comment
Rise of a New Political Class
By Daniel G. Jennings
The Democratic Presidential Primary of 2004 maybe remembered as the race that marked the beginning of a massive change in American politics. The change is an obvious but a profound one: average people with an interest in politics are influencing the outcome of political contests as never before by using the Internet.
The most obvious example of this change is the success of Howard Dean in the Democratic primaries. Dean's campaign has attracted lots of support around the country through word of mouth over the Internet. By using the Internet, left wing grassroots activists have managed to circumvent the big media and the party establishment and help Dean emerge as the front runner. Dean has also been able to raise around $15 million using the Internet.
Candidates who tried to run traditional campaigns relying on TV ads and traditional fund raising like John Edwards and Dick Gephardt have found themselves behind Dean in the polls. In other words average people were able to pick a candidate and set the agenda in the primary to the chagrin of professional politicos.
Now comes the whole Wesley Clark phenomenon which seems to have begun with another campaign of word of mouth on the Internet. Moderate Democratic leaders scared that the left might steal the nomination, heard that the general was receiving good word of mouth on the Internet and decided to run with him. Now, Clark who wasn't even on the radar, a couple of months ago is a major player. Largely because average Democrats who were disgusted with the far left's attempt to force a McGovern clone on their party started demanding somebody who could win the election.
The rise of this new Internet-savvy class of amateur politicos presents all sorts of problems.
First, the Internet amateurs are extremely passionate about politics but their passion is usually not tempered by common sense. They will be less likely to compromise, to abandon or weaken a controversial stand in order to win an election or back a compromise candidate in order to win an election. This could hobble politicians' ability to change their policies to deal with changing circumstances. For example, a Democratic President might be prevented from taking military action against terrorists or others out of fear of offending the "peace" movement.
Second, the Internet amateurs are active and passionate but they often have little or no experience in real world politics. For all their passion these people often don't how to win elections or run campaigns. They don't have the practical experience necessary to win a tough campaign or race.
Third, the Internet amateurs are often passionate single issue voters. They only care about one issue or stand and ignore the big picture. Dean's backers appear to be largely peace activists and others angry about the war. This can be real disaster because these amateurs will latch onto a candidate who takes the right stand on the one issue they care about but ignores the rest of the political program. For example Christians might passionately back a pro life candidate who takes liberal positions on taxes and healthcare.
Fourth, the kinds of candidates and policies that appeal to Internet amateurs represent the kind of ideologically-driven politics that turns the general public off. Howard Dean may evoke passion from liberals but average voters are scared to death by his left wing reputation. This is a particular problem for political professionals because Internet amateurs might mobilize enough voters to win a primary or off year election but they'll never deliver the numbers needed to win say a presidential election. Meaning parties could be saddled with ideologically-extremist candidates who could turn voters off.
Fifth, the amateur politics of the Internet political junkies is inherently unstable. New candidates appear and disappear quickly upsetting the race. Insurgent candidates can undermine and overturn establishment candidates and groups. Fashionable issues and fad candidates can dominate the political discussion pushing aside real issues and serious candidates. Political battles can be become nastier and more brutal.
So what does the rise of this class of Internet amateurs mean for the political future? Campaigns will get more chaotic and convoluted, there will be dozens of candidates, pushing dozens of different positions. Politics will become more and more of a silly circus and drive away more voters.
Candidates will have to become more partisan and ideologically driven to win elections. This could make elections and politics less appealing to average people and decrease voter participation. At the same time important issues that don't evoke ideological passions will be ignored.
For the Republicans the Internet Amateurs could play a big role in 2008 when Bush will be term limited out. Christians, libertarians, pro-lifers and other groups will begin pushing their candidates over the Internet. Established candidates will rush to appeal to these constituencies. The result is liable to be the appearance of a Republican Dean, a candidate so far right he scares both the party establishment and the general public to death. The Republicans could find themselves going through the same process the Democrats are now with two insurgent candidates pushed by Internet amateurs dominating the primary races.
The question facing political professionals then is how can the passion and energy of the Internet Amateurs be harnessed and directed without destroying the effectiveness of candidates and campaigns? I don't know, but unless we find a way to do this the result could be political chaos of the kind we're seeing in the California recall on a nationwide level.

France
If you believe the portrayal of the world situation as told to us by the liberal media. You would think that the United States is in an impossible situation in Iraq and France has all the answers. This is nonsense, the United States is in a position of strength and France is caught in a stupid trap of its own making.
Basically the French have backed themselves into a conrer. They have greatly increased their prestige in the eyes of the world, and become a "world leader" by standing up to the big bad American bully. Which means they must oppose any American move in Iraq besides pull out. If the French make any sort of compromise with the US they loose face and influence. They admit America is right and their role of leadership evaporates. Worse, any French politician who makes a deal with America right now can kiss his prospect of winning an eleciton back home good for the foreseeable future.
The impossible situation France finds itself in is this: to preserve its role of world leadership France must force America out of IRaq. Yet France doesn't want to do that because it would have to step in and police Iraq. But France doesn't have the military forces to do that. If most of the world's nations were unwilling to back America's venture in Iraq, they'll be even less receptive to French efforts. France can't risk a power vacuum in Iraq which would result from an American pull out. The French are demanding that America do something France can't afford. Of course the French leaders know good and well America won't pull out.
yet their position makes it impossible for the UN to take constructive action on Iraq. France has no choice but to veto any UN sanction of the American venture in Iraq. Which makes it impossible for nations like India and Pakistan which have the military power to police Iraq,to get involved in Iraq even if they want to.
My guess is the end of the Iraq debacle will be one the left hates. France will be reduced to a bad joke in the eyes of the world. France will get kicked off the UN Security Council and become an international pariah. It'll become a small nation with less influence than Sweden. And the French people will have only their leaders to blame for this situation.

War Comments
A Few Comments on the War
By Daniel G. Jennings
My guess is that the war on terror is about to heat up probably with a major Al Qaeda attack or a series of attacks on the United States and probably attacks on other Western countries and Israel. Even though Al Qaeda and the rest of the Jihad idiots are soundly beaten and our victory is assured, we're going to see some very audacious and extremely destructive terror attacks launched by those fools in the next few years.
The reason I'm making this prediction is because of history. History has shown that beaten enemies often marshal their resources and launch one or two major offensives before finally succumbing to the inevitable defeat.
Case in point: World War II, in the summer of 1944, most people believed that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were beaten and would soon surrender or succumb. Yet both nations were able to launch major offensives in late 1944 that delayed the Allied Victory. The Japanese launched a major naval offensive in the Leyte Gulf that came dangerously close to sinking a large portion of the US invasion fleet heading for the Philippines. The Nazis were able to launch a major land offensive in Europe ,the Battle of the Bulge that threw the Allied Invasion of Germany into chaos.
Other examples of such last ditch offensives include World War I, when in Spring 1918, the Imperial German Army launched a major offensive that nearly captured Paris. The Germans nearly won the war, yet when their offensive collapsed they lost. In the Civil War, the Confederates launched last ditch offensives in 1864 and 1865. In 1864, even though Union Armies had captured Atlanta and were pressing hard on Richmond, Confederate General Hood, launched an offensive in the West that nearly captured Nashville Tennessee and threatened Southern Ohio. In the east in 1865, another Confederate thrust under Jubal Early threatened Washington.
In all of these cases, the good guys pressed on despite the last ditch attacks and won the war. Even though we will see more attacks on our heartland and the deaths of some of our citizens we shall win if we press on and win the victory.
One more thought, the left loves to accuse conservatives of being Eurocentric that is having a world view centered on Europe. It is the left that is Eurocentric in its world view, leftists believe Europe is a major force in the world and European nations like France are major powers and players they aren't. The major forces in the world today are outside of Europe, the big three powers in our world are the United States, India and China, Europe is a bad joke. Europe has token armies India and China have massive military forces.
If Bush wants America to have real influence in the world, he should go after Europe. Instead of bowing to France he should play hardball, he should go to the UN and say I'll give you a major role in Iraq, strip France of its permanent seat on the Security Council and replace it with India. France is a minor player, India has nearly a billion people and the second most powerful military on Earth, a professional army almost as large as ours. India will have to back us on this, and if the USA and India join forces we can probably press the issue. The arrogant fools in Paris then will pay for their obstruction of our war in Iraq. And America will have an important new friend in the world while the French can crawl back under their rock and hide in the dark alone with their delusions of grandeur and a few bottles of wine.

Frightful Times
In dangerous and trying times, good and intelligent people say and do stupid things that make little or no sense. Case in point, the Free Congress Foundation's Bill Lind.
Lind in his on-war column on the Free Congress Web site suggests that the US set a date for the pull out from Iraq say Dec. 25, 2003. The danger of course is that if Americans would listen to Lind and his counterparts on the left. Which thankfully the won't and did pull out of Iraq on Dec. 25, 2003. This wonderful scene would play itself out on say Jan. 31, 2004. A large limo would pull up to a public square in Bagdad. A square full of fanatics waving automatic weapons and screaming and yelling. The limo's doors would open up. Osama Bin Ldaen would get out and walk up to a podium. Then congratulate his breatheren on their "victory" and scream "on to Jerulesalem and Washington." Meanwhile somewhere outside Bagdad, other fanatics would be filling planes with napalm for the big attack on Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon seeing this wonderful scene played out would have no choice. He'd order his air force commander to drop a nuclear bomb on Bagdad. Millions would die and the blood would be on our hands. Within minutes of this attack, hundreds of thousands of Arab fanatics would mass and attack Israel. We'd see a blood bath on the scale of World War II.
Worse terrorist fanatics emboldened by their success would redouble their attacks on us and instead of 3,000 Americans dead. We'd have 30,000 or even 300,000. Mr. Lind is wrong, this isn't Vietnam, we can't go home. We have to stay and finish what we started. Because unlike the Communists in Vietnam, the fanatics in Iraq will follow us home and continue the attack here. IF we show weakness they'll attack. That's their way.
Yes, the Iraqi state has been destroyed. So we have to rebuild it. That'll be a long and expensive process in which Americans will die but the cost of rebuilding Iraq will be far cheaper than pulling out and going home.
One more thought we've heard Mr. Lind's argument before. Haven't we. Back in 1920, people like Mr. Lind assured Americans that if we pull out of Europe and stay away. Our boys will never have to fight and die over there again. Of course the sons of the American troops pulled out of europe in the 1920s, had to fight their way back into Europe in the 1940s and many of them died there. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the early 1940s, doing hwat a battalion of US regular infantry could have done in 1933. Shut down Hitler and his Nazis. Hopefully the American people and their leaders will listen to the Neocons Lind derides and ignore Lind and the rest of the easy answer squad. Because in Iraq there are no easy answers. Only difficult tasks.

Comments on the news
The big blackout of 2003 is over and as usual the media is not reporting on the real story. The real story is what didn't happen, there was no looting, no mass starvation, no rioting anywhere. Our cities didn't descend into chaos and race war didn't break out even though the lights went out. Most people behaved in a normal, civil, and sensible manner. This more than anything else gives us hope for the future, if Americans can react so positively to this catastrophe we can survive and thrive in the trying years ahead.
So who is responsible for this catastrophe politcally?? Both right and left, the right for ignoring the nation's declining, infrastructure and offering senseless taxcuts to the public instead of spending the money to fix our problems. Worse for treating the free market as a magic wand and simply believing that deregulation and less government would solve all the problems. The left for refusing to engage in solutions it finds distasteful like nuclear power and in refusing to confront the problem. Do we have the political will to solve this problem I don't know. Politicians don't like dealing with infrastructure issues, it costs a lot of money, and requires tough decisions. Nobody wants to flood grandfather's farm or put a new power line, highway or rail line through their neighborhood. Yet, that's what we're going to have to do in the years ahead. Worse when infrastructure pays off the public doesn't see it. Politicians like crisises the public can see them solving now, not future problems being averted.
Now onto California, how will the recall mess affect the Democratic primary battles. Well it'll divert attention from, that's good and bad for the candidates. Bad because it means they'll lack name recongition and media attention. Good because there will fewer sound bites of politicians taking unpoplar left wing positions to get some votes from pressure group.
Then there's Iraq, the new terrorism there is frightening. The murder of innocent civilians simply to prove to people that the terrorists have the power to kill. That's disgusting. Even worse is the sabotage of the country's infrastructure. This points to sophisticated sabotage carried out by somebody with some real military training and weaponry. WHo is it? Normal terrorists don't like sabotage they like flashy bombs that attract the TV cameras and pile up the dead bodies.So who's doing it one disgusting possibility is Saudi Arabia and other oil rich gulf states. These countries want the price of oil to remain high so they can make more money from oil sales. Cheap Iraqi crude threatens that so they have an incentive to engage in such sabotage. It would be easy for them to slip a few bucks to IRaqi terrorists and hire a few mercenaries to slip across into IRaq and commit acts of sabotage so the Iraqi terrorists will claim responsibility. THe mess in Iraq and the blackout show us something else in our modern world. It's hard to wage all out war, only really rich nations like America can do that but it's cheap and easy to wreck havoc. Any idiot can plant a bomb at a power plant and shut down a city. What happens if some group or government decides to target our infrastructure and shut it down? What then. It's impossible to protect it all. We're going to have to deal with this possibility now.

comments
Various Comments on the News
By Daniel G. Jennings
Saudi Arabia
The present controversy over the 28 pages censored from the official report on the 9/11 atrocity centers around information supposedly linking Saudi Arabia to the Al Queada terror network. A popular theory has it that Bush and others are covering this up because they don't want to offend Saudi Arabia our oil source.
If this is true, it justifies President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Saudi Arabia is unreliable and potentially a hotbed of terrorism we're going to need a new source of oil and soon. There's only one other potential source around: Iraq. Well now Iraq is now under our control so we will now have another source of oil.
Without another source of oil Bush couldn't come out and criticize Saudi Arabia because the Saudis could throw the world into chaos by cutting off the oil. Bush couldn't attack Saudi Arabia without provoking the Islamic world, after all it contains the holiest shrines of Islam. We also can't run the risk of King Fahd destroying the oil fields, my guess is the Saudi oil fields are rigged to blow or set up to blow fast. Meaning there's no way to move against Saudi Arabia without seeing the oil fields in flame.
So by demanding this data be made public the Democrats maybe justifying Bush's war when they want to criticize it.
There is a terrible after thought to this way of thinking, is Saudi Arabia or somebody in Saudi Arabia is behind the attacks on our forces in Iraq? The guerrillas are sabotaging the oil fields, who has the most to gain if the Iraq oil fields are kept out of production: Saudi Arabia. Frightening, isn't it.
Guerrillas in Iraq.
The guerrillas attacking the US in Iraq are perplexing, they appear to have no leader, no organization and no cause to fight for yet they are carrying out attacks on our forces that have dozens of Americans. Obviously somebody is organizing the guerrillas, who? Why?
Saddam Hussein is a suspect but does he have the expertise to do this? Is the man who couldn't defeat us with a massive army supposed to be organizing a guerrilla campaign capable of stopping us? Al Queada and Bin Laden are also likely suspects, they hate us and would love to establish a base or better yet a friendly regime in Iraq.
Syria is a possibility but a stronger possibility is Saudi Arabia which stands to loose if the Iraqi oilfields are reopened. Its oil prices will fall, worse, a democratic Iraq would undermine the sorry dictatorship in that nation.
Of course if there is no visible organization or individual behind these guerrilla attacks, these actions are meaningless. They are simply vicious and nasty little crimes. There is no moral dimension to these attacks beyond revenge, frustration and sheer anger. Without a moral dimension, a cause to fight for, a leader or symbol to rally around there is no way the Iraqi resistance can work.
Yes Saddam Hussein is still out there somewhere hiding in the desert but without his storm troopers and secret police force to terrorize his foes, Saddam is powerless. Every time he makes a pronouncement Saddam becomes more and more of a bad joke. Since he has to hide to avoid our forces Saddam can't come out and organize and direct his forces.
History teaches us that the successful guerrilla or resistance leader such as George Washington or Ho Chi Minh must operate openly to get publicity to remind the public that he is still in the fight. That he's still out there battling the enemy.
More importantly he must be able to openly and actively organize his forces and direct operations. The guerrilla leader must operate from a base or safe haven that the enemy can't touch. This can be a base in some remote region the enemy can't reach. such as George Washington's redoubt at Valley Forge or Mao's sanctuary in Yunan or in the territory of another nation, much as Charles De Gaulle used Great Britain as a base during World War II. Saddam has no such place he can go, the US can reach him anywhere in Iraq, and no other nation will take him in. Saddam must remain in hiding, he can stay on the run forever but he really can't do anything.
All Saddam can really do is pay Iraqis to set off bombs and kill Americans. Such activities kill good men and grab headlines but they don't win wars. Armies win wars, even in Vietnam, the Communists didn't win until they were able to come out of the shadows and fight as an army after the US had pulled out.
So I seriously doubt this guerrilla campaign in Iraq will do anything but get a lot of good people killed for no reason and make a lot of people miserable. Once the US restores Iraq's economy and gets effective Iraqi military, police and security forces up and running the guerrillas will melt away.
Gay Rights
Gay rights have been in the news a lot lately. The media has gone hysterical over the issue of gay marriage, the Supreme Court's wise and overdue decision to strike down silly and archaic laws banning Sodomy and the Episcopal Church's questionable decision to appoint an openly gay man as a bishop.
The truth of course is that this debate is a rather meaningless one, gays have always been free to live their lifestyle and practice their sexual preferences in America. There is no evidence that "gay rights" will improve the lifestyles of gay people or affect society in any way. Nor is there any evidence that gay rights will have any sort of impact on average Americans, family values or anything else negative or positive.
Instead this debate on gay rights serves to distract us from real issues affecting the nation, war, terrorism, healthcare, the export of American jobs overseas, Iraq, North Korea, taxes, national security. Issues that affect all Americans in very real ways.
To make matters worse, the gay rights debate seems to be promoting one of the things gay rights is ostensibly designed to stop homophobia the irrational fear of gay people. Many cultural conservatives now see gays as enemies to the family, the church, God, the flag, the country and everything that is good and decent. For the first time in human history homosexuals are seen as a threat to the average man.
Such hysteria can't be good, it will undoubtedly lead to gay bashing and persecution of gays or those branded gay by society. The gay rights movement, the media, cultural conservatives and politicians on both sides of the aisle will be equally to blame for this sorry state of affairs. They will have falsely portrayed a group of harmless people as a threat to the nation for cheap publicity and they will not suffer for it. Instead average Americans will suffer in dark alleys, lonely parking lots and on barbed wire fences. Some will be beaten, some will be killed, and many will loose jobs or homes because of this nonsense.
It is time that we all started working for the good of the country and stopped this silly gay rights debate before it is too late. If we don't, a lot of people are going to be sorry. People like Matthew Shepherd for if this gay rights debate continues we're going to have dozens of Matthew Shepherds, innocent young people killed over a meaningless issue.
However, I fear only in the future when the history books are written will we see gay rights as the meaningless issue it really it is. My guess, the historians of the future will rank the Americans who debated over gay rights with the Byzantine theologians who argued about the place of angels in Heaven while the Turks were outside the walls.

comments
Various Comments on the News
By Daniel G. Jennings
Saudi Arabia
The present controversy over the 28 pages censored from the official report on the 9/11 atrocity centers around information supposedly linking Saudi Arabia to the Al Queada terror network. A popular theory has it that Bush and others are covering this up because they don't want to offend Saudi Arabia our oil source.
If this is true, it justifies President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Saudi Arabia is unreliable and potentially a hotbed of terrorism we're going to need a new source of oil and soon. There's only one other potential source around: Iraq. Well now Iraq is now under our control so we will now have another source of oil.
Without another source of oil Bush couldn't come out and criticize Saudi Arabia because the Saudis could throw the world into chaos by cutting off the oil. Bush couldn't attack Saudi Arabia without provoking the Islamic world, after all it contains the holiest shrines of Islam. We also can't run the risk of King Fahd destroying the oil fields, my guess is the Saudi oil fields are rigged to blow or set up to blow fast. Meaning there's no way to move against Saudi Arabia without seeing the oil fields in flame.
So by demanding this data be made public the Democrats maybe justifying Bush's war when they want to criticize it.
There is a terrible after thought to this way of thinking, is Saudi Arabia or somebody in Saudi Arabia is behind the attacks on our forces in Iraq? The guerrillas are sabotaging the oil fields, who has the most to gain if the Iraq oil fields are kept out of production: Saudi Arabia. Frightening, isn't it.
Guerrillas in Iraq.
The guerrillas attacking the US in Iraq are perplexing, they appear to have no leader, no organization and no cause to fight for yet they are carrying out attacks on our forces that have dozens of Americans. Obviously somebody is organizing the guerrillas, who? Why?
Saddam Hussein is a suspect but does he have the expertise to do this? Is the man who couldn't defeat us with a massive army supposed to be organizing a guerrilla campaign capable of stopping us? Al Queada and Bin Laden are also likely suspects, they hate us and would love to establish a base or better yet a friendly regime in Iraq.
Syria is a possibility but a stronger possibility is Saudi Arabia which stands to loose if the Iraqi oilfields are reopened. Its oil prices will fall, worse, a democratic Iraq would undermine the sorry dictatorship in that nation.
Of course if there is no visible organization or individual behind these guerrilla attacks, these actions are meaningless. They are simply vicious and nasty little crimes. There is no moral dimension to these attacks beyond revenge, frustration and sheer anger. Without a moral dimension, a cause to fight for, a leader or symbol to rally around there is no way the Iraqi resistance can work.
Yes Saddam Hussein is still out there somewhere hiding in the desert but without his storm troopers and secret police force to terrorize his foes, Saddam is powerless. Every time he makes a pronouncement Saddam becomes more and more of a bad joke. Since he has to hide to avoid our forces Saddam can't come out and organize and direct his forces.
History teaches us that the successful guerrilla or resistance leader such as George Washington or Ho Chi Minh must operate openly to get publicity to remind the public that he is still in the fight. That he's still out there battling the enemy.
More importantly he must be able to openly and actively organize his forces and direct operations. The guerrilla leader must operate from a base or safe haven that the enemy can't touch. This can be a base in some remote region the enemy can't reach. such as George Washington's redoubt at Valley Forge or Mao's sanctuary in Yunan or in the territory of another nation, much as Charles De Gaulle used Great Britain as a base during World War II. Saddam has no such place he can go, the US can reach him anywhere in Iraq, and no other nation will take him in. Saddam must remain in hiding, he can stay on the run forever but he really can't do anything.
All Saddam can really do is pay Iraqis to set off bombs and kill Americans. Such activities kill good men and grab headlines but they don't win wars. Armies win wars, even in Vietnam, the Communists didn't win until they were able to come out of the shadows and fight as an army after the US had pulled out.
So I seriously doubt this guerrilla campaign in Iraq will do anything but get a lot of good people killed for no reason and make a lot of people miserable. Once the US restores Iraq's economy and gets effective Iraqi military, police and security forces up and running the guerrillas will melt away.
Gay Rights
Gay rights have been in the news a lot lately. The media has gone hysterical over the issue of gay marriage, the Supreme Court's wise and overdue decision to strike down silly and archaic laws banning Sodomy and the Episcopal Church's questionable decision to appoint an openly gay man as a bishop.
The truth of course is that this debate is a rather meaningless one, gays have always been free to live their lifestyle and practice their sexual preferences in America. There is no evidence that "gay rights" will improve the lifestyles of gay people or affect society in any way. Nor is there any evidence that gay rights will have any sort of impact on average Americans, family values or anything else negative or positive.
Instead this debate on gay rights serves to distract us from real issues affecting the nation, war, terrorism, healthcare, the export of American jobs overseas, Iraq, North Korea, taxes, national security. Issues that affect all Americans in very real ways.
To make matters worse, the gay rights debate seems to be promoting one of the things gay rights is ostensibly designed to stop homophobia the irrational fear of gay people. Many cultural conservatives now see gays as enemies to the family, the church, God, the flag, the country and everything that is good and decent. For the first time in human history homosexuals are seen as a threat to the average man.
Such hysteria can't be good, it will undoubtedly lead to gay bashing and persecution of gays or those branded gay by society. The gay rights movement, the media, cultural conservatives and politicians on both sides of the aisle will be equally to blame for this sorry state of affairs. They will have falsely portrayed a group of harmless people as a threat to the nation for cheap publicity and they will not suffer for it. Instead average Americans will suffer in dark alleys, lonely parking lots and on barbed wire fences. Some will be beaten, some will be killed, and many will loose jobs or homes because of this nonsense.
It is time that we all started working for the good of the country and stopped this silly gay rights debate before it is too late. If we don't, a lot of people are going to be sorry. People like Matthew Shepherd for if this gay rights debate continues we're going to have dozens of Matthew Shepherds, innocent young people killed over a meaningless issue.
However, I fear only in the future when the history books are written will we see gay rights as the meaningless issue it really it is. My guess, the historians of the future will rank the Americans who debated over gay rights with the Byzantine theologians who argued about the place of angels in Heaven while the Turks were outside the walls.

Another reason for the war
The present controversy over the 28 pages censored from the official report on the 9/11 atrocity centers around information supposedly linking Saudi Arabia to the Al Queada terror network. A popular theory has it that Bush and others are covering this up because they don't want to offend Saudi Arabia our oil source.
If this is true, it justifies President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Saudi Arabia is unreliable and potentially a hotbed of terrorism we're going to need a new source of oil and soon. There's only one other potential source around: Iraq. Well now Iraq is now under our control so we will now have another source of oil.
So by demanding this data be made public the Democrats maybe justifying Bush's war when they wnat to criticize it.

crime
America's Obsession With Crimes
By Daniel G. Jennings
America it seems is obsessed with sordid but spectacular crimes, the Lacy Peterson Case, the Kobe Bryant affair, the Robert Blake case and a dozen lesser dramas fill our TV screens and newspapers. Often crowding out more serious and more dramatic news stories like the war in Iraq, the crisis in North Korea and the war on terror.
Why are Americans so obsessed with kidnaps, murderers and other such crimes when our country and world face some of the greatest crises in history? Events far more dramatic than the crimes we see on the news.
The answer is a simple one, the cases the media focuses upon involve simple everyday crimes. Acts of one on one violence, everyday evils that we can all understand, deal with and relate to. The kidnaping and murder of a wife by her husband is something we can understand even if it horrifies us. Ditto for the rape or attempted rape of a pretty young woman by a famous basketball player in a hotel room.
These evils are personalized, localized and simple. They can be easily understood and easily contained and dealt with by the police and the courts. There's no chance of Scott Peterson or Kobe Bryant or any of their ilk harming average Americans.
This is in stark contrast to the monstrosities that lurk beyond America's shores. Take Bin Laden and his Al Queda a group of fanatics that hates America so much they want to kill Americans, they're willing to die so, worse they're clever enough to figure out how to use everyday objects to kill thousands of Americans. They brought down two of the biggest buildings in our biggest city and killed three thousand people in the process.
And we all know that Bin Laden is only the tip of the iceberg there are dozens of other terrorist groups and terrorist masterminds all dreaming of repeating or topping the atrocities of Sept. 11. Some of these groups, including Al Queada are trying to get their hands on chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. We were already attacked with anthrax in fall of 2001.
If terrorism wasn't bad enough there's the so-called rogue states and their monstrous leaders. Saddam Hussein who is willing to turn his own nation into a battleground to keep himself in power. Kim Po Yi of North Korea who is willing to starve his own people to death rather than relinquish power. Not to mention the potential crisis in Africa where people are starving and human rights are a thing of the past .
Nor are terrorism and dictators the only manmade horrors we might face. There's the environmental crisis global warming which could trigger catastrophic climate changes and terrible disasters. The depletion of the oil reserves which could lead to a world wide energy crisis.
Compared to these crises the murders on TV seem tame and civilized. Perhaps that is why we're so obsessed with those cases. They have a tinge of nostalgia to them, they remind us of an earlier and simpler time when the main violence we had to worry about was the thug waiting to mug us in the alley. When we didn't have to worry about some fanatic fighting for a cause or a faith we barely understand plunging a plane into our city. Or a madman out of a James Bond movie setting off a nuclear bomb in your hometown.
There is a historical precedent to this obsession with crime. In the years before World War I, when Europe was moving towards self destruction, the British newspapers were filled with stories about murder and murderers. Murderers such as Dr. Crippen who had killed his wife and buried her in the basement. Then ran away to America with his mistress in tow disguised as a boy. Such grisly affairs kept the British public's minds off the naval arms raise, the growing military might of Germany and the tensions on the European continent.
So perhaps the obsession with crime is a typical human response to times that are as complex as they are frightening. Hopefully we can get over this obsession and start setting our minds to solving the world's problems or at least thinking about them.

dumbocrats
Mood:  accident prone
Are the Democrats Playing Right Into Bush's Hands??
By Daniel G. Jennings
The Democrats it seem are playing right into President Bush's hands. They appear to be doing everything in their power to destroy whatever chances they have of winning the White House or regaining control of Congress in 2004 with the stupidest set of political moves I've seen in a long time.
First there is the political witch hunt and smear campaign being waged over the 16 words in the State of the Union message and the whole Iraq War. The Democrats are staging a major attempt to destroy the President based on the flimsiest of premises the 16 words in the state of the Union message. Never mind the fact that British intelligence is standing by its conclusion that Saddam tried to import uranium from the African nation of Niger or the lack of any evidence disproving these claims. The Democrats base their whole case on a former ambassador who flew to Niger and asked local officials (presumably the same people taking Saddam's money) if the claims were true. An individual who is now behaving like a Democratic party activist.
The effect of the political witch hunt the Democrats stage over this issue will be to destroy themselves. The public supports the war and sees Bush as the good guy. They'll see Bush as the hero, a decent patriotic man trying to defend the country and the Democrats as a bunch of arrogant witch hunters. They'll also conclude rightly that the whole thing is an attempt to pay the Republicans back for trying to impeach Clinton over Monica. Trying to sabotage the war effort and smear the President while American soldiers are fighting in Iraq won't sit well with the public.
Then there's the war, Bush has certainly accomplished a lot. He's removed one of the most oppressive and murderous regimes on Earth from power, ended Iraqi attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, secured our oil supply and the Middle East peace. Now we are predictably faced with a guerrilla campaign that will cost some American lives. Democratic politicians who make an issue of the body bags will seem like ghouls profiting from death and suffering not high minded moralists.
The left has concluded that a few terrorist attacks are a second Vietnam War. I don't see the kind of massive guerrilla armies America faced in Vietnam. Do the Iraqi guerrillas have the government and infrastructure of an entire country to back them up as the Vietnamese communists did? Do they have the support of a super power willing to supply them with arms and financing as the Vietnamese communists did? No, they don't.
There's no way the Iraqi guerrillas can stand up to our military might or stage massive attacks on us. After a few months their campaign will sputter out, their supply of rocket propelled grenades will run out, their leaders will get captured or killed and Iraq will quiet down. The electricity will come back on, the oil will start flowing and the economy will start functioning.
Without large numbers of American casualties and the fear of a draft, the war will not be a serious political issue here at home. Any time and efforts the Democrats spend opposing it will be wasted. Many people will conclude the Democrats are protecting terrorists.
At home there are the silly social issues, gay rights in particular, an issue that only matters to the religious right and gays themselves. The vast Americans don't give a damn about gay rights and those that do think about it oppose it. This includes many working class voters who have religious rejections to gay marriage. Harping on gay rights will drive away many traditionally Democratic voters and do little to promote the party's image.
Finally there's the tilt to the left, as evidenced by the success of Howard Dean. Dean, the former governor of Vermont is vocally ant-war, (although he's conceded that the occupation of Iraq won't end anytime soon) and a staunch gay rights activist. Dean is getting lots of media attention and raising lots of cash even though he seems like the poorest choice for the Democrats in 2004. Pundits have already dubbed him McGovern II, a candidate so left wing he doesn't stand a chance.
We see how the Democrats are dooming themselves, but the question remains can they win in 2004? Yes, if they forget about the war and gay rights and concentrate on meat and potatoes economic issues. Healthcare, overtime pay, daycare, etc, things average Americans care about they stand a chance.
If the Democrats would spend as much time and effort opposing the recent overtime pay reforms (which essentially end overtime for the Middle Class). They would be seen as the champion of the little guy rather than the pets of the arrogant elite. If they'd keep pushing for real health care reform, and more money for things like education they'd get popular support. If a Democrat would have the guts to stand up and say I will try to build a national high speed rail system or come out in favor of mass transit the public would go for it.
The problem is this isn't going to happen. The peace movement and the single issue social activists have gotten control of the Democratic Party and would rather go down with the ship than steer a new course. My guess is the Democrats will have to crash and burn in 2004, before they figure out how to start winning elections again.