HAPPY HALLOWEEN FROM

LOWDOWN CENTRAL

 

By Rose Pedenko

Recently, I found myself at a Hollywood party, surrounded, as is often the case, with mental Munchkins. All chattered about the former Wicked Witch of the West Wing, and whether she would be the first woman President. Inevitably, the conversation took another left turn to our fearless leader. After all, he is to blame for everything bad that happens, including the cheap wine, rancid cheese and stale crackers at the party.

When I grew bored with biting my tongue, I asked if they voted, or would vote in the upcoming election. Faster than you could say Chappaquiddick, the Lollipop Kids said, “I don’t like either candidate,” “All politicians are crooks,” or “What for? Nothing ever changes anyway.” To which I replied, “You mean, if you don’t vote, they will disappear?”

I call them the Non-Voters from Oz.

In Oz, non-voters cede responsibility for where the electorate takes them. What they apparently fail to grasp is losing the right to complain.

Coincidentally, these are usually the same people not prepared for emergencies. They believe everyone that is disaster-ready will somehow manage to take care of them too. We were reminded of these Cowardly Lions during Katrina. No amount of relief will ever be enough for those that leave personal responsibility to others. As citizens of Oz, they will not be swept up by the issues of the day, or the issues at hand, because they do not vote. But their complaints are loud and clear on the 6:00 News. They didn’t vote for Governor Napolitano, they didn’t vote for George Bush—hence, no responsibility for where the hurricanes or tornados take them.

Their Hearts are wrapped up in themselves, their Courage provided by an armed forces they believe is uneducated fodder, and their Brains devoid of common sense--or no brains at all. Their concept of good government is a Clintonian Wizard, his wife, the Wicked Witch, and a Congress full of liberal monkeys. In their parallel universe, the Little People, with little voices matter not, so they don’t vote. Six years later, they still pine for the Wizard of Arkansas, and continue bemoaning two stolen elections. Had they voted, like Republicans did, Tin Man Gore would have been president.

If they click their heels together and repeat ‘There’s no place like Hope (Arkansas)” often enough, they’ll figure out there never was.

Most Republicans vote religiously. But this election, our greatest fear is they might join the Non-Voters from Oz. They have been swept up by the Foley tornado, disappointment over out-of-control spending, and illegal immigration. But that is not the Republican way. We make our own Rainbows.

VOTE Tuesday, November 7.

 

By  Simon Pedenko

Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try.

These lyrics, by the late John Lennon, are about a world he envisioned where people lived in harmony, peace, and love. Coincidentally, the social revolution in the sixties saw a parallel movement advanced by the Chicano Youth Liberation toward the end of that decade. One such student movement was named MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, the "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan"). 

Today in America, particularly in the southwest, that harmony has been replaced with discord, friction, and cries of "Reconquista!" (re-conquest). For those not familiar with the term and how it should be correctly applied, we offer a brief description of its origins.

Beginning in 722 and ending in 1492, the Reconquista was the method by which the Christian Kingdoms of Hispania (today's Portugal and Spain) crushed and excluded the Muslims and Moors at Al-Andalus, in the south, which ended 800 years of Moorish rule.

Just as with the word jihad, which is being misused by Islamic terrorists, so is Reconquista being misused. It is fast becoming a battle cry for illegal immigrants from Mexico.

"Reconquista" has become the manifesto of its activist leaders in Los Angeles, such as Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party. It was he who declared that Proposition "187 was the last gasp of white America in California." That 1994 ballot initiative was designed to deny social services, health care and public education to illegal immigrants. It passed with nearly 60% of the vote and became law, but was overturned by our liberal federal court. Additionally, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are among the vast south wing conspiracy of Reconquistadors. California government now reads like a Who's Who of present or former MEChA members who have successfully infiltrated all levels of power in the state.

MEChA's goal is this: to re-colonize America and make Los Angeles the capital of their mythic land--Aztlan. In spite of the fact California was a colony of the Spanish crown, Los Angeles has been chosen as the capital of Aztlan for its convenience. Hey, they're already here, and have announced, "legal or not, we are staying."

It is this expedient rewriting of Mexican history that causes us to postulate:

What is Aztlan without Americans?

Imagine for a moment, if we could return Los Angeles to the desert pueblo it once was as their newly claimed capital. The infrastructure would vanish: no highways, no freeways, no irrigation, or sanitation. There would be no seaports, airports, or factories. Not even a Starbucks in sight. They would be left with adobe brick dwellings, surrounded by barren wasteland, brushfire-prone mountains, landslide-riddled canyons, coyotes, jackrabbits and rattlesnakes. Oh wait, that's Mexico.

Conquest of foreign lands is not a uniquely American endeavor. It has occurred throughout ancient and modern history. We all know the clarion call after each bloody war: "to the victor belong the spoils." What that means: the new Reconquistadors are laying claim to the bounty of over 100 years of American enterprise without firing a shot. They are doing this not only on the backs of Yankee ingenuity, but on the backs of their own ancestors who came here legally and assimilated.

If U.S. citizens do nothing to halt the current and future "illegal" immigration, those spoils will not be just a mythic Aztlan, they will come fully furnished with American blood, sweat and tears.

No matter how disappointed you are in this administration and the direction the country is going, do not lose sight of the horrific alternative:

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi



President Hillary Clinton



As long as the republican party is in control we can turn it around. We have a shot of eventually getting someone in that will listen to his base.  If we sit out this election or switch parties to teach our elected officials a lesson, we all lose.  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face--if you are going to let the Democrats waltz in the back door, you might as well cut off your whole head!

Message for No. Korea and Iran:



Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.  It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

 

by Lance Thompson

Since the toppling of Saddam’s statue, critics of the Iraq War have been trying to draw comparisons between the present conflict and Vietnam. The Left’s frame of reference is the Vietnam era–the war was bad, the president was corrupt, sex was inconsequential and Europe was a place kids went before college instead of where Muslims went before jihad. But a recent poll indicates that most Americans have left the Left and the 70's behind.

As reported in the 30 October issue of US News & World Report, the annual poll on leadership conducted for that magazine and Harvard University asked, "How much confidence do you have in the leadership" of various institutions. The responses were truly astounding and immensely encouraging.

The New York Times ran thirty-two consecutive front-page stories on the Abu Ghraib military prison. None were complimentary. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said of Abu Ghraib, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

Amnesty International called the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay the "gulag of our time."

On "Face the Nation," John Kerry said of our troops in Iraq, "There is no reason...that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

The British medical journal Lancet published a report claiming 655,000 Iraqis have died since the American invasion.

In spite of all these self-righteous accusations, castigations and aspersions, the institution’s leaders who inspire the greatest confidence in Americans are those of the United States armed forces. Inspiring less confidence than military leaders, in descending order, are members of the medical profession, nonprofit and charity leaders, educators, religious leaders, local and state government, business leaders, Congress, the executive branch and, lowest on the list, the press.

During Vietnam, frustration and anger over the war manifested itself in violent protests against institutions at home and soldiers returning from the front. There were no "Support the Troops" bumper stickers and magnetized bows. A soldier stepping off the plane in uniform could expect anything from cold glares to verbal abuse. He could expect to see the flag he fought for desecrated. He could expect to be spit upon by the citizens of the country he risked his life to defend. The military was the butt of jokes, the scapegoat for failed policy, unappreciated and disdained.

Like Vietnam, the Iraq war is unpopular. Daily casualties are brought to us 24/7, with an immediacy that was never dreamed of during Vietnam. Our enemies and detractors have their own media outlets, and many are given air time on this country’s major networks or interviews in national publications. No American war has been covered more extensively and critically than this one.

Yet the American people are smart enough that they do not blame the military. No other institution inspires greater confidence and trust. The policy may not be popular, the cost may be increasingly painful, but Americans still believe in the men and women who defend us. We believe in them more than those who educate our children, treat our illnesses, run our government, or guide us in our faiths. And we believe in them much more than those ceaseless voices of criticism and fault-finding in the media who once were the conscience of our nation. The military, as it has since this country’s inception, has proved its character in the blazing crucible of war. By placing their trust and confidence in military leaders, the American people have shown they’ve matured since Vietnam. At least, some of us have.

 

by Lance Thompson

The Mark Foley scandal reversed the momentum of the 2006 campaign. Most blameworthy are Republicans who ran away from the fight they could have won, and thus surrendered the initiative to the Democrats.

Analysts believe that the revelation of Florida Congressman Foley’s obscene e-mails to an 18 year-old congressional page did substantial damage to the Republicans. The argument is that the Republicans, who make "family values" a pillar of their campaigns, are hypocrites because they kept Foley in the House even though they knew he was sexually attracted to young men.

For that argument to be persuasive, it implies a further assumption: the sexual deviations of a congressman can only soil his party’s image if his party supports family values. Otherwise, the late Gerry Studs, a Democrat congressman from Massachusetts who openly carried on a homosexual affair with a 17 year-old page, defended the practice, and was subsequently re-elected several times, should have done irreparable damage to his party. But he did not. Democrat leaders praised him, supported him, and eulogized him as a hero of gay rights. So the Democrats support, endorse and encourage homosexual relations between a member of congress and a 17 year-old page. But they condemn smutty e-mails and text messages between Mark Foley and an 18 year-old page. (It has not been shown that Foley had any sort of physical relationship with the page in question.)

So Foley is a Republican with homosexual urges. But there are many gay Republicans, including the conservative gay group, the Log Cabin Republicans. Republicans don’t exclude homosexuals. They don’t support changing the definition of marriage to include gay weddings, but gay men and women are welcome in the GOP. In fact, the chief criticism of House Speaker Dennis Hastert is basically that he tolerated Foley’s homosexuality. Republican leadership tolerates homosexuals, the Democrats charge. If Hastert was a Democrat, he could run on that issue alone and win.

But Foley is a hypocrite, Democrats argue. He’s a homosexual man, yet he sponsored legislation to ban child pornography and ban web sites that feature child erotica. First, there is no evidence that child pornography appeals more to gay than straight men. What is clear is that Mark Foley drafted and passed legislation that punished the child porn industry. Was this an attempt to conceal his preferences, a Freudian compulsion to punish his own uncontrollable urges, a cheap political ploy to garner support from conservative voters? We can’t possibly know, but let’s assume the worst. Let’s stipulate that he was motivated by one of those unworthy considerations, and not a genuine concern to protect children and do the right thing. Do his reasons make the legislation any less effective? Of course not. Banning child pornography is widely accepted as a positive societal value, even by Democrats. But Foley is criticized for making it possible.

Now the Democrats may deny that they encourage homosexual behavior. They may say that their family values are just as strong as those of Republicans, they just don’t emphasize family values in their platform, in their campaigns, or in their appeals for support. My question is, why not? If family values are important to a party, why not emphasize them, stand behind them, support them and fight for them? If the Democrats really support family values, let them stand up and announce the fact.

If they do not support family values, let them say so. Let them explain how the Democrat pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay rights positions are part of their family values. And while they’re at it, while they’re talking about gay rights, let them explain why those rights don’t extend to Mark Foley.

Commentators much smarter than I, such as Dennis Prager and Ann Coulter, have pointed out that liberals don’t have arguments as much as single phrase hot buttons–Halliburton, No WMD’s, Bush Lied, Mark Foley. They shake these liberal talismans in front of the party faithful, work them into bumper stickers and chants and sound bites, all to conjure a cloudburst of support and contributions. But conservatives should realize that these talismans only have the power we afford them. When the Democrats wave Mark Foley at us, expecting us to run and hide like primitive people frightened by the antics of a medicine man, we should remember that it’s simply a magic charm meant to frighten us. There is no argument behind the mask of the shaman. We should stand our grand, argue on the merits, and see the debate through.

Mark Foley’s transgressions amount to dirty notes in the ether. Compare this to Foley’s important legislation to protect children and punish pornographers, not to mention his sponsorship of laws allowing for background checks for youth leaders, restitution for Holocaust victims, and preservation of the Everglades. When his transgressions became public, Foley resigned rather than bring further discredit on his party. If Republicans choose to run away from that record, then we deserve to lose.

by Lance Thompson

An unprecedented event interrupted a recent evening-I was telephoned by a pollster. I spent twenty minutes answering a series of multiple choice questions to gauge my opinion. When it was over, I don't believe the results reflected my opinions at all.

One of the first questions was, "Is the country headed in the right or wrong
direction?" I believe it's headed in the wrong direction because Republicans have spent too much and allowed the federal government to expand. But I also believe it's headed in the wrong direction because the Democrats undermine our national security, don't support our troops, want to raise our taxes and can't wait to impeach the President. I prefer the faults of Republicans to those of Democrats, but since Republicans are the majority party in both houses of Congress, my "Wrong" response will be an indication that I prefer the Democrats.

"Who's most to blame for the nation's troubles?" Again, Republicans are most to blame because they hold the White House and Congress. Whatever is wrong with the country, they have to take more responsibility. But they are also responsible for lower taxes, the war against terrorists, and two new Supreme Court judges. The pollster didn't ask, "Who do you credit for the robust economy, the fact that we haven't suffered a major terrorist attack since 9/11, or Saddam Hussein's lifelong role on Court TV International?" But the
only response that will show up is that I blame the Republicans for the problems we're having. Again, the Democrats will get the benefit.

"Who's to blame for lack of affordable housing-Federal, State or Local government?" I could also answer that "It's not a problem." I know there is a local lack of affordable housing, but there are places all over the country where housing is very affordable--Texas, West Virginia, Kansas, Iowa to name just a few. There are many regions where housing is priced beyond most people. That is a problem. But the question assumes that the government is at fault, and further, that the government can do something about it. I believe the market will control housing prices, as is evidenced by declining sales and prices in many overheated markets. But since affordable housing is a problem in some areas, I can't say it's not a problem. So I must choose some level of government to blame. If Republicans hold a majority of federal and state offices, any answer will be interpreted as an indictment of Republicans. But that is not what I believe at all.

"Will you and your family be better off in five years?" I usually say yes to this, but this time I couldn't. I'm sure we'll have another terrorist attack in five years, probably something bigger than 9/11. It's unlikely that we'll control illegal immigration in five years. Democrats pilloried Bush when he tried to alter Social Security to reflect fiscal realities, so that time bomb is running out of fuse. Pollsters tell us Democrats are poised to take
over Congress, so they'll have two years to screw up the next three. So no, I don't think things are going to be better in five years' time. But my pessimism, which is based on my dim view of Democrat goals, will be used to deprecate the GOP.

Poll taking is depicted as an exact science, usually by pollsters. But framing the questions, limiting the options for answers, and interpreting the meaning of the responses seems much more similar to reading tea leaves. If you want to know what pollsters think, read the polls. If you want to know who's going to win in November, you'd be better off consulting a reputable astrologer.

 Our writers unsheathe their poison pens.

By Rose Pedenko

By now, a great many people are familiar with the sound of my tapping foot. Yes, the tapping is semi-rude, but I try to throw in an extra beat now and again as a diversionary tactic. The first time I noticed the involuntary tapping was in a long grocery line. As the third person in the queue, standing behind the conveyer belt afforded me the opportunity to fling that handy separating baton at the woman in front of the cashier. But I restrained myself. And what, you might ask, would inspire this penchant for violence?

She opened her deep environmentally-correct shopping bag and proceeded to dig around for a checkbook. Why didn’t she have it out and ready 10 minutes ago, I muttered. Did she just now realize she had to pay for her food?

The man in front of me turned, rolled his eyes, and sighed like Al Gore.

Woman-with-No-Place-to-Go (her new Indian name) began digging through her bag again. She withdrew a crinkled envelope brimming with food coupons. While they had been neatly sorted with paperclips, she now had to find the right bundle and just the right clipping. You’ve met them before, haven’t you? Her husband, Man-With-Time-on-His Hands, was standing in front of you at the ATM yesterday.

Just before she uncorked my last nerve, the dreaded words blared over the loudspeaker: “Price check on 3.” Good thing that baton was rubber.

by Lance Thompson

Politicians wishing to add legitimacy to positions that enjoy minimal support always invoke the mantra of "the American people." Politicians believe the phrase "the American people" renders their pronouncements unassailable. "The American people want state of the art infrastructure," so we fund a bridge to nowhere. "The American people deserve the truth," so we spend $200 million on a special prosecutor. "The American people need a change," so vote for me.

Framing statements with "the American people" suggests that the speaker represents the interests of every citizen of the country (and a few million gate-crashers as well). In fact, the speaker represents at most only one of 50 states (or one district out of many in a state). He doesn’t even represent the whole state, only voters in that state. And unless he received 100% of the vote, he speaks for only a majority (or even a plurality) of those voters. This minuscule fraction of the electorate is not the image that the all-encompassing "the American people" brings to mind.

So next time you hear "The American people," substitute the following phrase: "The tiny fraction of voters gullible enough to elect me based on the slanderous television ads their contributions made possible..." And translate "want," "need," or "deserve" into "will never miss the $1.2 billion it will cost to acquire..." Of course, whatever entitlement program, technological wonder, civic improvement, or public edifice the politician is selling does eventually touch all of "the American people." Because we all share the bill.

by Tanya Simon

I'm a quiet and engaging person. I like solemnity and calmness. These states of well-being were attainable once, at any time of day or night. I could reach into my inner self and think. Actually ponder life and love without the obtuse distractions of those wretched CELLULAR PHONE USERS. [Cue organ music]

Quietude has become this millennium's Tyrannosaurus Rex. With the advent of these and other electronic contraptions, the number of ways in which I can be aurally assaulted has multiplied.

In supermarkets: "How much should I get? Do you WANT broccoli or cauliflower?" Don't shoppers make lists anymore? As my teeth grind, I imagine how much damage I can inflict as I bounce a head of cabbage in my hand. Cabbage? Where's the kimchee when you need it.

At gas station pumps: "So I was talking to my agent..."

Or newsstands: "I left you a message earlier and thought I'd try again before I get home, which is in about 2 minutes." She couldn't wait two minutes??

Mothers with their strollers really knock me dead. The kid is wailing and thrashing, as mom blindly chatters into "the thing" tucked between her ear and shoulder.

Elevators: "Hello? HELLO?!"—and they keep talking without a signal.

The noise emanating from cell phone users is obnoxious and annoying. From what I hear day in and day out, it's also unnecessary 95% of the call time. How else do you explain how we got along with out these appendages the last couple hundred years.

Next time, before you reach for that cell phone, grab a lollipop instead. It's tastier, more fulfilling, and a heck of a lot quieter.

Next stop, loud sucking noises.

By Anthony Ragan

Me: "So, what'd you think of old Kim Jong Il announcing to the world that he's not only a psychopath, but a nuclear-armed psychopath?"

Friend: [Sounds of barely intelligible words from a very intelligent man, forever lost in a morass of chewed fried rice and masticated orange chicken, all lubricated with swirling Diet Coke.]

Me: "You don't say?"

So, what is it with otherwise cultured, intelligent, attractive people that, when they eat, they become human garbage disposals? Chewing with mouths open, talking through the pre-digested cud, apparently so anxious to show us the glory of their food that, like a man in a bathroom, they can't close the lid?

Really. Is what anyone has to say so important that he or she can't take a few moments to chew and swallow before unleashing their wisdom on the world? Do I really need to be fending off flying bits of bleu cheese while you're telling of the danger posed by North Korean missiles?

I might expect this behavior from someone raised underneath a single-wide, but the world's elite proudly show off their chewed food, too. Just a few months ago, President Bush told Tony Blair over dinner that Syria needed to tell "Hezbullah to stop this sh*t." What shocked the Prime Minister I'm sure was not the President's language, but the crumbs of dinner roll headed his way.

So, please be kind to whomever you're sharing a meal with: shut your mouth.

 

by Lance Thompson

"It’s a lousy war, kid. But it’s the only one we’ve got."

James Cagney as Captain Flagg

What Price Glory, 1952

written by Henry and Phoebe Ephron, based on the play by Maxwell Anderson and Laurence Stallings

Pollsters and those who exploit their findings tell us lately that most Americans no longer support the war in Iraq. At one time, however, a majority of Americans did. What changed their minds?

Americans have heard critics of the war chanting "no WMD" since a few weeks after the fall of Saddam Hussein. It’s true that the small portion of Iraq’s 167,400 square miles able to be searched by our forces, when they weren’t fighting insurgents and rebuilding the country, yielded no poison-gas filled artillery shells stacked next to howitzers, no anthrax vials loaded on fueled rockets, no nuclear weapons tethered to the ordnance racks of Iraqi planes. But Saddam Hussein had used biological warfare against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. He murdered his own son-in-law for revealing to the world that Iraq had sought the technology and materials for nuclear weapons and had nuclear weapons specialists working under government contract. To really believe that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, one must also believe that Saddam had given up all interest in obtaining the most powerful weapons he could, and was willing to stand idly by, content with his conventional arsenal, as arch-enemy Iran joined the nuclear club. Otherwise, it is evident that Saddam’s WMD’s, which had been used, documented and catalogued by inspectors, were either transported out of the country or remain hidden in Iraq’s vast wasteland.

News reports abut the Iraq war vary in accuracy and fairness, but one aspect is always recounted, even in one-line news summary updates. American casualties are scrupulously recorded and reported. If there is no time to mention a new hospital built by navy Seabees or an Iraqi military unit capturing a terrorist leader, there is always time to say, "Four Americans killed today in Basra." Imagine if the media kept us informed about any other enterprise by tabulating its cost. "The fight against cancer devoured another $6.3 million this week." "School buses burned 85,000 gallons of precious fuel this morning." "Hospitals consumed 13,000 pints of human blood over the holiday weekend." If only costs are reported, and accomplishments left unmentioned, there is no endeavor on earth that could sustain widespread support.

Many Americans are discouraged by reports of sectarian strife in this fledgling democracy. Differences between leaders of the original thirteen colonies of this country required years of debate and compromise before they could hammer out the Constitution. Iraqis have given their lives to vote in free elections, to join the new army and police forces, and to provide vital information that allows allied forces to locate and kill terrorists. The Iraqi people are not a homogenous group, and the various factions harbor suspicion, mistrust and age-old prejudices, but they are attempting to forge a coalition government. Did we expect Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis to suddenly forget their differences and live in instant harmony, like the Brady Bunch?

So the news is bad, the justification is misty, the prognosis discouraging. But the truth is, if there were no war in Iraq, we’d be wishing for one. Imagine if, after 9/11, the Bush administration treated the attack as a crime rather than as an act of war, as the Clinton administration did. We’d step up security here, tighten regulations there, follow the endless political finger-pointing in the press. Maybe we would have rounded up a few co-conspirators, put them on trial, covered the proceedings 24/7. Cable news would televise their lawyers’ talking points, interview the most agitated Islamist protestors, detail every threat and pronouncement from their fellow terrorists. The case would dominate the news for a while, then it would fade into the background media noise until supplanted by a celebrity murder or unsolved coed disappearance. The sense of outrage, shared tragedy, and demand for retribution would dissipate, as it did after the first World Trade Center attack, after the Khobar Towers, after the embassy bombings, after the USS Cole.

But as each attack raised the bar on human cost, the American capacity to absorb a body blow and get on with life would be eroded. We would slowly realize we can’t go on like this, can’t shrug off increasingly serious attacks, like King Kong swatting at the circling planes. No matter which party was in power, the people would realize we can’t wait till the next strike, because the next one is going to be bigger and maybe even fatal.

We would wish there was some way to find where the terrorists hide, where they make their plans, train their suicidal minions and draw their support and supplies. We would wish we could send our military, the mightiest on earth, to such a place to hit them before they could strike again. We would wish we could confront them on the battlefield in their territory instead of on our airliners, in our office buildings, or under our own roofs.

That situation we would wish for is Iraq. It is the battlefield where our military is fighting and killing terrorists every day. They may be Saddam loyalists, Iranian terrorists, al Qaeda party crashers, or some fringe group not yet on the radar, but they are all drawn to Iraq to fight the United States. The cost is heavy to our country. Our wars always claim the most courageous, the most inspired, the most selfless Americans. Despite that high cost, our troops are killing our enemies, gathering intelligence on their operations, and gaining insight on how to fight this barbarous foe. Our enemies know, whether the majority of Americans agree or not, that this is a crucial war and its conclusion will alter history. Neither side planned on Iraq being the central front of the war for Civilization, but that’s where the fighting is now. For us and our enemies, it’s a lousy war, but it’s the only one we’ve got.

 

by Lance Thompson

Political dynasties are new to America, John Adams and John Quincy Adams aside. In this country, anyone is supposed to be able to grow up to be president. Implicit in that belief is that a president should be a grown-up, but that requirement has obviously been waived on numerous occasions.

We have always had inherited wealth–the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the Astors, not to mention the families John Kerry selects his wives from. But unlike wealth, political success usually can’t be passed down, with two notable exceptions–the Kennedys and the Bushes.

The Kennedy and Bush families are American political dynasties. Patriarch Joseph Kennedy’s political zenith was as ambassador to England during the early dark days of World War II, when he advised FDR to abandon Churchill and make a deal with Hitler. His four sons established the Kennedy dynasty. Joe, the eldest and his father’s favorite, was a navy pilot who was blown out of the sky on a secret mission. John, after becoming the only WW II skipper to command a US Navy surface vessel rammed and sunk by an enemy warship, rode his war record to three terms in Congress, won two consecutive Senate races, and was elected president in 1960. He was killed by an assassin in 1963. His brother Robert, whom John appointed attorney general, later won the New York senate seat before his own bid for the presidential nomination, which also ended with an assassin’s bullet. Edward, Massachusetts senator since 1962, saw higher aspirations dashed in 1969 when he left the scene of a one-car fatal accident in which he was the driver.

Under patriarch Senator Prescott Bush, the Republican political dynasty boasts more chief executive time. Prescott’s son George H.W. was head of the CIA, ambassador to China, head of the RNC, and served two terms as vice president before being elected President in 1988. George H.W.’s two sons were both governors of large Southern States (Jeb in Florida and George W. In Texas). George W. went on to be elected to two terms as president, establishing the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidential rhythm.

Hillary Clinton hopes the beat goes on. But her version of a political dynasty isn’t inter-generational as much as inter-spousal. Bill Clinton is the biggest star the Democrats have, and not only because of weak competition. He’s the first full two-term Democrat president since FDR. He served six terms as Arkansas governor and still enjoys great popularity in his party.

Hillary has worked mightily to transfer the name recognition from her polarizing years as First Lady to national attention as a Senator. In this, she has been highly successful. But the problem with inter-spousal dynasties is that there is no vertical plan of succession. Daughter Chelsea has the poise, intelligence and family connections to seek political office, but many children disdain the family business, even if it is politics. With eight years of inside information on the Clinton administration, she might decide to write a "Mommie and Daddie Dearest" tell-all book and launch a career as an investigative reporter on Fox.

Different as they are, the Kennedys and Bushes share the old-school tradition of grooming the next generation for politics and public service. Both clans had strong, traditional women at their centers–Rose, Joseph’s wife; and Barbara, first lady to George H. W. By contrast, the Clintons are baby boomer yuppies turned politicos. They have a daughter, but their focus is on their own political careers. They came of age in the "Me Generation." Bill’s legacy concerns are with his own reputation, not his daughter’s future. And Hillary is busy planning her ascendancy. Even if Chelsea did choose a political career, there is no larger family, no elder statesmen, no Clinton matriarch to act as nurturers or mentors. If Hillary’s ambitions take her to the White House, she will have established a new paradigm for political succession. But it’s a single generation, dead end dynasty with no second act.

 

by Lance Thompson

"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap."

–George C. Scott as General Patton

Patton (1970)

written by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North

In a 10 October Wall Street Journal article, Brian Steinberg and Greg Jaffe report that the United States Army is retiring its six-year old recruiting slogan, "An Army of One." May it be buried in an unmarked grave with no military honors, never to be uttered again.

"An Army of One" was the creation of advertising company Leo Burnett. Patrick Lafferty, Leo Burnett’s vice president at the time, and an army veteran, worked with Colonel Kevin Kelly, director of advertising and public affairs at the US Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) to develop the campaign. These two creative geniuses managed to craft an army recruiting slogan that is antithetical to all military culture.

"An Army of One" was evidently designed to reassure young people that they need not lose their individuality when they enlisted as soldiers. "An Army of One" was focused on the individual, certain to appeal to those interested in what their country could do for them. The slogan might as well have been "Army–It’s All About Me."

"An Army of One" is a Rambo movie. An army in reality is a team. The effectiveness of every unit, from CENTCOM down to an infantry squad, depends on each soldier functioning as a reliable component of that team.

Imagine the smallest, most independent unit in the army. A sniper is certainly an individual specialty if ever there was one, but every sniper is partnered with an observer. The two-man sniper/observer team is an integral part of a squad- or platoon-size security element which supports the sniper/observer team. That unit is part of successively larger military organizations which provide transportation, communications, intelligence, supplies, food, medical aid, even recreation. Every soldier in those various specialized occupations is vital to enabling the sniper to engage his target.

One of the main points of basic training, stressed from the first day, is that the recruit is no longer an individual, but part of a team. He learns to take orders, learn skills, accomplish missions all in the framework of a team. Group cohesion is drummed into the soldier during every hour of training. He bonds with other soldiers in his company. They will become closer than brothers. They will trust each other with their lives.

In combat, from Revolutionary times to current warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the major countervailing forces against panic and failure under fire is the refusal of each soldier to let his buddies down.

The American character is individualistic, to be sure. As pointed out by David Hackett Fischer in Washington’s Crossing, one of the unique challenges to General Washington when he took command of the colonial army was that it was an army of rugged individuals. Some were farmers, artisans, shopkeepers. Others were lawyers, plantation owners, sea captains. All were masters of their own destinies, as few men in other countries could claim to be. Their higher allegiance, if any, was to individual colonies. There was no national government, because there was no nation. Yet every Revolutionary soldier decided to subordinate his individual freedom to an overall commander to fight for the common good.

Soldiers today are not much different. Americans enjoy freedoms and opportunities that most people in the world only dream of. Americans are not compelled to serve in the army by anything but their own consciences and senses of duty. Every soldier voluntarily gives up his private life, his individual aspirations, his precious time with those he loves, and control of his own destiny to serve his country. America endures because of men and women who make this choice. They all share that common bond of sacrifice for the greater good. There is not an "Army of One" among them.

by Lance Thompson

In a front-page article in the 2 October Wall Street Journal, Deborah Solomon cites evidence that the Democrat campaign strategy will at least partly involve class warfare. Solomon believes the Democrats will be "trumpeting the wealth gap" and blaming the inequity in prosperity on the Republicans, who will be depicted as the party of the rich.

This is not a new strategy. Democrats have always courted the votes of the poor and working classes. As recently as the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards spoke of "the two Americas," one rich, one poor. Mr. Edwards may have wondered why this emotional appeal was not more successful.

The answer is simple. Americans are ambitious. We all harbor dreams of advancement. We all believe in the possibility of getting that promotion, landing a new client, paying off the mortgage, socking some money away in a retirement account, starting a home business to make extra cash. Plans to achieve wealth range from disciplined investment strategies to buying an extra lottery ticket, but every plan has one thing in common–it signals an intention to get from here where you are to there where you want to be.

Americans are upwardly mobile. No matter what class, position, neighborhood or tax bracket we’re in, we plan to do better. In the category of finance, "better" translates to "rich." Manifestations of rich also vary greatly from person to person. To some, rich means trading the Toyota for a Mercedes, or buying a summer home in the mountains. To others, it can mean a skinnier cell phone, a skinnier TV, or a skinnier derriere. But when we dream, plan, fantasize and aspire, it is always in the direction of greater wealth, not less.

Put another way, rich is the destination that most people plan to reach at some point. If reaching that destination requires a great deal of planning, effort, and sacrifice, then those who are on their way do not wish to arrive and find that destination spoiled.

Yet that is exactly what Democrats promise to do. They campaign on making life harder for rich people. Chastising the rich, vilifying the rich, taxing the rich are all Democrat strategies meant to endear them to the majority of the electorate. But if the majority of the electorate plan to be rich, then this strategy is self-defeating.

Declaring themselves the sworn enemies of what most people wish to become would be a short-sighted strategy in and of itself. But the Democrats’ stance on financial success does one thing more–it equates such success with a moral indictment. Those who toil, aspire, and seek prosperity; those who overcome the many obstacles on the road to wealth; those who refuse to give up on their dreams know they will face one additional hardship on that arduous journey–the Democratic party. And when they do reach that long-sought financial destination, they will be pilloried by Democrats.

The natural constituency of the Democrats, then, is not the poor and middle class, as they would have us believe. The Democrat appeal is greatest for those who believe they can never do better. That group has never been a majority in America.

 

By Lance Thompson

Jeffrey Zaslow, writing in the 5 October 2006 Wall Street Journal, found that high school students in AP government and international affairs courses wish they had been taught more about current world affairs so they could understand why there is such strong anti-American sentiment in the world.

The students need have looked no further than their own classrooms. Elementary and secondary school educators, following the example set by many institutions of higher learning, have been teaching anti-Americanism for decades.

Instead of learning American history, students are tasked with "critical thinking." Reading assignments, research topics and exam questions encourage them to disparage the traditions, deprecate the leaders, and question every aspect of America’s proud heritage. Instead of revering the vision, courage and sacrifice of the Founding Fathers, revisionist historians and educators dismiss those extraordinary colonial figures as insignificant "dead white guys." Today, students are more likely to learn that Lincoln suffered from depression, Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and that Davy Crockett couldn’t win a third Congressional term rather than admire their accomplishments. When was the last time a student you know came home with an assignment to extol the virtues and enduring achievements of an American hero?

In American history courses, student attention is directed toward the flaws of the new republic rather than toward the momentous establishment of a nation conceived in liberty. Educators focus on the Constitution’s painful concessions to the institution of slavery rather than the brilliant compromise that joined thirteen separate colonies under a government whose unprecedented mandate was to serve its people. Textbooks depict the struggle to settle the frontier as the destruction of ecosystems and the genocide of indigenous peoples. The rise of American industry to become the most powerful economic engine in the world is recounted in terms of how much pollution the nation has contributed to the world. America’s wartime sacrifices to free oppressed nations and people are characterized as imperialistic adventures. From the landing of the Pilgrims to the landing on the moon, the "shame on America" crowd has managed to demean, defame and degrade every prominent hero and great achievement in our history. No wonder students don’t feel any connection to those who founded the nation.

Of the students he interviewed, Zaslow writes, "Their school curricula require them to study the French Revolution, which began in 1789. Why, they ask, aren't they also learning about the Iranian Revolution of 1979?" The reason that recent history is given cursory attention is that the revisionists can’t blur the facts; there are too many witnesses still around to dispute their agenda-driven lessons. Students have parents and grandparents who lived through those turbulent times. Educators will no longer be talking about long-forgotten personalities and milestones. They will be discussing the world as it is today, and will be forced to address the policies of successive administrations and to assess the results.

Studying the Iranian Revolution of 1979, questions would naturally arise. What did President Carter do in response to that revolution? Did he encourage or discourage the Ayatollah Khomeini? How did President Reagan’s policies differ from Carter’s, and how did those policies change the fates of the world’s great powers? The answers to those questions bear directly on the world today. One of the student revolutionaries who invaded the American Embassy in Tehran and seized American hostages is now President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, exporting terror to Iraq and seeking a nuclear arsenal.

Students should know more about recent history and current events because they illuminate the world young people inhabit and will soon inherit. Some may see the United States as the cause of the world’s ills, others the cure. But they should reach those conclusions from a more balanced and varied set of sources than are currently available in our schools.

Compelling American history is being written every day in volumes like David Hackett Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride and Washington’s Crossing, Rick Atkinson’s An Army At Dawn, David McCullough’s Truman, A Path Between the Seas, and John Adams. These Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and many others tell the story of America and Americans with accurate, illustrative detail and a gift for absorbing narrative.

Students will be rewarded for delving into the rich history of this country, for that is where the seeds of our current situation are planted. The American character was set by hardy souls, courageous pioneers, and inspired visionaries who fought and sacrificed for future generations. If American students learn that history without bias, our heritage will remain untarnished and our future bright.

Last week you were introduced to LowDown Central's mascot, Dutch Reagan.  We wanted to close the week with a peek at Dubya Bush.  He was literally born in the bushes at the height of the 2004 election campaign.  Dubya was recently added to the LDC staff in an effort to clarify his Presidential Dyslexicon. 

What the President said: 

"The notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.  And having said that, all options are on the table."

  What the President meant:           Uh...duck and cover.