. If I buy GM, I buy a blancmange on wheels getting 20 mpg and depreciation like a swan dive from the Golden Gate Bridge. Great choice!

Daimler-folks: listen up ... Americans like their V8s. Love them. And in the class of vehicle that we are talking about, we can afford them, no matter what. We want the performance determine to be needed by our driving habits and styles. However, the type of people that make the requisite money to buy large SUVs, also tend to be better-educated and want to try and be greener than before, and save a few Franklins (20 dollar bills) at the pumps. With your cooperation, we could have our cake and eat it too -- the technology and cars exist, but you have chosen not to sell it in the U.S., just like Ford makes the brilliant European Focus but doesn't build or import it here.

So we Americans will do the next best thing and buy the GM-crap. Good for GM, they need the bucks to fund their pension schemes, but you guys are missing the boat. Again. You just don't seem to "get" it: the average European drives a tiny little car with a tiny little diesel ... and even richer Europeans drive expensive luxury cars with small diesel engines (compared to U.S. standards). But get this: we won't. Why you persist on thinking that we would do the same is like ... smoking illicit substances. On the American Interstate, you are surrounded by 18 wheel trucks that would obliterate a small European car without even noticing it. People are afraid (justly or not) of being ground beef. And just in case you think I am mixing arguments (small car/ small engine), if the truck can out-accelerate you, you are just as much "toast" in your SUV as someone in a Fiat Punto, an unhappy position.

Ford, when trying to figure out why people bought SUVs, found out that with 70% women buyers/drivers for those vehicles, the primary impulse was to put as much steel between themselves and the others on the road. Then make it cushy inside. Viola: a sales miracle. It also makes some twisted sense, even if the actual fatality numbers do not support it. And, Americans have MUCH larger families, and drive much longer distances. If you ask why we have to -- it is because it is what we do ... and just leave it at that. You cannot change how we think or act by offering us products that should change our attitudes ... to be more like yours. We'll stay away in droves.

And that might just be the disconnect that the Germans don't get: we simply cannot stick 3+ children in a Jetta wagon, plus skis, plus food, plus the dog, plus friends, etc. and then drive 3 hours twice every weekend. Germans can and do and don't mind the inconvenience, but we don't and won't -- because we don't have to. We don't live in tiny, under-heated houses either. We like air conditioning in the Summer. We take more than one shower a day. It just "is." If you want to sell to us, then don't preach, just deliver. I mean, just because a German wouldn't think of buying Japanese products, they presume that we wouldn't for the same reasons -- "after all, it is the only sensible way." Wrong. And we might even buy GM....

It is a miracle that people here are even looking at hybrids, and if you offer them the power they crave with even superior mileage you might actually sell a few. Otherwise ... remember them cup-holders.

Monday -- Kill 'em all.

First Monday back for most people after the one week President's Day break (at least for MassHoles). And there must be something that gets under the skin of the residents of Taxachusetts ... probably their kids.

While traffic was not bad, the pure, raw aggression displayed on the road was simply breathtaking. And not just car drivers, but parents crossing the road with their children -- simply push 'em out onto the road and tell 'em to walk (slowly) across. But first, they need to find a place that makes sure that you cannot see them until they actually start crossing, say from behind a minivan. And the procedure is to ignore the clear crosswalk 10 yards further down the road.

I reckon it must be a subconscious desire to "off" the young 'uns after that lovely week at home.

And then, you have the drivers who are more suicidal than usual -- and aggressively so. Turn in front of you without a signal, without so much as a look to see if there is traffic coming in their direction. Try and pick off someone in a crosswalk with the wing mirror, but carefully avoid actually hitting the rest of your car.


I thought that I was getting hardened after 8 years of living in this place. I guess not.

Ooops ... was that your satellite?

China is pissed. So is Russia. All because we took down a defunct NRO satellite.

What on Earth is China so up in arms about? Only last year they shot down one of their own satellites in a blatant anti-satellite test -- sabre rattling. And Russia ... cut it out with the Bear flights, the buzzing of US carriers and various and sundry provocations. We only did it "because of the hydrazine on board." Right. The tooth fairy again.

This particular satellite was launched a few years ago from Vandenberg AFB, headquarters for the 30th Space Wing. It malfunctioned almost immediately, essentially becoming a yellow school bus sized piece of space junk. The hydrazine it carried on board was for manoevering -- fuel for getting out of the way of anti-satellite devices and getting to places one might want to photograph or radar scan. According to the Air Force, it was never able to complete its mission due to computer malfunctions on board. Hmmm. And no self destruct or de-orbit mechanisms were in place. Right.

Whatever. The satellite --if was not a red herring designed to be a target all along, with hydrazine as the ostensible excuse -- was coming down, carrying the best optical and radar imaging devices available to US science. And that would probably be rather good. At least one or two generations ahead of anything Ivan and Maomen could lob into orbit. If there was a remote chance that it might land in one of their nations, or somewhere they could grab the debris, it would be an intelligence coup of unimaginable value. Given the complexity of the device, it seems likely that it would not be wasted on spying on the Zambians.

So let's bring it down. Oh, wait ... since it does not travel over the U.S., we can't really use a ground-based missile. So let's try a bank-shot ... and prove that our missile cruisers can pop a satellite in space while bobbing in 12 foot swells in the middle of nowhere. More like shooting a fly with a .22 at 100 yards, blindfolded, and hopping on one foot -- except more difficult. Proving that no satellite anywhere is safe ... all to protect some unfortunate from hydrazine escaping, if the fuel tank somehow does not burn up on re-entry or explode. Might the satellite be armored, just in case some other nation decides it is inconvenient? Hmmm, now there's a thought. Now do you suppose that those other interested parties might also know basically what that space junk comprised of? Uh, huh, that seems likely. So if we can pop an armored satellite, and not some defunct weather drone ... well now that is really something quite different, isn't it.

I wonder why we do not read about these logical deductions in the press? They (NRO) admit that it was an NRO-special, and highly classified ... this is not rocket science ... oh, wait ... it is.

Anyway, so China and Russia are pissed. They are claiming that this makes space less safe. Well, yes it does ... if it is their spy satellites they are talking about. A whole lot less safe. It also shows that the U.S. can intercept space junk on its way from point A to point B -- when it has reason to know or expect said junk might be on its way. Like space junk coming towards mainland U.S.A. from, say, North Korea.

I wonder if Taiwan has bought any of these cruisers from us?

Gaia -- an American Experiment?

Ok, so I need to set aside the cynical self for just a few moments. I do realize that most of humanity is out for itself, me first, step on toes, etc. But it is just possible that we are at the threshold of something interesting, even novel, given the past 50 years. And oddly, the catalyst might be one B.H. Oh-bama.

First, let us consider the various societies that have risen and thrived in recorded history: almost without fail, each society has had internal cohesiveness. That is, the members of that society identified themselves as being part of a greater whole. Romans were citizens. Greeks and Egyptians were similarly self-identified. The great European civilizations of the last 2000 years were characterized by form of nationalism ... "God, King and Country." But God took a backseat to King and Country when it really came down to it. Whenever you had a fight for God (at least the Christian version) you had some really messy breakdowns, inquisitions, failed Armadas, slaughters of heretics and native peoples.

The only God first empire or society that lasted any significant period of time revolved around Allah, a religion that requires that adherents submit, heart and soul, five times a day. The very nature of following Islam makes it the primary motivator for its adherents. Islam was very successful and dynamic, but ultimately failed as a long term prospect through its very success. The expanse and stretch of the Empire embraced too many cultures, some of which proved to be divisive and unsuited to the yoke of the five Pillars. The identification collapsed and so did the Empire. That and some brave dudes under Charles Martel (the Hammer) who turned Islam back from the center of what is now France.

Think about the greatest empire yet seen on Earth: The British Empire. God? Yeah, they went to church. King? Well, it was a Queen. Country? Oh, yes. A few years earlier it was for the King that the Brits fought ... the French. The French ... pour La France, no question. They beheaded their King.

Then came the 20th Century ... empires that lasted only a short while, at least by historic comparisons. The Nazis, the Fascists, the Soviet Union, Communists, etc. Note, by way of proof that the Chinese are different -- they have always self-identified first as "Chinese." But, during that 100 years a new empire rose that still has vigor and hope for humanity ... The United States of America.

Sure, the U.S. has its roots in Britain and its social system, but the early Americans decided that those traditions had limitations that they wanted no part of. It took until the dawn of the 20th Century for the U.S., America (I will use the term as Americans use it, Mexicans, etc. be damned), to start to realize its potential. Huge waves of immigrants flooded the country, often against the wishes of those already living here (notably the "Native Americans," but also earlier immigrants). And in those teeming throngs, there was a single unifying thought: "I wish to become an American." Those immigrants came here to learn the English language -- often forbidding the use of the tongue of their country of origin at home -- and assimilate into our developing society. In so doing each brought a sliver of their culture into the larger whole, enriching it. What made it work was the desire to make it work. Like a marriage, effort is required.

But somewhere in the 1960's Americans lost the plot. Political correctness in the form of socialist drivel imported from Europe came to be regarded as learning to be imposed on the great, wild and uncouth American people. And that is too bad. It created divisions that had never been there to start with, but to be fair also healed great, huge gaping scars such as racism, or tried to.

The critical error of the '60's was its very tolerance of other people -- we should have been color-blind to start with, but history dictated otherwise -- but tolerance of other cultures allowing our own new culture to fall apart. People no longer self-identified as "Americans," but as something else: African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc. Applications started to include separate boxes to allow people to show they should be entitled to extra consideration because of history. People were given positions that they were not qualified for. Policemen could hardly speak, read or write English. Whole areas of the Country had secondary economies run outside of the taxation regime meant to apply to all. Segments of the population became entitled to the fruits of the labor of others -- without any recognition or contribution of their own. In certain States it became easier to speak Spanish than English. The sense of identity fell apart.

In World War Two, back in the bad old days, people of Japanese extraction were prohibited from fighting, until someone figured out that it might be sensible to send those people -- who were desperate to fight for their country -- to fight the Germans. Blacks were segregated and relegated to REMF positions, despite their desire to get their hands dirty and fight AS AMERICANS. Ultimately, the Army took its head out of its rectum and put Blacks into combat positions, where they proved that they could fight as well as any in the entire army. The Vietnam experience showed that when put together in combat, blacks and whites soon came to realize that their blood was red, no matter who shed it.

But politically, certain Americans persisted in pointing out the differences, cultivating them, demanding that people should be permitted to be "different" and that we should celebrate the difference. And in so doing ... we destroyed the American fabric. We bought Chinese goods, we glorified German cars, we worshiped Japanese electronics ... American products, society and morals came to be considered as inferior. Bad.

But in the elections of 2008, change is really not change. It is a desire to unify, to go back to the spirit of the past and drag it into the future. A Black President. If America can swing behind that, we might just achieve something. Again.

America is not a bad place -- as Michelle Obama seems to be saying, at least on the surface. But she has a point: something is wrong right now. And we need to fix it. How ironic would it be if a leftist Democrat, a representative of the party (or its adherents) that may have had the chief role in screwing it up, might be the agency of change? I have faith that a Democratic President will screw up the economy and create programs and expenses that cannot be supported. Rebooblicans will have to come back in four years and clean that up, but ... the cultural divide might just work out. A Black man as President, elected by a majority White country.... Maybe.

Just maybe we can become a single greater organism, again. A new American Gaia.

HIllary -- "Experience"

Yes, indeed ... think about her experience closely:

1. Health Care Reform -- her failed efforts cost the tax payer millions (maybe as high as $15 million) with zero result. In drafting and back room bargaining, she threatened to "demonize" anyone that opposed it (not a rumor -- affirmed by Bill Bradley and Pat Moynahan). Congress refused to even bring it to a vote. It so irritated the voting public that in the first election thereafter, the Democrats lost both the House and the Senate ... remember Newt?

2. Hillary launched the crusade for the first female US Attorney General. Her first selection was Kimba Wood (S.D.N.Y. Federal District Court judge and hell to be in front of, although a good jurist). Kimba (who was also "hot"), had the unfortunate habit of hiring illegal nannies. Zoe Baird, the second choice and another Federal District Court judge, went down to more or less the same problem: a habit of violating Federal Law. Then Hillary "hit" upon Janet Reno. Bill has described her as "his worst mistake." Reno ... remember Waco? Remember selective enforcement of tax and other laws against Republican enemies of Bill 'n' Hill? Janet rent-an-investigation Reno? Bravo, Hillary ... if this is the quality and caliber of candidate we can expect out of your White House -- leave me alone.

3. More on her staff: remember her former law partners? Webster Hubbell, Vince Foster, and Bill Kennedy? They went to Justice, the White House and the Treasury. Kennedy was forced out for ethical questions, Hubbell went to prison (cute, given that he was in the "Justice Department") and Foster ... supposedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head (although the official autopsy stated that he stuck a gun in his mouth). There were also inconsistencies in the way the body was found -- it must have been moved, but by whom -- and most importantly, Foster's files and personal papers were first subject to the Clinton's evidence laundromat before responsible (or neutral) law enforcement personnel could take charge to try and determine motive or cause. What may have been shredded there, one wonders? Thanks, Hill.

4. Gads, what about Lani Guanier for Civil Rights Commission? Radcliffe and Yale (not too dissimilar to Wellesley and Yale), NAACP, Carter Admin Civil Rights Div. (that should probably have disqualified her on the spot). Sounds good, right? Not really: you see, Guano supports pure racial quotas -- not affirmative action -- quotas. No matter how inappropriate, you gotta have so many black, so many hispanics, so many women, etc. for practically everything. That stand really goes against the idea of "one (wo)man, one vote." But this seemed in contradiction to her published material on "fair play," but on closer examination, the fair play was qualified by "fair play so long as the rules are fair." And she wanted to determine what the rules are. Even hyper-liberal Ted Kennedy went to Bill and said she had to go. Notably, the only African-American serving in the Senate at that time (Carol Moseley-Braun) also recommended against Lani Guanier. Contrary to Hil-liar's posturing about the great Conservative Conspiracy, the Liberals were against her too: far too left for them, even.

5. More personnel scandal ... Hil-liar initiated what became known as "Travelgate." Most Democrats call this an invented scandal, but are equally unfamiliar with the facts: Hil-liar fired the entire White House Travel Office to make slots for her friends the Thomasons from ... Little Rock, operating essentially as subcontractors. And to who millions in travel contracts could be awarded. Further, just to seal the deal and deflect any smell of favoritism, Hil-liar reported the fired personnel to the FBI for gross mismanagement. See? She had a reason to clean house. But in reality, after an investigation lasting two years (and costing how much?), only one of the people summarily sacked was chargeable with a crime: comingling personal and White House revenues through cashing checks. A jury acquitted him in under two hours. So let's see, favoritism (check), ruining people's lives (check), lying about cause (check), trying to pay back political favors (check). Par for Hil-liar.

6. Filegate: or how do 900 FBI files of the Clinton's enemies wind up being perused by Bill and Hill for bedtime reading? Do you suppose that they might have "gotten off" reading secret and confidential information assembled by the United State's own internal KGB on their enemies? I have already chronicled how the Clintons treat their foes. Turn out that Craig Livingstone, the Director of White House Security was hired by Hil-liar had requested the files. Ken Starr's organization found insufficient evidence that Hil-liar had requested the files ... nobody said that Hil-liar would send a memo requesting them!! And Livingstone wasn't going to talk, who wanted to end up like Ron Brown or Vince Foster? Better to go to Club Fed like some of Hil-liar's other confederates. The FBI shut down its White House liason office shortly thereafter, some 30 years after opening said office. It might have been that they perceived it as too great a risk to the Bureau.

7. Whitewater. A failed real estate sweetheart deal. Also costing over $80 million in taxpayer money to investigate, and which ultimately led to a stained blue dress. It also led to the spectacle of the President of the United State lying to a Grand Jury and the American Public: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Uh, huh. And the stain? Not your DNA or planted there by the Great Right Wing conspiracy. But Hil-liar was in charge of the cover-up: she refused to hand over the Whitewater documents. She handled all of Bill's other women and their claims (and which he ultimately perjured himself as per Paula Jones), publicly calling them liars and gold diggers ... remember Jen Flowers?

8. Faulty Memory redux: how did Hil-liar avoid indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice when she claimed "I don't recall", "I have no memory", "I have no recollection" 56 times under oath? She has a famously good memory -- or is she admitting to early-onset Alzheimer's which would tend to exclude her from consideration in the Primary? Anyone else would have been sent to trial to let a jury of her peers decide whether she could or could not recollect. And just how DID those Rose law firm billing records teleport themselves to Hil-liar's coffee table the very day after the statute of limitations ran with regards to potential crimes connected to those records?

9. Buy-a-pardon. Before you lefties start in with "everyone did that" ... not they did not. At no point in the last 100 years were pardons for crimes so available as in the Clinton White House. And no President, ever, signed pardons with 7 minutes to go before the new President was sworn in. Marc Rich, anyone? Famous tax exile and contributor to Clinton financial enterpises? Or, how about the long term plans for Hil-liar's ascent to the Presidency ... gotta get to the Senate first, so we need to move to New York. The Hispanic vote is available for FALN pardons, and let's see what we can do for the Hassidim too?

10. The move to Chatttaqua ... or Bekins-gate: when you are the President and First Lady, all those trinkets given to you are not really yours. They are the property of the American People and you get to use them while you are in office. Bill and Hill decided to make off with over $200,000 worth of trinkets and gifts amassed in their White House days. All the better to feather your nest with before you start ....

11. Carpetbagging. Let's move to a State we have never lived in, buy some Yankees hats and run for office. Because the Liberal Manhattan loonies are about the only people (thoroughly brainwashed by the in-house Clinton news rag, the New York Times) who might conceivably elect you.

12. Shed a tear in '02. Rick Lazio "bullied" Hil-liar, by picking on her during debates and in the press. A poor, wronged woman trying to carry on her "work" by representing the people of the Empire State. But it looks to me that she was more than competent to defend herself, given her previous 8 years as Bill's hatchet-person.


And today we cannot even get at the internal White House records of the Clinton years from the National Archive -- Bill asked that they be sealed before leaving office. It would be interesting to read some of those memos. But if Hil-liar gets to be President, do you think that we will EVER see those papers? Hmmm? How about a fire that ravages them?

Why I dislike Hillary

Hil-liar first came to my attention as the desperate-to-be-important appendage to Bill Clinton's campaign for President in 1992. I could not figure out why she was paraded front and center -- or forced herself to the forefront -- at every opportunity. I was in law school at the time and so had more than average interest in the process of the primaries as well as the whole election season. She seemed to me to be irrelevant: Gov. Bill Clinton was out there doing his thing, hoodwinking a nation about his bright new future (remember that Jefferson Starship song?) and there was this slightly dowdy -- but strident -- wife of his, a partner at a Little Rock law firm.

What little I knew of Arkansas politics was of corruption, state house shenanigans, the Tysons, and some local, but extremely wealthy investment bankers controlling the whole mess. How could these yokels use that cesspit as a stepping stone to the Presidency of the United States? On a character basis, success in Arkansas should, by all rights, disqualify you from the Presidency, per se. Still, they prospered and we all know about the "Comeback Kid." I was bemused, especially given that Bill had been thrown out the State House in Little Rock because of gross mismanagement, wild cronyism, allegations of corruption (suspicion of sexual misconduct) and a complete failure to do what he had promised. Then, through careful political handling, the power brokers of Little Rock managed to put him back into office. Hil-liar, meanwhile, had been active in D.C. politics, and was in the process of shucking Bill as a loser. By "loser", I mean someone that was not going to be able to restrain himself from his proclivities and so forfeit his shot at the White House. For it was for that precise aim, that suburban Chicago-raised, Wellesley and Yale educated Hil-liar had decided to attach herself to him. Not love. Not admiration -- raw, naked ambition. Until Bill got himself straightened out, she had planned to get rid of him. But he did manage, and Hil-liar came back to Little Rock (which she hated, because everyone there hated her -- she refused to play the part for which she had apparently signed on) and took the reigns of the "Good Ship Clinton." Hil-liar captained that ship, not for Bill, but for herself. She wanted to get to the White House, and being pragmatic, she realized that she could never get elected to office herself. She understood that she was very dislikable and, sadly for the United States, as a woman, failing to be likable placed her even further away from her goal.

Not that there were no women in politics at that point in the United States, there had been various women Governors of States (Texas, Connecticut, New Jersey to name a few). But nobody like Hil-liar: she played by her rules, damn anyone else. She refused to play the game.
So, by managing Bill -- for which she deserves a Nobel medal for sheer creativeness and ingenuity -- she got to the White House ... with Bill "sort of" stating that the American people were getting a "twofer" package. His brilliant wife was going to reform health care. Yay. Whoopee.

But -- THIS IS IMPORTANT -- the American people did NOT elect Hil-liar. They elected the charismatic and deeply flawed Bill Clinton. The pathological liar Bill Clinton -- who happened to be married to the most ruthless and intelligent wife seen since Lucrezia Borgia. Smoke and mirrors won the day and the Clintons settled into 1700 Pennsylvania Ave.

Make no mistake -- and some political pundits with far greater insight than I -- saw that at this point Hil-liar had already set her sights on the top job for herself. JUST AS SHE HAD ALWAYS TOLD HER FRIENDS AT WELLESLEY SHE WOULD. Trouble is, she totally screwed up the job of health care, had alienated half of Congress and the Senate, and revealing she had totally "dissed" the face of American women who choose to stay at home -- doing the vital job of raising the American family. Dismissive might not even begin to describe her attitude.

Chelsea ... as soon as she possibly could, she dumped Chelsea on a nanny to spend as much time as she could doing more "important" things -- ironically to do with children's rights (good political cred for the future). This was not nanny for necessity, it was child for necessity of resume, and get it out of my face, I am busy. Unfair? I don't think so, too many people have stepped forwards to state this view who were "working" with the Clintons. Even more ironic? BILL fell totally heads-over-heels in love with his daughter. Doted on her. Refused to let her go and do the politically correct things that Hil-liar had ordered. Makes me feel better about Bill.

Bill could not and cannot keep his pecker in his pants. Sad, but true, and Hil-liar, in her ambition to ascend the throne, has covered, lied, dissembled, acted and whatever to protect -- not Bill -- but herself from this fact, and the acts entailed. She has personally threatened various of the women Bill has abused: "don't tell or rock the boat .. or else." This is not my allegation, read the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Ed Klein, he cites names and dates. If these were untrue, don't you think that they'd sue? Hil-liar tried to force the publisher to "spike" the book, but failed. Don't mess with the Clinton machine, you are "with" them or against them, as many erstwhile Hollywood contributors have discovered through their support of Obama.

You see, Hil-liar will stomp anyone in her way. Vanity Fair was going to do an article on Bill -- and include some items that Hil-liar thought would prejudice her cause. The campaign let it be know the editors that if they EVER hoped to have access to Bill again, they needed to cease and desist. And if they got to the White House (at that point last year, she was the "certain" candidate), Vanity Fair could just shut their doors. Strange how that tends to focus the attention of the editors ... and owners.

Hil-liar managed to paper over the Lewinsky affair from the point of view of marriage. But, any self-respecting partner (note that I did not say "woman") would have dumped Bill as soon as possible thereafter. But their conniving left a far greater stain -- on the Presidency. Consider: no President since Andrew Johnson in the 1880's had been impeached, and Johnson was acquitted in the Senate. Bill wasn't. The Senate simply did not have the balls to remove him from office. And you know, it wasn't the unseemly nature of having an intern provide oral sex to the President that was the charge, but the perjury to a Grand Jury and obstruction of justice. This from the man who, as the Chief of the Executive Branch, WAS the top law man in the US of A. Any other decent man would have stepped down from office. We might have had Algore as President then and in 2000. Boosh might not have darkened our steps. Think about that.

But Hil-liar "stood by her man." Bullshit. She had to stay with Bill, because if she didn't, it would have exploded in her face and she would not have been able to run for office herself. For a "wronged little woman" she has managed to fend off Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and a long list of others before (and probably since). But somehow, she kept the whole thing together -- and it was her, not anyone else -- and when they left the White House, they moved to New York. About the only place that was sufficiently knee-jerk liberal to consider Hil-liar for office. Not just any office, but as a Senator. There is a word for this: "carpetbagging." Cynical, but effective.

Let's also look -- however briefly -- at how Hil-liar ran the White House: a motel for contributors. A perk-fountain for Democrats and liberal celebrities. Smart enough on a practical basis, but deeply cynical and dishonest. Never before had any First Couple used the White House as a tool -- which you and I pay for.

Her own little peccadillos? Billing records that go missing but reappear on the day after the statute of limitations expires? FBI files on enemies disappearing then magically re-appearing?
IRS investigations of enemies? Advisors that shoot themselves in the backs of their heads? Advisors that have airplanes shot down by stinger missiles? State Troopers that die in a myriad of bizarre ways? Directors of Enforcement of government agencies that get demoted and re-assigned because they find her trading records out of the ordinary? Loyal employees who are fired only because friends could be hired? Did you ever look at the make-up of her "shadow cabinet" in the Executive offices across the street from the White House (even Hil-liar couldn't get offices for her entire staff in the West Wing, though she tried). In the first term, there was one man. Were only women qualified enough, or is gender discrimination allowable if women are the beneficiaries? Or could Hil-liar only trust women -- a great percentage of them lesbians, at that? Could be. And given Bill....

But why should a taxpayer support an entire shadow cabinet -- for someone they did not hire, that is elect? What right did she have to further burden our economy? Because her husband was elected? That illuminates another critical flaw in her person: "do as I say, don't do as I do." She wants to tell us what is good for us ... but does not want to live by the same rules. She is important. We are not. Her work is important, but our hope, dreams, aspirations are not. Her desire to impose her societal paradigm on the U.S. is breathtaking: forget this move to the center BS that we have seen since her ascension to the Senate, she was, is and will forever be a committed socialist. For surely as she has never waivered in her pursuit of the Presidency, you can have faith that her core beliefs have not altered.

This list is only the tip of the iceberg. But given her toughness in actually calling to warn off potential female embarrassments provided by Bill, managing his access to trouble, facing down federal subpoenas do you think that she "welled up" in New Hampshire and again in Connecticut because she was "overcome" and that it was a natural womanly thing? Are you insane? Look, she does not want to "offer opportunities" to the American people, she wants the power of the White House, no matter what. Bill was a tool that almost backfired -- and continues to be a liability -- but needed. You and I are her "useful idiots," and so is Bill.

It makes me crazy to see people swallow her garbage hook, line and sinker. I WISH that she were a man, because it would make it so much easier for the people of this country to grasp the fact that it is the character of this person that makes her a disaster in the making, not the gender. The gender is irrelevant. IF she were a man, people would be aghast at her manipulations and disregard for propriety, ethics and morals. And those charges could be laid at her feet without regard to civility and bias. She is irredeemably power-hungry and it must be said ... evil. Much of the same can be leveled at John McCain. Is she smart? Absolutely -- fiendishly so. Capable? Uh huh, without doubt. Decent? No, under no circumstances can that be attributed to her.

Contrast that with Barack Obama. He wants the Presidency too, and always has. But he is always civil, courteous, and considerate. As with Mitt Romney. And it is this contrast that makes it so clear why Hil-liar is an unworthy candidate for the Presidency of this United States.

Red State -- Blue State

If you ask me, there has been something of a conspiracy involved here: up until 1996, it was pretty much the international norm -- left leaning was "red" and right leaning was "blue." So what happened? Almost all US news outlets prior to 1996 used Democrat red and Republican blue as the color associations. This was and is the international "norm." The clear association of "red" was with socialism and its attendant philosophy, which is consistent with the Democrats.

In 1996, however, CBS (bastion of conservative thought ... choke ...) started flipping this around. Red was to be Republican. Consider ... almost universal usage with correct political association and CBS decides, "no, we want to move the Democratic party away from that taint ... that socialist smell." Then, by almost universal accord, all the news media switch to the new paradigm in 2000. And Boosh (eternal moron) uses a red background to his signage around the country, while Algore goes blue. In Algore's case, he is trying to deflect the socialist case and sign on to blue -- which psychologists will tell you has a more positive association in the minds of the average American. But Boosh, ill-informed moron that he is falls into the trap. Nobody told them that they had to use red, but they probably thought that it was more "catchy" to the eye. Idiots. Blue has statesman-like connotations, dignity, calm, etc. Red says "look at me!"

But since the print media and television are mostly (there is Fox) Democrat leaning and reflexively liberal, it sticks. And it stinks.