Dangerous Dan

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/29/2002 10:14:00 PM (Archive Link)
On the flight home from Hawaii, one of the in-flight entertainment offerings was an episode of Touched By An Angel. This has to be the cheesiest television series since The Flying Nun. I had watched parts of it here and there, enough to get the gist of the show, but this was my first whole episode. Here are some observations:

The angels can never seem to just go and help only one person. They have to help three or four at once. In this episode, they helped a girl with OCD, her father who couldn’t read, an epileptic friend of the girl’s and the girl’s mother. It’s as if there’s an angel shortage in Heaven, so unless you can be efficient and cover several people at once, it’s not worth the trouble.

There are always at least two angels working each case… usually more. The episode I saw had four on duty putting in time for this one situation. The angels must be part of a union. If you look in the Bible, there’s never more than two angels who are active at a given time.

The angels get surprised. In this episode (again), they return to the girl’s hospital room to discover she has fled with her father… and they’re surprised. It’s unfortunate they’re not supposed to be in contact with an omnipotent deity who could have informed them of the people’s departure before they got there. Oh wait… they actually are supposed to. Can they not at least do walkie-talkies?

The angels are utterly unable to get through a mission without revealing that they are in fact angels. They’ll be going along, throwing their marks’ lives into chaos until something wholly unexpected (to them) happens and they can’t think of any way to repair the situation without appearing to the people and playing the trump card. I think God’s mysterious nature would start being dispelled when alien visitations start being outnumbered by revealed angel touchings. I think a good drinking game would involve how long it takes before an angel actually tells a human who they are.

These angels really aren’t much like the Biblical variety. In the Bible, angels had two primary functions… relaying messages and destroying things. They’re a class of creation and beings that is wholly separate from humans and what we’re familiar with. There’s not much mention of them whispering encouragement in people’s ears and they certainly didn’t have some big learning curve like in the show. On TV, the angels are learning life lessons every week. In the Bible, the angels already knew what was going on. And when they did reveal themselves, people typically were filled with awe and bowed down before the angel thinking the angel himself was God. Well, I could go on but don’t mistake a giant supernatural warrior with Roma Downey.

One thing I noticed is that if you were an actor on the show, you would quickly develop lines on your forehead due to the raised-eyebrow, concerned look you must always have. The only emotion the angels are allowed to have is that of worried concern.

In short, Touched By An Angel is big-time cheese and this is coming from a Christian. While some people would say the show is good since it shows the softer side of God, so to speak, I think it completely white-washes spiritual transformation in real life and makes it seem like it can’t happen without some meddling angel spilling some beans.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/20/2002 02:10:00 AM (Archive Link)
I'm gettin' hitched tomorrow, so don't expect much posting for a couple of weeks!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/20/2002 02:09:00 AM (Archive Link)
If I had the time, I'd love to comment on this article further. Let me just say, though, that I find Clinton's comments awfully ironic considering they come from the king liar and hypocrite of modern politicians.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:25:00 AM (Archive Link)
As some of you may know, I occasionally like to take a peek at TheNation.com to see how the liberal side sees life. Something I’ve noticed is that they have a real thing against Wal-Mart. By thing, I mean a vehement dislike bordering on visceral hate… probably somewhere in between. Here are a few examples:

This article discusses the attempts in a Long Island community to unionize the local Wal-Mart’s work force. They complain that the hours are bad, the pay is bad, and the health care is lousy. Oppressing the working man is one of the main ways Wally World keeps their prices famously low, they claim, therefore we must unionize! Attica, Attica! When I read this, I must ask myself… yeah, so what? They apparently don’t realize that they’re unskilled labor at a discount retailer. Just because Wal-Mart is the largest, most profitable, richest entity in the world and it’s also the planet’s biggest private employer doesn’t change the fact that the base level of its operations and profits is discount retail outlets with largely unskilled labor. Just because there’s a lot of workers and just because the company makes heaps of cash doesn’t mean that the employees are entitled to big salaries and the Mayo Clinic. I’m sure the Marxists out there will disagree but they can feel free to bask in the heady glow of the USSR… wait, I mean Yugoslavia… no, well they still have North Korea. Anyway, what you’re paid is commiserate with your skills and duties. About five years ago, I worked at an Office Depot as a summer job. I was a typical employee who stocked shelves, helped customers and peddled computers. I made a big $6 an hour and that’s what I deserved. While I may have had the skills for more, my position certainly didn’t demand it. Similarly, you can’t expect to get paid handsomely for jobs in which a large pool of talent can do the work. Salaries are a supply and demand situation. The fewer people there are who are qualified to do a particular job, the more they will be paid. The greater the number of qualified individuals, the lower the salary because the supply outpaces the demand. That’s economics for ya.

This next article concerns sexual discrimination at some Wal-Marts. There could very well be some truth to the accusations. The problem I have with this, though, is that Wal-Mart is a gigantic corporation. According to their website, the company’s numbers stack up thus, “As of August 31, 2002, the Company had 1,603 Wal-Mart stores, 1,179 Supercenters, 517 SAM'S CLUBS and 36 Neighborhood Markets in the United States. Internationally, the Company operated units in Argentina (11), Brazil (22), Canada (199), China (20), Germany (96), Korea (12), Mexico (578), Puerto Rico (18) and United Kingdom (256).” Let me do the math for you… that’s a total of 4,547 different stores and they employ over 1.3 million people. I’m absolutely certain there’s some sexual discrimination mixed in there. There’s probably also racial or other types. With that many stores and that many people, you’re going to have some dark spots. It’s positively irresponsible, though, to take those spots and say they reflect on the entire company. It’s like saying a brown dog is black because of three small spots on his back. Frankly, it’s absurd. Unless you can prove that such discrimination is endemic and fostered across the enterprise, you shouldn’t go flinging around wild accusations.

The same piece goes on to delve into the unionization issue again. I found one passage particularly amusing. It draws a connection between the poor folks who love Wal-Mart and the people who work there, saying the former should support the latter. Here it is, “In fact, Wal-Mart customers and workers have much in common: They are increasingly likely to be anybody in America. The working poor are even more likely than other Americans to shop at Wal-Mart, not necessarily because they find it a shopper's paradise--though of course some do--but because they need the discounts, or live in a remote area with few other options. (Many Wal-Mart workers say they began working at their local Wal-Mart because they shopped there; when they needed a job, they filled out its application, because Wal-Mart was already such a familiar part of their lives.) Through shoppers and "associates" alike, Wal-Mart is making billions from female poverty.” Here the author agrees that the poor like Wal-Mart because of its low prices. She then asserts that the poor should like unionization because they’re of the same salt of the earth as the employees. What she fails to mention is that unionization would drive salaries up to undeserved levels which would then drive up prices (not to mention price spikes from potential new inefficiencies) and those affordable goods that the poor love so much would become too expensive for them. So why should they support unionization? Sympathy is one thing, actual dollars is another.

And finally (although, not at all the last on the site) this article by Jim Hightower (the self-avowed grand master populist) talks about the valiant, self-sacrificing efforts by the common man to resist Wal-Marts moving into their communities. Grass roots campaigns run by local shop owners and sympathetic residents lobby against the big box in their neighborhood, county, and global hemisphere. Personally, I would never participate in such a campaign. I like Wal-Mart. It has almost everything I need in one store covering so much ground they should measure it in hectares and you can’t beat the prices. Why should I support a small business that is going to charge me more for less and has a smaller selection? Sure, there’s the quaint aspect, but if the store is so quaint and niche, then it should survive. If it doesn’t offer something Wal-Mart can’t, whether it be merchandise or ambience, then it should naturally go down the tubes. Additionally, a Wal-Mart can increase your tax base and draw surrounding customers to an area, increasing the economy. So I hardly have a problem with that. What I find odd, though, is the dichotomy between Wal-Mart being good or bad for the common man. On the one hand, the chain’s cheap prices are good for Joe Blow, as was noted above. On the other hand, it’s bad because it crushes local businesses. Make up your mind. One would think a business that appeals to the disadvantaged and destroys the overcharging bourgeoisie would be something The Nation would like, but I suppose not.

What it finally comes down is that Wal-Mart is huge, very rich, and employs a whole lot of unskilled lower to middle class people who don’t get paid in cougarans. For liberals, this is a sure sign of evil. No more information is needed to know it is a bad, bad company. As such, they will trip all over themselves to demonstrate why it is evil. In so doing, they will typically contradict themselves, exaggerate, and prevaricate. The usual.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:21:00 AM (Archive Link)
Concerning this article I talked about, I noticed an interesting quote: “Grace Cathedral's bishop, R.W. Harris, whose congregation includes many Wal-Mart workers, told the crowd: ‘If Jesus were here today, he'd be at 886 Jerusalem Avenue with you,’ protesting Wal-Mart.” I’m of the opinion that if you’re arrogant enough to make such an assertion, then you’re likely wrong. The whole WWJD? concept is supposed to be that if given a particular set of circumstances, what sort of action would Jesus take. The incorrect way to apply it, as exampled above, is that you’re already doing something you believe to be ok and you stop a moment to consider whether or not Jesus would approve of it. You’re looking for acceptance after the fact and it’s a lot easier (and more necessary) to come up with good excuses for actions already in progress than if you evaluate your course of action before it’s commenced.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:20:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Jesus and, earlier, Marxists, it made me think of something I saw on TV once. It was an interview with a Chinese official who was defending his country’s crackdown on some folks on the basis that they were theists. It was something like, “They were theists promoting an evil theist ideology and that is unacceptable.” It was just funny to hear “theist” in that context. It’s rather foreign to the American ear. Or at least it is for now.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:20:00 AM (Archive Link)
Also, one of the earlier Wal-Mart articles I brought up was written by a gentleman named Jim Hightower. Jim is a Texan who is a great populist. At least that’s what he says. Really, Hightower himself seems to trumpet it more than anybody else. I suppose if you call yourself something long enough and loud enough, it becomes true. So following that theory… I AM RICH! I AM FILTHY RICH!! I AM ONE STINKING FILTHY RICH MAN!!! With any luck, within one year I’ll be sleeping on a bed of crumpled hundred dollar bills. Anyway, the man thinks highly of himself. Just look at his website. He also spouts out more colloquialisms than Dan Rather and Dr. Phil at a swap meet. This, of course, is just seasoning for his populist flavor. He goes on and on about how he’s representing the underrepresented little guy. What’s obvious, though, is that this is just a guise for a clearly Democratic and liberal ideology that’s very well represented in the country. Just because he couches it in little-man rhetoric doesn’t make it any less so.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:18:00 AM (Archive Link)
Another Nation article which I’ll get into later has this line referring to North Korea and G.W. Bush, “Now a country with a patent on grandiose braggadocio meets a foolish President just getting his toes wet in world affairs.” Just getting his toes wet?! Where has this writer been for the last year and a half?! Bush has been doing the 100 meter freestyle in world affairs!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:17:00 AM (Archive Link)
One final note… has anybody noticed the tendency for liberals and Democrats to refer to themselves as “progressives?” They like to think of themselves as the sole folks who are moving anything forward while everybody else, like the Republicans, are holding us back. The Repubs, of course, are the “conservatives.” I just know there’s a bland idiot out there quoting Webster’s definitions for liberal and conservative like some insipid opening paragraph to a high school essay (“Webster’s defines symbolism as….”). Save it. Republicans are just as interested as anybody in helping the country progress, they just have a far different vision in how to do so and in where it should go. If Democrats want claim to the term, “progressive,” very well. Republicans should start referring to themselves as “intelligently progressive.”

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:03:00 AM (Archive Link)
So you’ve probably heard about how Trent Lott is in big trouble because of the racist comments he made. Problem is, he didn’t make any racist comments. He merely made an offhand remark that the country would be better off if Senator Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1048... oh excuse me… 1948. He said this at a little soirée in Thurmond’s honor. It was essentially a little suck-up, honor the guest-of-honor quip. Suddenly, it gets morphed into Lott being a racist segregationist who accidentally let slip the Republican party’s true intentions (thankfully, Bush‘s laser beam equipped sharks are still a secret). This is, of course, utterly absurd and it represents political opportunism at its finest. The liberals have descended upon Lott’s unknowing non sequitur like a plague of locusts and have turned him into a demon. This isn’t surprising since Lott was one of the Republican leaders who helped spank the Democrats in the last election. The bleeding party would like nothing more than to get a little revenge on one of the architects of their defeat.

What I find unsurprising but somewhat embarrassing is how many fellow Republicans have been rushing to distance themselves from Lott and to condemn him. They could have framed the comment for what it was… an innocent flattering remark not to be taken seriously. In so doing, they could have exposed Democratic foolishness. Instead, they have given credence to the false beliefs and turned a great Republican leader into a persona non grata hot potato. They’ve also managed to throw themselves and the party leadership into turmoil at a time when they can least afford it. Granted, such a firestorm is certainly best right after the election so it can have time to die down before the next, but election planning happens far in advance and the Republicans can’t be distracted now.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
Al Gore has made it official… he’s not running for president in 2004. I find this a good thing if only because it would have driven me up the wall to constantly listen to him and see him during the campaign. However, for some reason, I just don’t quite believe him. Gore seems like the type who will come roaring back into the picture when you least expect it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Gore, did anybody see him on Saturday Night Live a couple of nights ago? Great heavens, even on SNL, the man is stiff as a board. It was painful to watch.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 02:00:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you haven’t come across it yet, FoxNews.com’s Tongue Tied column now has its own website. It’s www.TongueTied.us. Check it out to see the latest on all sorts of political correctness gone awry. They’re the sort of stories that would make you roll your eyes if only they weren’t so outrageous and disturbing.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/16/2002 01:58:00 AM (Archive Link)
My beloved Chiefs aren’t doing well in the playoff picture.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/05/2002 11:29:00 PM (Archive Link)
Been wondering if I still exist? I do, but I've been extremely busy lately. I just moved and I'm getting hitched in a couple of weeks so the old blog has taken a back seat. I should be able to rattle off something soon, but expect sparse posting at best for another month.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 11/05/2002 01:11:00 AM (Archive Link)
Don't forget to vote today! And try to vote Republican...

Posted by Dan Ewert : 11/01/2002 12:21:00 AM (Archive Link)
My fiancée recently brought up a topic to me about which she thought I should blog. She was watching TV and the inevitable news magazine commercials came on. Two in particular caught her attention in that the next two “20/20” shows are set to feature Justin Timberlake and The Osbournes respectively. She bemoaned that with everything going on in the world, this is the best they can come up with… irrelevant fluff stories. I agree. It made me think of CNN.com. Everyday recently, one of their main headlines concern Winona Ryder’s shoplifting trial. Who cares? Some A- list Hollywood star gets caught committing a misdemeanor… I don’t think the world is waiting nervously for the outcome.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/22/2002 12:29:00 AM (Archive Link)
So I was thinking the other day about the report the CIA put out saying that Iraq may not be as big a threat as we thought… at least currently. Immediately, all sorts of people jumped on it as the reason for why action against Iraq was wrong-headed. It was heralded, lifted-up and praised. What I thought was odd about this is these were the same people who were mercilessly criticizing all of America’s various intelligence agencies after the 9-11 attacks. With one favorable report, the CIA went from being backwards, inept, and ineffective to being spy masterminds!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/22/2002 12:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
There’s an article here on CNN.com concerning the North Korean situation. Nothing too enlightening. What I loved, though, was the very last part:

“Clearly disdainful of Clinton administration overtures to Pyongyang, one of the [Bush administration’s] senior officials said, ‘They could have learned from past experience that bad behavior gets rewarded. That is not something this administration is into.’”

Nice.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/22/2002 12:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may recall about a week ago, San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Terrell Owens pulled a little stunt in the game against the Seahawks in which he immediately pulled a pen from his sock after making a touchdown, signed the ball, and gave it to his financial advisor. He’s been derided by some in the media for his ostentatious action. Owens, though, defended it thus, “You have a white guy as an announcer and sportscaster. Me, I’m black. I do it and I’ve already done some stuff in the past. Were (African-Americans) more expressive than the white guys. You look at the skilled players. We’re the ones that get into the end zone. We get in the end zone more than they do.” Simply put… it’s a race thing. The white guys just don’t understand the celebratory spirit of black players. You will recall that Terrell Owens is the same guy who spiked the ball on the Cowboys’ midfield star during a Thanksgiving Day game… twice. It’s unfortunate that Owens has to cover up displays of classlessness and vulgar pomposity with the excuse that he’s black and that’s what black people do. He’s actually serving to establish a stereotype for all black players. I don’t recall Barry Sanders ever doing something like this after a touchdown. I don’t see Priest Holmes doing it now. Players score touchdowns every week without behaving poorly. It’s like the old saying, “When you get in the end zone, act like you’ve been there before.” Anyway, Owens’ comments can also be construed as racist… what do you think the public response would be if Brett Favre said something about how white guys tend to be the quarterback more often?

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:25:00 AM (Archive Link)
Ah, it warms my heart to read about Iraq going through a democratic election. It was a chance for the people to decide whether they approved of a despotic, tyrannical regime or if they feared it too much to say otherwise. The ballots themselves only had two choices concerning Saddam Hussein’s reelection: yes and no. I imagine the question could have been rewritten as, “Do you not want to risk the secret police turning your life into a living hell or ending your life altogether? Yes or no?” A “no” vote, of course, would be irrelevant as it would enter a new ballot box that’s more commonly referred to as a trash can. Is the election laughable? Absolutely. It was absurd even before it began. Several years ago, a similar election netted Saddam only 99.96% of the vote. This time around, the election officials declared they were shooting for 100% and, lo, they got it: 100% of eligible voters voted and they voted yes for Hussein. In fact, they announced this long before it was logistically possible for them to be even remotely sure. I’m sure many of those in Europe who support Iraq wished that Saddam’s crew would have shown a little restraint in skewing results. If it had been reported that only 80%-85% supported Saddam, then at least the pro-Iraq folks could have pointed that out as proof of Saddam’s popularity and “legitimacy” since the election would have retained a slight shred of statistical believability.

One thing I’ve been interested in but haven’t read anywhere is what are the parameters used to define an eligible Iraqi voter? Apparently, there are 11,445,638 such people but I don’t know what makes them valid.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:24:00 AM (Archive Link)
Just recently, the singer, Harry “Banana Song” Belafonte, said some rather unpleasant things about Secretary of State Colin Powell. Specifically, he said, “There’s an old saying. In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and there were those salves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master… exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.” Several days later, to “clarify” himself, he said, “The idea that you work in the house of the master is almost in itself its own opportunity to do some mischief and made a difference, but when you are in that place and you help perpetuate the master’s policy that perpetuates oppression and pain for many others, then something has to be said about it. And the master in this instance, of course, was the president of the United States.” He was claiming that Powell’s current position in Iraq is nothing but foot-shuffling obedience to the mass’r, George Bush. He also referred to Powell as a sell-out and he lumped Condoleezza Rice into the same category. This absolutely disgusts me on several levels. Let me count the ways…

First, and I’ve stated this before, I think it’s outright shameful how many in minority groups tie racial identity to political positions. For example, you’re not truly black unless you support affirmative action and slavery reparations, vote Democratic, and think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are swell guys. If you don’t agree to the above qualifications, then you’re a self-loathing, race-hating, sell-out Uncle Tom. It’s as if you’ve been excommunicated from your race because of what you think. It’s horrible that one’s sense of self must be tied to what others have decreed it must be. To make it worse, when they disagree with the person, they merely slap on the Uncle Tom label and leave it at that. No effort is made to debate the merits of the argument… they merely label them as an “other,” a non-black… and worse, an anti-black. This is precisely what Belafonte is doing to Powell. He refers to him as nothing but a mere house slave who won’t speak his mind. He even makes the connection that if Powell were truly black, he’d actually “do some mischief” from a political standpoint. The assertion is that Powell’s race dictates that he must do these things. The race is the political. Horrible.

Second, I think the manner in which these minority leaders cut down those of their own race is utterly self-defeating. Here you have Colin Powell, a man who rose through the ranks of the army, became the most powerful military man in the world, currently holds the highest position in Bush’s cabinet, and, if he had chosen to pursue it, would have been a serious presidential candidate. You also have Condi Rice who holds some serious educational and policy credentials and is one of the President’s closest advisors. Forget Jesse Jackson, forget Al Sharpton, forget Michael Jordan and Harry “Shake Senora” Belafonte… these are the two foremost African-Americans out there. These are two folks who beat the odds, beat the system, and have reached the paramount of prestige and power. These are the true role models for young black kids out there. And yet here’s Harry “Day-oh” Belafonte trying to rip them down, trying to put them in their place, and trying to destroy their accomplishments and racial identity. “You don’t want to be like them, kids… they’re not really black… they’re not really like one of us.” Agony!! It’s as if the African-American “leaders” ran civil-rights as if it were a totalitarian, Communist entity (redundant, I know). You must stride lock-step according to their rules. If, in this field of wheat, a plant or two seems a little different or if a plant rises taller and stronger than the others, then it must be cut down and made to be like all the rest. I’ll call it Racial Totalitarianism. This is why the civil rights groups frustrate me so. They demand diversity in everything except their own group’s thinking.

Third, let’s say that Powell privately doesn’t like Bush’s policies. Let’s say he is toeing the Bush line. So? That’s politics. Race has nothing to do with it. Bush is the President and Powell is Bush’s representative to the world. That means that Powell needs to be representative of Bush’s policies as well. To do otherwise means he is a rogue element and doing a horrible disservice to the President and his country. If he has a strong enough conflict with Bush, then he’s free to resign at any time. This is politics, this is a job… and like any job, you sometimes have to do things you don’t necessarily agree with because your employer says so.

So yes, it infuriates me when people like Harry “8-Foot Bunch” Belafonte come out and make accusations against true role-models like Powell and Rice. It’s unfair, unwarranted, and counter-productive.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Condi Rice, I read an article on NationalReview.com that mentioned her running for president in 2008. I found my reaction surprising… It occurred to me that I probably would vote for her if she ran. Now I don’t want to sound sexist, but before this, I really couldn’t see myself voting for a woman for president. It’s not that I set this up as a general rule or that I’m against the idea… it’s just that I couldn’t think of any female politicians for whom I would care to vote when it comes to that office. Rice, though, I like. She’s sharp as a tack and wonderfully articulate. Eight years (that’s right, eight) of cutting her teeth in the Bush administration and I think she could be a viable candidate.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/18/2002 02:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
You’ve probably already read in the news that North Korea has been developing its nuclear program for some years now and has been doing so in direct violation of an agreement with the U.S. Not so shockingly, this seemed to take nobody by surprise. The “Agreed Framework” was a 1994 appeasement agreement in which the U.S. gave North Korea fuel-oil, food, and “non-threatening” nuclear power plants and in return, North Korea would cease its nuclear weapons program. International blackmail at its finest. They tell us they’re going to develop the bomb unless we give them what they want. And we did. Love that Bill Clinton… yet another example of how he tried to sweep a problem under the rug instead of facing up to it. He’s the classic personality who says, “At least let there be peace in my day.” We should never provide any aid to a nation like NK. The country was on the ropes anyway and couldn’t support or feed itself and we only helped to prop up the dictatorship. If we can’t fight a country militarily, then we can at least let it destroy itself from the inside. True, there would be an unfortunate humanitarian toll involved, but keep this mind… it’s the government in power that is creating the depressing conditions. In the short term, aid helps the people there, but in the long term, you’ve damned far, far more people to continued tyranny and starvation by helping the government survive.

At any rate, NK now considers the Agreed Framework dead. I rather like to think of it as being still-born. I can just imagine Kim Jong Il and his cronies (or was Kim Il Sung still around at that point in ’94?) trying to suppress uproarious laughter as the papers were being signed. The NK officials have also indicated they’ve got more nasty stuff around than just possible nuclear weapons. It will be interesting to see how Bush handles this situation, especially in relation to the present Iraq affairs. One thing is definite… Bush was right on the money when he included North Korea in the axis of evil.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:31:00 AM (Archive Link)
Plenty of new stuff! Also, if you ever have comments, feel free to e-mail me at danman78ks@yahoo.com.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:30:00 AM (Archive Link)
You’ve probably already read about the recent events in New Jersey. Current Senator Robert Torricelli withdrew from the election for the express purpose of not endangering the Democratic majority in the Senate. The polls showed he was a sure bet to lose, so “the Torch” ducked out while he still could and let a better candidate take a shot. The problem was that the move was illegal. According to New Jersey law, you can’t fill vacancies after the 51st day prior to the election. When Torricelli left the race, it was well after that. The state’s Democratic committee came up with a replacement and the case went before the N.J. Supreme Court who said it was ok. However, they didn’t give any more of a reason than that they were liberally interpreting the law. What’s sad about this is they went against the very purpose of the law. It was constructed so as to prevent somebody from dropping out and being replaced just because they’re doing poorly in the polls. It was also meant to provide a smooth election process for the counties when it comes to ballots. The Court, however, threw all this out the window and appointed themselves the new Legislature by utterly recreating the law. It’s sad. The Democrats have given the excuse that the Court was right in its decision because it allows a fair fight between two opponents. They act as if Torricelli died or dropped out due to illness instead of dropping out so he wouldn’t lose. They had a fair fight and they were afraid to face it. It disgusts me, really.

Another aspect of this ordeal that is particularly abhorrent is that all the justices on the N.J. Supreme Court had conflicts of interest. Every one of them fit into one of several categories: A) they contributed directly to Torricelli’s campaign B) they contributed to his PAC C) they contributed to past campaigns for replacement candidate Frank Lautenberg D) they contributed to a PAC that contributed to Torricelli’s campaign or E) a combination of the preceding options. You can read about it here. Simply put, the fix was in. In a proper judiciary world, they would have all recused themselves and sent the case to Federal court. What’s really surprising (or maybe it isn’t) is that this information has gotten zero notice in the mainstream media. Personally, I think it’s the most galling aspect of it all.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:29:00 AM (Archive Link)
I watched President Bush’s speech tonight (if you missed it, read it here) and I have to say that I was quite pleased. As usual he said all the right things. He essentially went through, point by point, each of the criticisms that have been leveled against action in Iraq. As he did in his UN speech, he carefully detailed Saddam’s history, behavior, and WMD fetish and development. He listed the atrocities Saddam has committed, the lies he’s told, the weapons he’s developed, and made it clear that the Iraqi people will be better off without him. I think it’s something the American people need to hear. I love the way Bush uses the Bully Pulpit. Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed that the networks couldn’t take some time out of their vapid sitcoms in order to broadcast the speech. Yeah, the world’s changed, but let’s not interrupt Drew Carry.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Bush and speeches, I have to say that I like his (and his speech writers’) word choice and content, but his delivery is sometimes a little dry. I like to entertain myself by watching his eyes slowly go from the teleprompter on one side over to the middle and then they’ll dart over to the teleprompter on the other side so he can read the next line.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:27:00 AM (Archive Link)
I find the Arab world an amazing place. Popular opinion over there considers America and it’s populace to be corrupt, apostate, stupid, and overall inferior to themselves. Despite this, however, they blame the U.S. for all of its woes. Their culture is going downhill because of America, their unemployment is high because of America, America is militarily oppressing them. It must create a tremendous psychological strain that a country which you consider to be so far inferior to your own is actually so far superior in every measurable aspect; that you create this dichotomy in which you haughtily look down on this lesser being but also denounce it for its powerful oppression over you. It’s interesting.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:26:00 AM (Archive Link)
Check out this article on NationalReview.com. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. A few of the criticisms you’ll frequently read concerning the Israelis is that their practicing apartheid by holing up the Palestinians within a few locations, that they’re encroaching on Palestinian land, and that Palestinians aren’t allowed to become Israeli citizens. In this article, though, you’ll read about how Jews aren’t allowed to become citizens anywhere in the Arab world, which covers about 750 times as much geographic area as Israel, but that it’s almost pointless since the vast majority of Jews were scared off years ago. As I’ve said before when people claim the Israelis are committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians (a despicable Jew-Nazi reference that they think is clever), let the Arabs have the upper hand in the Mid-East and you’ll truly see a Holocaust. Considering their slander, invective, and shameless hate-mongering towards Jews, the Arab countries would kill them all if they got the chance.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:25:00 AM (Archive Link)
I often read complaints about America’s use of force and its willingness to use its military in situations. They, especially the Europeans, walk around feeling superior because of the peace they have and which they’ve achieved through their own diplomacy. This is nonsense. The entire world is currently living in the Pax Americana. The global population is experiencing a period of unusual peace and stability because the United States is here to provide it. America’s force and threat of force (real, implied, or imagined) keeps those with violent ambitions at bay. Rest assured, there would be far more war and suffering in the world if the aggressors didn’t have an outright fear of America’s might. This is true as it applies to Iraq or even China. If the U.S. were to dissolve tomorrow, the planet would be plunged into chaos as formerly timid nations went on the offensive against their neighbors and old rivalries were reignited. Those who only talk and credit their talk for peace fool themselves. Aggressors don’t respect talk… but they fear force.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:24:00 AM (Archive Link)
The other day, I read in the paper about some anti-war protestors. One of them was quoted as saying, “People are out of the practice of ‘screaming for peace’ – for doing the socially unacceptable thing. I think people haven’t quite regeared. They haven’t quite readjusted to the idea of being uncomfortable with institutions by being willing to speak out what is not popular.” I think this brings up something very odd about the movement. She clearly thinks that the protestors are not espousing a popular opinion and that it’s an opinion that goes against the majority. She takes great pride in being in the minority. The majority consists of the ignorant brain-washed who must be educated (re-education… well, I’m sure some of the protestors have Communist leanings). The movement then has one of two courses that it can take: either it remains in the minority or grows so large that it brings the majority over to its side. In the first case, they wind up battling the majority and the tacit will of the people. They contradict the very people they claim to represent. In the latter case, they themselves become the majority they previously resented and they can no longer be anti-establishment as they have become established. At this point, however, they would stop taking pride in being the minority and would shift to taking great pride in being the majority; they adopt the pride they denounced in their former opposition. It seems like a good set-up for self-hate to me. No wonder they always feel so guilty for everything.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
About a month ago, I was watching a D.C. rally on C-SPAN for Federal slavery reparations. I won’t go into details, but it was packed with lies, hyperbole, and false trauma. I couldn’t help but think that if they all put forth half as much time, energy, and money on improving their communities’ cultural, economic and capital well-being as they did on trying to get a thousand bucks from the government, they might actually accomplish something meaningful.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:22:00 AM (Archive Link)
From time to time, I read letters to the editor from well-meaning people who say we shouldn’t attack Iraq because we don’t want the innocent Iraqi civilians to suffer. I just have to ask these concerned citizens how they think these folks are faring now. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who treats his people as expendable pawns. He keeps vital goods and services from them so he can build up his WMD and war machine while also allowing him the PR plus of whining to the international community about the suffering he has inflicted on them but he blames it on sanctions. America once was considered an ideal that should be shared throughout the world. It was thought that all humanity would benefit from democracy, from free speech, from freedom of religion, etc. Somewhere along the line, though, we lost it. Do we not care that others are oppressed? Do we not care that there are people living under brutal dictatorships? Do we not care that a madman has placed an anti-aircraft battery atop an elementary school in Baghdad? Do we not care that some children must learn how to make grass-soup in North Korea? Do we not care that Chinese tanks run over democracy activists in Tiananmen Square and the Party claims not a single person was killed? When did we stop caring? The spread of the American ideal can’t be a defensive battle; it must be offensive. Unfortunately, that sometimes means war, but to remove oppression from the citizenry’s shoulders, it may be necessary.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:21:00 AM (Archive Link)
On a related topic, the U.S. has often been criticized by the liberal intellectuals for subsidizing certain dictators in the past… or so they say. They complain that America followed the SOB principle: he may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB. They claim that was bad, but what we do now is not bad, i.e. leave the SOB alone or contain him… as long as we’re not aiding him. It’s as if a man is beating a woman a few feet from you. It’s bad if you give him a baseball bat, but it’s perfectly ok if you just keep you and your bat to yourself… just don’t get involved. Isn’t it a greater sin not to use your superior bat against the man in order to free the woman?

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/08/2002 12:19:00 AM (Archive Link)
Concerning the ongoing negotiations for readmitting inspectors to Iraq, the Iraqi regime constantly claims that this or that will violate their national sovereignty. Does anybody else find this term, “sovereignty,” unpalatable? Iraq shouldn’t have any sovereignty. They were defeated in a war and likely will be defeated again soon. It’s just one more example of how the Persian Gulf War was poorly executed at the end. A war that is correctly pursued doesn’t leave a sovereign state in the immediate aftermath. It leaves a conquered, temporarily occupied country that is then rebuilt. Generals of history past would be appalled that we stood at the gates of the enemy capital with an overwhelming force, but then yawned and walked away, leaving the chief perpetrator of the war still in power. Sovereignty… does Iraq have it? Yes. Should it? No.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/06/2002 07:39:00 PM (Archive Link)
I've noticed recently that this blog of mine tends to center about current events and other such related fare. So I've decided to start up a second blog... Dangerous Dan V2. This one will focus more on religion and philosophy once it gets going. Go there now if you wish, but there's not much there to see at the moment.

And don't worry... this blog will still get plenty of attention.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/06/2002 02:54:00 PM (Archive Link)
In a previous post, I talked about how the Chiefs' Priest Holmes was a good role model. Did I mention he's also a good chess player? See here.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/04/2002 12:44:00 AM (Archive Link)
An interesting observation came to me today while I was reading this CNN.com story about North Korea. It really doesn’t involve the article itself but the picture at the top. I was looking at that statue and realized that I had seen that pose before. The day before, there was a picture in the newspaper of a Baghdad park. At the center of this park was a statue of Saddam Hussein… in the exact same pose. Here’s a different statue of him getting in on the act. I also remembered seeing Lenin positioned the same way in bronze as you'll see here. It just occurred to me that repressive countries seem to like representing their important people this way… tall and proud, looking off into the distance with their benevolent right hand outstretched towards the future. Propaganda through metallurgy.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/04/2002 12:40:00 AM (Archive Link)
If you don’t keep up on football, let me point you towards this ESPN.com article about Kansas City Chiefs running back Priest Holmes. The man is very much a role model.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/01/2002 11:32:00 PM (Archive Link)
It appears that the formidable Johnnie Cochran has decided to take on the NFL. He’s claiming that the league’s hiring practices discriminate against blacks and he’s even come up with a plan to rectify the situation. The plan involves the stick and carrot approach with regards to draft picks. If a team develops a “diverse front office,” that team gets an extra pick. If a team refuses to interview minorities for a head coaching position, they lose a first round pick… a third round pick for lack of consideration for assistant coaching jobs. He’s also stated that if the NFL doesn’t take action, then he’ll sue ‘em. I’m assuming he’ll come up with some catchy phrase like, “If you don’t hire, you’ll feel the fire.”

I can’t stand Johnnie Cochran. In this matter, he’s using a “study” called, “Black Coaches in the National Football League: Superior Performance, Inferior Opportunities.” The report notes that black coaches win 1.1 games more per season than white coaches and reach the playoffs 67% of the time compared to 39% for the pale folks. That sounds like a good point until you find out the statistical aberration… there have been only 5 black head coaches since 1986: Art Shell, Dennis Green, Tony Dungy, Ray Rhodes, and Herman Edwards. This is also brought up to support Cochran’s analysis, but it weakens the previous argument. 5 men hardly compose a large enough sampling on which to base the coaching performance of an entire race. Oddly enough, Cochran is stereotyping… these five black guys did well, therefore all black guys will do well! What I think is really strange is the playoff percentages he drags out. Statistically speaking, most of the NFL head coaches are white. Therefore, white coaches would obviously compose the bulk of those sitting at home during the postseason.

Cochran also whined that black coaches are held to a higher standard, aren’t given a chance to prove themselves and are fired after one year. Let’s examine this, shall we? Art Shell coached the Raiders for five years. He got plenty of time, but was a little inconsistent after going 12-4, winning the AFC West and reaching the AFC championship game in 1990. After finishing 9-7 and 3rd in the AFC West in 1994, Al Davis let him go. Dennis Green got a big nine seasons with the Vikings (you know… that team with the Nordic mascot) and was let go after the 2000 season. He had performed very well in that time but couldn’t last through the playoffs. Nine years is also too long for any head coach in one place and he was having trouble controlling his players. Tony Dungy coached the Bucs for six seasons, was mediocre and was let go after several disappointing playoff loss seasons. Ray Rhodes helmed the Eagles for four years and they had the following records: 10-6, 10-6, 6-9-1, and 3-13. Hardly flattering. He also led the Packers for one season and went 8-8. Herman Edwards led the Jets to a 10-6 finish last year… nice but still third in the AFC East… and he’s off to a miserable 3-1 start this season in which the Jets have scored 13 points in the last three games. So what we see here is that black coaches have gotten plenty of time to prove themselves and are no more prone to being fired than any other head coach in today’s high-pressure NFL.

That leaves the question of whether or not the league’s owners purposely discriminate against blacks when it comes to hiring and interviews. I have trouble believing this. The NFL may have a bunch of old white men as owners, but they’re rich old white men and they like getting richer and they like the ego boost of a winning team. They’re businessmen and that means business comes first. I just don’t buy the idea that they’d refuse to consider a qualified minority coach if they thought the individual would help the team win and the franchise to make money. It’s like they say… people may be white, black, brown, red, or yellow, but the money’s all green.

Simply put, Cochran’s “proof” is nothing but a hype-filled, race-baiting game of smoke and mirrors. Nevertheless, he’s trying to intimidate the league, saying, “We can litigate this. We can bring a lawsuit. I think the NFL is reasonable. They understand that this can end up in the courts, and they’d rather not see that happen. But let’s see if we can have a dialogue. You only litigate after you’ve done everything you can to negotiate.” I imagine this prompted a big yawn from the NFL. The league is too powerful, too wealthy, too popular, and in too good a legal position to be intimidated by the likes of a shyster like Cochran. They are not in a risky legal, moral, or PR position. Johnnie’s taking on a little more than he should this time.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/01/2002 12:47:00 AM (Archive Link)
Sorry for the recent dearth of posts. I've been busy trying to set up my own personal website. Even after I get that up and running, though, this blog site will remain.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 10/01/2002 12:46:00 AM (Archive Link)
In the news recently, three congressmen are taking a little vacation in Iraq and meeting with Saddam Hussein. You can read about it here. One of them, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Washington), has suggested that Bush and company come on over and see if Saddam is honest about his efforts. By his statement, McDermott apparently thinks he is. In another comment, he opined that he thought the president would purposely mislead the American public in order to go to war with Iraq. White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was right on target when he expressed his disbelief that a U.S. congressman was more willing to believe Iraqi dictator/murderer/liar Saddam Hussein than President Bush. As I’ve noted before, I’m often amazed at how many people, especially those on the left, are more willing to believe and cater to closed tyrannical regimes than they are open democratic governments whether it be their own or others such as Israel. They honor that which they would abhor if it actually existed in the U.S. Truly, truly amazing.

A fun connection to this is that Trent Lott said that the congressmen should come home and shut up. McDermott’s response: “I'm speaking for the peace process. Lott is talking from absolute ignorance of what's going on on the ground. I think he ought to be a little more careful about what he says in a country where we value free speech. Dissent is an American right. Without it, it's not a democracy.” Feel the irony.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/26/2002 12:51:00 AM (Archive Link)
Not too long ago, Texas’ Democratic candidate for Senate, Ron Kirk, made a rather interesting comment about the armed forces. He lamented how the minority and lower class representation in the services was disproportionate to that of the general population. He further stated that the powers that be would be less enthused about attacking Iraq if it were their children in the army. I find this yet another example of liberals thinking that everything and every institution needs to have absolute equality across all races, ethnicities and classes. I don’t find it at all troubling that the less fortunate compose most of the armed forces. This is because the services are places were the underprivileged can advance themselves socially and economically. Recruits can learn discipline and real life skills that can be transferred to the civilian sector. Additionally, upon being discharged, they can make use of the GI Bill to finance a college education. Instead of viewing the armed forces as pits for the down and out, they should be seen as bastions of opportunity… opportunity that these young people may not otherwise have.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/22/2002 12:32:00 AM (Archive Link)
You'll have to excuse the recent lack of posts. I was having a few technical issues with Blogger that I just now straightened out. You'll notice the last post was supposed to have shown up on Tuesday.

More to come soon!

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/17/2002 01:19:00 AM (Archive Link)
I must say that I’m very interested in how the whole Iraq situation is shaping up. I couldn’t have been more pleased with Bush’s speech to the UN last week. It really was a master stroke of politics. By putting forth the argument that Iraq had flaunted UN resolutions instead of just annoying America and by asking for UN multilateral action, Bush directly challenged the authority and the effectiveness of the UN. This left the organization with one of two choices.

The first choice is to do nothing. This certainly would have been the preferred option among most delegates as they generally don’t want to invade Iraq. They’ve all been content to stand on the sidelines decrying America’s unilateral stance and demanding UN legitimacy… never thinking the U.S. would actually ask for it. They thought that no matter how Bush would state the invasion case, they could still pooh-pooh the idea and thereby make the U.S. look all the worse for invading Iraq despite UN opposition. Since Bush did ask, however, and because of how he stated the case, this left the UN in an uncomfortable position as it put the ball squarely in their court. While they were standing on the sidelines, Bush effectively tossed the ball to them and they surely weren’t expecting it and nor were they prepared for it. Now, if they do nothing, it will definitively expose the UN as the weak willed, irrelevant debating club into which it’s been developing. No action on Iraq, where the evidence is obvious, would cause future villains to merely yawn at UN resolutions. In my opinion, there are few things politicians hate more than appearing irrelevant. Like any good legislative, political body, the UN was forced to uphold its legitimacy and relevance. This left them with option two, which is to support action against Iraq… or at least to start talking tough. All of a sudden, countries started warning Hussein to allow in weapons inspectors. They all knew what Bush was saying… put up or shut up. I love Bush for that UN speech because he deftly laid out the rules for how the world will play this particular brinksmanship game instead of allowing the world to do it for him.

Now, if you’ve read the news, Hussein has said that he’ll allow weapons inspectors into the country and give them unfettered access. This is, of course, a delaying tactic. Iraq had the upper diplomatic hand until last Thursday when Bush trumped him. Saddam started seeing world opinion turn against him and he saw the writing on the wall… allow inspectors or the UN (led by the U.S.) would force him to do so. And this time, Saddam wouldn’t stick around for the ending. So yes, now he’s stalling for time until he can figure out what his next move is. Happily, the Bush administration isn’t falling for the ruse and is continuing to put immense pressure on Iraq and is still pressing for a very strict new resolution from the UN Security Council. As I said, Bush has laid out the rules and is forcing Iraq and the UN to play by them. He won’t allow the U.S. to be fooled by old Iraqi tricks.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/11/2002 08:35:00 AM (Archive Link)
You always remember where you are when something monumental happens. I did not yet have such an experience until last year. I remember exactly where I was… I was headed to work, going east on a city road and was about to turn south. The DJ on the radio said something about a plane flying into the World Trade Center in New York but she didn’t give any more specifics than that because at that point, nobody really knew what was happening. I sped to work so I could play with my desk radio’s dial or see if I could get into an online news site. The national sites were inaccessible due to traffic, but local news stations’ and newspapers’ sites were still up. I was appalled by the pictures I saw. I recall the radio saying that one of the towers had collapsed and I remember thinking that it was only the part of the tower above the impact that had come down. I couldn’t fathom that the entire building was destroyed. Not too much later, we found an old TV and set it up in the empty cubicle across the aisle from me. My day at the office was spent in a loop of doing a little work and then staring at the TV or talking with co-workers who were constantly cycling in and out. Finally, I went home early. I couldn’t concentrate and with the emotional and physical distractions, I was accomplishing nothing. So I packed up my laptop and left.

I took care of some house cleaning while I was home and I remember that it was a sunny, beautiful day in San Antonio. I even opened up the blinds and slid open the balcony door. I couldn’t help but feel the strangeness of it all… here I was experiencing a gorgeous day while on the TV in front of me, hell had been unleashed in New York. Hell had been unleashed in my country.

What were my emotions that day? An odd combination of tremendous grief and absolute rage. Several times I almost started crying and it was because of both feelings at once. My sadness came from the fact that my fellow citizens were dying and my rage came because they were, in fact, being killed. I hated the people who did it and I still do. I remember feeling as if my hate alone could smite them. My hate and rage, though, wallowed in frustration and helplessness. These horrible events were unfolding, I didn’t know what more may come, and I could nothing but watch. Seemingly, the powers that be could only do the same. I took grim satisfaction in knowing that our military would come to bear against whoever had done this and that politics, domestic or international, would not hinder us or second guess us. The first part is done, but this war doesn’t have clean beginning and end dates. It’s ongoing, and I hope we don’t lose our resolve.

Occasionally, I still feel some of those same emotions that I first felt on the 11th. It usually occurs when I’m reading stories related to it, especially those concerning the aftermath of families or personal recollections. Several weeks ago, while I was at the airport, I bought U.S. News and World Report's special edition on 9-11. I read a few articles but had to put the magazine down because I couldn’t handle any more than that at one time.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/11/2002 08:34:00 AM (Archive Link)
I’ve decided to post the e-mail’s I exchanged with my fiancée that day. These are some of my thoughts and emotions as the day went on and are those raw, unhewn sentiments I mentioned in an earlier post. Here they are in chronological order:

____________________

From: EWERT, DANIEL C
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:23 AM
To: Anne
Subject:

In case you haven't heard, turn on the TV and turn to CNN.

____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: EWERT, DANIEL C
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:13 AM
To: Anne
Subject:

Good God.

There were tens of thousands of people in those buildings.

____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: EWERT, DANIEL C
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:18 AM
To: Anne
Subject:

I can hardly remember more anger and sadness. I can't wait for the U.S. to wreak holy vengeance on whoever is responsible and at the same time I want to cry.

____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: EWERT, DANIEL C
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Anne
Subject:

For all practical purposes, business is shut down. Nobody here at the
office is paying much attention to what we have to do. We're just cycling in and out of the empty cube across the aisle from me where we set up a TV. We're getting Fox News. I just found out they're posting guards all around our building. We may be leaving soon. Everything everywhere is being locked down. No chances are being taken. While it's of course highly unlikely a terrorist would hit our building, it's a terribly open target. Our sister tower houses Department of Defense accounting and there's a gigantic open parking area beneath it. All the air force bases in town are on high alert. Toni in Oklahoma City has already gone home. For obvious reasons because of past experiences, this is all making her very uncomfortable and "weird" as she described it They're closing down streets there. I wouldn't be surprised if that's happening a little farther downtown here.

I love you.

-Dan
~~~

____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:28 AM
To: EWERT, DANIEL C
Subject: Re:

My mom called me this morning. She is really freaked out. My dad left yesterday for Korea. Amanda came in and told me to turn on the TV. I started shaking. I thought my dad left today so when she told me they had hijacked planes I got really scared.

The military bases are all on super high security level. One level down from nuclear war. A bunch of schools and buildings in SA are being shut down.

This is the worst thing I think I have ever seen. New York looks like Beirut.

____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: EWERT, DANIEL C
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:45 PM
To: Anne
Subject:

I'm at home now. Are you ok?

____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:55 PM
To: EWERT, DANIEL C
Subject: Re:

Yeah. I'm fine.
Are you okay?
Did they send you home?

I love you
Anne

____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: EWERT, DANIEL C
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:59 PM
To: Anne
Subject: RE:

I'm ok. I decided to come home. If for no other reason than because it was too distracting at the office. The TV was set up right across the aisle from me where I could easily see it and people were constantly cycling in and out. So I'm working from here instead.

I love you!

-Dan
~~~

____________________

[This next one is from a friend of mine. It’s the account of one of his former co-workers who was in New York that day -DE]

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:34 PM
To: EWERT, DANIEL C
Subject: Fw: Message from my friend Michael in New York

Hey guys,

I got this message earlier afternoon from my friend Michael in New York. He was one of the original Atension guys and I worked with him for about a year and a half before he moved to New York. I knew he worked in lower Manhattan, so I was concerned about him this morning. It turns out he is okay. Here is a message he sent out to everyone describing his morning. I can't even imagine. Feel free to forward this to whoever.

- Adam

------

Hello everyone.

Thank you all for your notes and well wishes. NYC is in a crazy state at the moment. I'll just briefly share my morning so that you don't all have to ask.

I take the 1/9 and 2/3 trains into work(they run up and down the west side of manhattan where I take them). The 1/9 runs under the WTC and this morning the trains were slow because of "an emergency at the cortlandt station" which is the station under the WTC. I figured someone had fallen onto the tracks or something else that's unfortunate but relatively minor. Those things occasionally happen.

So I got out of the 2/3 at Wall Street and walked over to Broadway. I noticed that the air smelled weird, they were evacuating the NYSE building, there were burnt pieces of paper on the ground, and people were just milling around.

When I got to Wall Street and Broadway and looked where everyone was looking, I saw both the WTC towers on fire. People were talking about "planes flying into the buildings" and such and I just couldn't comprehend what was going on. Emergency services were rushing to the towers and, I heard later, a lot of personnel were already in the buildings. Well, I decided that standing within relatively close view of the WTC was a bad idea and after I got about 10 steps down towards the south end of Manhattan along Broadway(battery park) I looked back and saw the top of the tower just start to fall in on itself and there was all this debris falling out and it looked like there were people jumping off the observation deck/upper floors and it was on fire and then this huge cloud of smoke started barreling down the street towards everyone and the next thing I know there were thousands of people screaming and sprinting down broadway towards the end of the island where, I thought, the clouds would disperse. This was the most horrible and frightening and soul shaking experience of my life so far. I hope it is the worst I'll ever see.

So, I was really scared and paranoid and decided not to walk to the end of the island with all the people because I though that "if I were a terrorist wanting to kill people, I would drive all the people to one location and set off some explosives." So I walked through the clouds of debris and got absolutely covered in white stuff while burnt papers were falling down and there was a horrible smell in the air. I went to the east side of the island trying to go north, but the FBI and local police weren't letting anyone go north at that point, so we were hearded to the brooklyn bridge. But I didn't want to be around a large group of people and I headed north at the first street I could. So I walked up the east side where lots of vendors and retailers had pulled their water coolers out to help people and these nice folks brought out a soap bucket and a hose and I washed the soot off my hands and out of my eyes.

Not much later I was stopped looking at the other tower when it suddenly started to collapse and a lady fainted and started crying and it was horrible all over again because you know how many innocent, hard working, early rising people were trapped and unable to flee and then snuffed out.

Eventually I got home, though all along the trip people had radios blaring in the street with the news and everyone knew that an additional hijacked plane had crashed into the pentagon. So every time a plane flew over, people would flinch and duck. However, I don't think they were commercial planes. I saw a couple of F-16's flying overhead along the way so I felt better.

I'm still very very scared. There's no way to really know that another attack hasn't been planned. I'm just hoping that things are OK. There are throngs of folks in Times Square watching the news as it comes in on the large screens there.

Thank you again for all your thoughts and wishes. The city has already started pulling itself together and I know we'll all be OK in the long run.

Much love for you all,

-Michael

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/11/2002 08:33:00 AM (Archive Link)
I don’t personally know anybody who was directly affected 9-11… and by that I mean anybody who was there or anybody who lost a relative. However, it still affects me and the answer is simple…

I am American.

That is my race, ethnicity, and nationality. I know no other. This is the country that raised me, that taught me its values, that taught me justice, that entrusts me with its safety.

I am American.

This is the country that gave birth to my mind. As I am a part of it, it is a part of me and I hold it close.

I am American.

I am part of a family… a collective whole with my fellow citizens.

I am American.

When part of this country hurts, I feel the pain. When it is damaged, I bleed. Those who damage it are my enemies and I will do what I can to oppose and defeat them.

I am American.

I will defend and uphold my country’s values, laws, and integrity in both word and action. I will put my efforts toward guiding it on a right and just course. I love my country.

I am American.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/10/2002 11:34:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read a letter to the editor in Sunday’s paper in which somebody complained about the sanctions on Iraq and how they were hurting people and killing children and how a war with Iraq would exacerbate both. This is ridiculous nonsense. For one thing, I take issue with the degree of the suffering. You must keep in mind that the information is coming from a totalitarian dictatorship and a state controlled media… that means it’s propaganda with the purpose of advancing Iraq’s PR cause. Some of the true leftists would say that the U.S. is putting out propaganda against Iraq. What amazes me is that these people are more inclined to agree and sympathize with a ruthless dictator than with a free, democratically elected government. They don’t seem to understand that a bad man only tells you what he wants you to think and that it’s for an appropriately bad purpose.

Secondly, any suffering comes directly from Saddam Hussein himself. He somehow found the money to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, military, and his own personal palaces, which some say number about a hundred. When he built out a Chinese fiber optic network connecting radar stations and missile batteries, I don’t think he did so with change he found in his couch. Iraq has plenty of money to go around, both from legal oil sales and plenty of illegal oil smuggling. The problem isn’t the flow, it’s the spigot. There is only one man who controls where the cash goes and he has decided to put it towards his own megalomaniacal purposes while punishing his citizens. This gives him the added bonus of crying about the people’s suffering and blaming it on others. Of course, a man who puts anti-aircraft guns on the roofs of elementary schools is hardly above using his people as pawns.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/10/2002 12:40:00 AM (Archive Link)
One of the columns I like to read is Tongue Tied on FoxNews.com. It's usually updated every Monday and you can find this week's edition here. Sometimes I'm convinced that Berkeley, California, is located on the outermost circle of hell.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/10/2002 12:36:00 AM (Archive Link)
Over a day later and I'm still amazed at the ending to the Chiefs game yesterday. You can read about it here.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/08/2002 03:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
The EU makes much of their supposed highmindedness in respect to international affairs. They consider their diplomatic talking approach to be more enlightened than America’s somewhat more action-oriented thinking. However, I find the European method troubling on both a conceptual level and a practical level.

For the conceptual part, let’s face a fact… humans can be brutal. We kill, we steal, we war, we torture, we lust, we envy, we hate, etc., etc. The world has seen greater and lesser degrees of such base behavior over time and even in the Pax Americana era, people in many countries suffer from it daily. Those who don’t extensively experience it, surly know of it in isolated, non-destabilizing instances, e.g. a woman getting her purse stolen in Cedar Rapids. The point, though, is that at his base, man is…well… a base animal. It’s the primal, conscienceless thoughts that will always be a part of humanity and cannot be exorcised. The Europeans, however, have a notion that this isn’t the case. They feel that educational enlightenment and a high standard of living will prevent people or nations from taking up arms, from being in any way belligerent, and from exhibiting the aforementioned behaviors. For them, a global utopia is possible. This is absurd. You cannot eliminate baseness and violence from humanity any more than you can remove speech, art, or religion… they are all basic components of the human personality and identity. Nor can baseness and violence be controlled. Remember that we are talking about the dark side of humanity. It’s been said that if you dance with the devil, then you’re certainly not the leading partner. While the highminded elite may think they are controlling the base, the reality is the reverse… the base is controlling the elite because the base is manipulative and crafty by nature while the elite has grown ignorant of that which they oppose. The base sets the rules of the game and the rest are forced to play in it.

The practical level very much springs from the conceptual. We must remember that the belligerents of the world (the base) understand both their oppositions’ (the elite’s) strengths and weaknesses, while the same cannot be said of the elite’s understanding of the belligerents. They know the elite’s desire to talk things out and they also know of the elite’s fear of violent conflict… an unfortunate combination. As such, the belligerents will use the elite’s behavior against itself. If the elite complains to the belligerent about an action they are undertaking, then the belligerent will speak to assuage the elite, but speaking is all they will do. They will not fear the elite as the elite has no military will. If the mean-spirited child knows they will receive no more than a verbal scolding from an adult, then why stop mean-spirited action? The belligerents are men of action and such individuals only respect and respond to action from others. Anything less is humorous and utterly ineffective.

When all of this is put into practice, it’s obvious why I prefer American diplomacy. Americans are willing to face and accept the fact that there are bad people out there and those bad people are opposed to us. We also recognize that these people do not fear words, but they do fear missiles. The U.S. does not allow the belligerents to set the rules of the game in which it must play… we establish the game itself. As TR said, America speaks softly and carries a big stick. The EU only does the former.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/08/2002 03:49:00 PM (Archive Link)
One of the things I keep reading in the news lately is that the U.S. shouldn’t attack Iraq unless it demonstrates proof of its accusations against Saddam. I find this strange and amusing… “proof.” What exactly is acceptable proof for them? Would they prefer a signed affidavit from Saddam Hussein in which he admits developing, producing, and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction as well as aiding and harboring terrorists? Oddly enough, I don’t think even this would convince some. They speak of proof without stating what would be sufficient. Hussein has empirically resisted and impaired any and all attempts of the international community to investigate his WMD programs. Using the inspection method, proof is impossible. If we use spy photos, these will not be enough for the doubters. Hussein has done well at hiding his dirty laundry and even if we identify WMD facilities or weapons, the doubters will only say we have misidentified them. So no proof is sufficient, but frankly, I find it irrelevant. There is far and away enough circumstantial evidence to support our case and most of that evidence has been supplied by Hussein in the past. We know what he’s done and we know what he’s tried to do. A megalomaniac doesn’t change his ways.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/08/2002 03:47:00 PM (Archive Link)
I am a happy man as my beloved Kansas City Chiefs just won against the Cleveland Browns, 40-39, in a true heart attack game with an exceptionally wacky ending. I would like to thank Browns' linebacker Dwayne Rudd for strangely removing his helmet and throwing it on the field during what was supposed to be the last play of the game. The resulting penalty gave the Chiefs one last chance to score (with 0:00 left on the game clock) and so they did with the winning field goal.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/06/2002 12:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
A thought just came to me while I was thinking about action against Iraq. It reminded me of the Punic Wars. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, these were a series of three wars between the ancient Roman Republic (before the empire) and Carthage in North Africa… roughly 264-146 BC. You might remember the Second Punic War… it was the one with Hannibal and the elephants crossing the Alps and all. What brings this all to mind, though, is the Third Punic War. Carthage had rebuilt its wealth and a little power after its defeat in the second war (although Hannibal did give Rome a run for its money… the phrase, “Hannibal at the gates!” was often used by mothers to scare their children) and it had built a special harbor for warships. Rome saw the potential threat in Carthage’s military buildup, especially considering the first two conflicts, and decided to eliminate the threat. The famous senator Cato was known to end all of his senate speeches, no matter the topic, by saying, “I also think that Carthage should be destroyed!” In one speech, in an act of bravado, he released a collection of fresh dates from his toga, declaring they had been picked in Carthage only two days prior. We can only assume they got the point. Ultimately, the Romans razed Carthage, killed most of its citizenry and sold the rest into slavery. Ok, so we shouldn’t be anywhere near that brutal in dealing with Iraq, but it goes to show that the old Roman folks knew how to take preemptive action.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/05/2002 11:59:00 PM (Archive Link)
As you know, the one year anniversary of September 11th is approaching and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Not the date itself, mind you, or my personal feelings concerning the event. I’ll blog about that on the 11th. No, what bothers me, is all the attention surrounding it. The networks will be full of sentimentality, ceremonies without number will take place. A big topic in the news lately has been just how the media will show honor to the day. Our national grief, for the most part, will be shared while huddled around the TV. I suppose what bothers me about this is that it almost seems like manufactured sentiments and that the media is to decide how we feel about the 11th. If our own emotions are out of step with their presentation, then we’re out of step with the proper national mood. I don’t really want Dan Rather telling me how I should feel about things. I don’t want Peter Jennings giving me a practiced stern gaze while discussing the tragedy in a classic anchorman cadence. I want something raw, something unprocessed and something that hasn’t been made slick and glossy. I want grit. I don’t want art but the rough unhewn material from which the art is made. I don’t know… I suppose I have my own memories and feelings of that day and I don’t want them polluted by what the media wants me to remember and feel.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/29/2002 02:03:00 AM (Archive Link)
I’ve come to the realization recently that there’s a new form of cold war starting. It’s much more benign in a way and far more nebulous than the old U.S. vs. U.S.S.R. version, but it’s brewing. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. stood astride the world as the lone superpower and it still holds that distinction. What this has done, however, is make the rest of the world awfully wary of us. The EU, especially, is giving the impression that they fear America will use its economic and military power to have its way wherever it pleases just because it can. They therefore feel it’s their duty to oppose such actions… even it’s for the good. Take Iraq, for example. Hussein needs to go. He’s a dangerous man with dangerous weapons who has proved both of these in the past. He mocks U.N. resolutions, aids suicide bombers, and harbors terrorists (more on that in the next post). Bush would love to remove him from power. Many Americans would love to remove him from power. The EU, the UN, and a host of others, however, have vigorously opposed the idea. They say there’s no proof of weapons or terrorists or any wrongdoing. They all know better but they still oppose it. The real reason? Because America wants to do it and it involves force. When those aspects come together, then America must be opposed. My favorite opposition tactic is when leaders say that no action should be taken unless the UN blesses it. Of course, they know very well that the UN will not bless it and that’s why they say it. At the same time, it allows them to not directly oppose action. They sidestep the issue. So yes, I think we’ll see an increasing number of disagreements between America and the world on a number of issues and this will be the new cold war. Hopefully, it won’t lead to any conflicts.

What really irks me about these countries' behavior, however, is how almost all of the now disagreeable countries benefited from America’s involvement and use of force. When it was America against the Soviets, they couldn’t line up fast enough to be our friends. Now they’re filling the Soviet power vacuum. And in the process, they will blithely ignore the dangers in their midst and the dangers just a block down from their neighborhood. They did it with Yugoslavia and they’re doing it now with Iraq. As I’ve said before, it never ceases to astonish me at how Europe has an utter inability to learn from their historic mistakes, especially where dictators are concerned. They choose appeasement every time and every time their inaction results in terrific suffering.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/29/2002 02:03:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may have read recently about the U.N. conference that took up the cause of helping Third World countries develop to… well, at least to the 2.5 World. The poor countries, of course, said how it was the moral duty of the rich Western nations to provide them with more aid. The West is balking and for good reason. Throwing money at these countries is money wasted.

The first problem I see with aid is that most of these governments are hopelessly corrupt. Foreign aid in the form of cash is largely pocketed by officials or squandered on projects that benefit only themselves. Foreign aid in the form of grain or food is controlled by these same people and is distributed to friends or resold for profit as they see fit. The citizens, then, continue to wallow in poverty and the same bloated emissaries cry out about how the world oppresses them and they deserve more aid. A fine example of this is the Palestinian Authority. Here’s a group that receives money from the U.S., the U.N., the E.U. and who knows how many Arab nations. For the population and geographic size, they have a huge aid income. And yet the people suffer while the PA officials build and live in mansion/palaces. It’s well known that it’s impossible to accomplish anything there without extensive bribery. And so you can see similar behavior in any number of the Third World countries. So aid accomplishes little because of the entities who are entrusted to handle it. The entrusted can’t be trusted.

Secondly, I don’t like aid because it has the tendency to keep these corrupt governments in power. Not only in the sense that the liquid money and the power of distribution give them exceptional power and military might, but if the people have just enough to keep from starving, they’re likely to tolerate an oppressive regime… especially when combined with the military might. North Korea is a prime example of this. A Communist country with a leader worship mentality, it is unable to feed its own people. Many have starved there and this is in spite of much food aid from other countries. I’m willing to bet that when that food aid reaches the masses, it’s never presented as foreign aid… it’s more likely presented as food that the great leader has provided to his people, he’s such a swell guy. Without such extensive aid, though, the greater suffering of the people would create a groundswell to overthrow the bad government. Instead the aid preserves it. Cruel? Yes. It’s the realpolitik in me. Another part of me doesn’t like the idea of letting many more people starve for the purpose of revolution, but then again I wonder if it’s better in the long run.

And third, I dislike aid because even at its best, it ultimately teaches reliance on that aid. If you keep giving people fish, there’s little reason to learn to fish.

What I would like to see instead is a larger presence of private enterprise in these countries. Since many don’t have the capital to start this out and those who do just become part of the corruption problem, then foreign private enterprise would have to get involved. International corporations have the ability to cater to corrupt regimes and once they have a foothold, they can resist them. At the same time, they can increase the overall wealth of the nation and its people which enables the citizenry to conduct their own private enterprise and it’s a snowball effect from there to the establishment of a well-to-do and effective middle class.

Some will no doubt call my proposition simplistic, that it ignores how many international companies have a tendency to pay poorly, that they can further enrich and empower the rulers, and that some examples of foreign companies in the Third World haven’t been the best. All this is true and they are issues to be worked on. Nevertheless, well-applied capitalism has been a far greater boon to the world than any other system. For this reason alone, it deserves consideration in developing nations instead of milking the already developed countries of ever more foreign aid.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/29/2002 02:02:00 AM (Archive Link)
So on the issue of Iraq, many are saying we have no right for attack because we can’t prove Saddam’s development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and we can’t prove that he is harboring, protecting, or aiding terrorists. This is what they say in public to avoid another Persian Gulf War and to oppose the U.S. However, I cannot for a minute believe that any of these people actually buy into this. Here are some facts… we know Hussein has developed WMD in the past; we know he tossed UN inspectors out of Iraq before they had come close to completing their mission of ensuring the WMD had been destroyed; we know that while the inspectors were in Iraq, they hit so much red tape and brick walls that they were utterly ineffective anyway; we know that Hussein hates the U.S. and that Iraq is just a stone’s throw from Afghanistan, a country from which a number of al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban lackies escaped. So for somebody to actually believe that Iraq isn’t developing and producing more WMD and that he isn’t helping terrorists who have proven they can strike at America is not just absurd… it’s stupid… incredibly stupid. And while I think that the countries who put forth such nonsense are stupid in their own ways, I don’t think their stupid in this way. They know better; they know Hussein is up to no good. But again, they would prefer to stand by and do nothing except talk, talk, talk. Stupid.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/29/2002 02:01:00 AM (Archive Link)
One more thing that irks me is how Saddam has been pleading his case up and down and issuing all sorts of propaganda about why Iraq shouldn’t be attacked. And everybody else is eating up. They’re being manipulated by a madman. And why not… it’s happened before. I guarantee you that if nothing is done about this, it will all blow up in our faces and that will be the most tragic thing of all.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/29/2002 02:00:00 AM (Archive Link)
Just read this article on CNN.com which exemplifies some of the things I’ve just discussed. The Europeans are afraid of unilateralist U.S. action, the EU wants to just talk, and they’ll stand idly by. This is my favorite part: “Louis Michel, the ever-outspoken Belgian Foreign Minister, told the Belgian daily newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws that [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair was undermining the rest of the European Union. ‘Morally and politically we could take charge in the world. But the UK are blocking that. They still don't understand they could play a pioneer role in Europe instead of submissively following the U.S..’” He’s essentially accusing the British of not being European enough. It’s the same as old fashioned race baiting. The pioneer role they could play in Europe is actually being pioneers… that typically involves not being like everybody else and blazing your own path. What the good Mr. Michel is really frustrated with is that the UK isn’t submissively following popular EU opinion. Let’s hope they don’t.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/26/2002 12:39:00 AM (Archive Link)
On a lighter note than usual… I tried watching the Anna Nicole Smith Show on E! today. I spent most of it amazed at just how… well… stupid she is. The lights are on but not only is nobody home, but the house is completely empty and the cockroaches are scurrying around. She seems like a 5 year old, if that. I can’t really describe it, you just have to watch it. About three minutes will be enough to get the proper impression.

One scene I found amusing was when she was giving her decorator, Bobby Trendy, directions on what she wanted in her bedroom. I got the feeling he was appalled at her choices (lots of leopard skin and fuzzy pink stuff) but he was going along with it… afterall, he was getting a lot of free publicity from the show.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/23/2002 11:05:00 PM (Archive Link)
In a previous post, I mentioned human rights and a notion occurred to me. I believe that a good barometer of the quality of a country’s human rights record is to what degree that country’s rhetoric says they have great human rights. In other words, the volume and boasting of their rhetoric is inversely proportional to the actual conditions; the more they claim good human rights, the worse they really are. Take this quote from Libya, for example, “Libya is a country where the respect of human rights is enshrined. The security, political stability and economic prosperity enjoyed by Libya are the proof of its respect of human rights.” (It must be so… African nations just voted for Libya to be head of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights… can the U.N. get any more backwards?) I’m sure you can find similar absurd quotes from those nations with the least respect for humanity. I tried to find a few but not many sites compile ridiculous propaganda statements from totalitarian governments and dictatorships. At any rate, the more a country talks up its record, the less true it is likely to be. For fun, let’s look at the opposite end of the spectrum… let’s try replacing “Libya” in the above quote with “the U.S.”: “The United States is a country where the respect of human rights is enshrined. The security, political stability and economic prosperity enjoyed by the U.S. are the proof of its respect of human rights.” Sounds silly, right? Not because there isn’t truth in it, but because it’s something of a “duh” statement. We wouldn’t go to the trouble of pointing out something like that if for no other reason than that it would appear gauche. It’s also a little overwrought in its language and we would never put it that way. Besides, the attitude of Americans towards almost all things is, “We’re good, probably better than everybody else, but we still have work to do… I mean, have you seen our past?” It’s that Puritan guilt coming into play. People would like to think that the Puritan aspect is no longer pertinent in American society, but we’re Puritan even in our liberality. The right got the values and the left got the guilt. Getting back to the point, however, if a foreign ambassador ever regales you at a dinner party about how great their country’s human rights record is, you should probably question why he feels the need to tell you that. If the record isn’t already obvious and transparent, then there’s a problem.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/23/2002 11:02:00 PM (Archive Link)
Speaking of countries with poor human rights records, Cuba's web site has this little snippet celebrating 80 years of radio in Cuba. What I find surprising is that they’d be celebrating something that happened before the country’s Communist revolution. Well… I guess it is an awfully small snippet.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/23/2002 11:01:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read a letter to the editor in today’s USA Today and a reader opined that we shouldn’t invade Iraq because it will just turn into another Vietnam. How many times have we heard that? Panama was supposed to be another Vietnam… The Persian Gulf War I was supposed to be another Vietnam… Yugoslavia was supposed to another Vietnam… Afghanistan was supposed to be even worse than another Vietnam. Of course, there hasn’t been another Vietnam and there won’t be another one. Heck, we could go back to Vietnam and it wouldn’t be another Vietnam. The actual Vietnam War was unique for the time period, culture, geography, politics, and military. You simply can’t transplant the experiences of that war into conditions that are vastly different from the conditions in the aforementioned categories. It simply doesn’t work. Saying that such and such will be another Vietnam has almost as much effect as saying it will be another War of the Roses or another Punic War (you can pick your favorite of the three). It’s simply incorrect to say that events in scenario A will occur in scenario B even though the circumstances and conditions surrounding B are nothing like A. Ever since the Vietnam War’s unfortunate conclusion, those on the left and those who are afraid of armed confrontation have used it as the war bogeyman. No matter where we propose our armed forces should intervene, we can’t go there because it might be like Vietnam. The notion doesn’t hold water but it is a silly piece of rhetoric that’s invoked to make Americans nervous. As Bush Sr. once said, it’s about time we kick this Vietnam syndrome once and for all. If only there weren’t people who kept trying to reinfect us.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/22/2002 11:30:00 PM (Archive Link)
It hasn’t received a great deal of national news, but Mexican president Vicente Fox recently canceled a planned trip through Texas because the state executed a man who was a possible Mexican national. They were slightly irked that the convicted man wasn’t allowed to contact the Mexican consulate, even though his nationality was very much in doubt. For the most part, I like Fox, but he’s annoying me on this matter. He’s been taking the moral high road and condemning Texas and the U.S. in general for using capital punishment. Said Fox, “When you believe in values, you live by them. We don’t believe that the death penalty is the way to go. The whole world is moving in the direction of the elimination of the death penalty.” He also pointed out that even though Mexico’s military courts allow the death penalty, nobody has been executed there for decades (yeah, at least not officially). So yes, even our southern neighbors are looking down their moral noses at us. What I find appalling about this… well, laughable, really… is that it’s Mexico. Mexico of all places! Does anybody hear the pot mocking the kettle? Allow me to point you to a few sites regarding Mexico’s sparkling human rights record… let’s see… there’s Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and well, here’s a whole bunch of Amnesty International articles and almost none of them are complimentary. My point is that if anybody should be lecturing the U.S. on human rights, it’s not Mexico. While Fox might be the man to help turn things around, I think he should clean his own house before pointing fingers at the mansion next door.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 8/22/2002 11:29:00 PM (Archive Link)
While we’re on the topic of Mexico and President Fox, I’ll also discuss his view on immigration. To quote the newspaper, “In negotiations with the Bush administration over immigration, Fox pointed out he has requested a ‘legalization’ of undocumented immigrants, not a blanket amnesty that would open the doors to naturalization, the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. ‘We did not ask for their naturalization. We do not want it, nor do they want to be Americans.’” “Undocumented immigrants,” of course, is another way of saying, “illegal immigrants.” I’ll be honest with you, I greatly dislike the idea of “legalizing” or naturalizing illegal immigrants. These are people whose very presence in the U.S. is a violation of its law. Some will say that these are just poor downtrodden folks trying to better themselves. Even so, I hardly think it’s an auspicious start when you flaunt the sovereign laws that govern the nation you intend to make your own. As such, I think the idea of legalizing or naturalizing such people is absurd. You’re basically rewarding people for committing a crime. It’s like capturing a burglar and then letting him go… while allowing him to keep his plundered swag.

This reminds me of something similar that was causing some debate not too long ago. Texas decided that any foreigner, whether they’re here legally or not, will be deported if they’re convicted of a violent felony. And the law agencies were interpreting “violent felony” to include such things as drunken driving. There was the rub. You had these foreign nationals who were sent packing for this particular moving violation and you heard sad stories about people who had legally been in the U.S. for 20-30 years and had a family, etc., and the state was trying to ship them back from whence they originally came. So the protests mainly centered around the unfairness of it all and how such a thing as drunken driving shouldn’t at all be considered a violent felony. I could not disagree more. Driving while intoxicated is about as violent as you can get. You hop in a two ton machine and pilot it around at high speed, all the while not being fully in command of either yourself or the vehicle and endangering everybody around you. And the people you’ll harm aren’t targeted, they’re just mere innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time… the most tragic variety of victims. So a violent felony, yes.

Should such people be expelled? Absolutely. Whether they’re in the U.S. legally or not (but especially if they’re legal), they’re here under the good graces of the government and its citizens. As such, they have the moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to obey its laws. When they fail to do this and when they willingly and stupidly endanger the lives of its citizens, they have lost the privilege of enjoying the country’s hospitality. They have become persona non grata. I don’t particularly care how long they’ve been here, if they are not citizens, have not bothered and/or desired to become citizens, then they are guests of the U.S. And much as you would toss out a houseguest for waving a knife at your kids, so these people should be tossed out as well.