Wednesday, April 06, 2005
My anti-lottery letter
NCGOP Chairman Ferrell Blount sent an email yesterday to probably everyone who has signed up for issue emails here, alerting us that the NC lottery bill may come up for a vote in the House very soon. I'll try and pass on the email itself to all the Halifax County activists I have email addresses for; please consider signing up for these emails yourself as I won't readdress any more emails like this. The NCGOP has been sending only one or two of these a week, and they seem to be set up well for getting through spam filters (i.e., I didn't have to do anything special at all to get them).
I wrote to the new General Assemblyman, Ed Jones of Enfield, who was apparently officially appointed yesterday to serve out the term of John Hall; his page on the General Assembly website is up now. As I mention in my letter below, I met him at the meeting of the Democratic Executive Committee for the 7th Legislative District in Halifax on Monday, when the local Democrats chose him for the governor to officially appoint. His speech asking for this designation was short on specific issues but long on humility, sincerity, and promises to listen to all his constituents. So I wrote him, we'll see. Those of you on the western edge of Halifax County and in downtown Roanoke Rapids are in the 49th Legislative District and should think about writing to Representative Lucy Allen, who is also a Democrat so who knows if she'll listen to us.
You'll note that I didn't use any of the exact talking points Chairman Blount supplied; calls for email campaigns generally encourage letter writers to personalize their letters for better impact. Anyway, here's what I wrote:
Dear Representative Jones,
First of all, congratulations on gaining the confidence of the Democrats of Halifax and Nash Counties and being appointed by the governor to serve out the term of John D. Hall; may he rest in peace. Your 'campaign' address to the Democratic 7th Legislative District Executive Committee, promising to serve with honesty and openness to all your constituents' ideas, reflected great credit upon you and I am sure your background in law enforcement will be an asset to the General Assembly.
I am writing to you today (rather than after you get settled in) as word has it that the bill establishing a state lottery may come up for a vote very soon. I noted that your principal opponent for your present seat, Sammy Webb, spoke in favor of this lottery, and specifically recommended it as a means of collecting (presumably new) money for education, Medicare, and aid to Tier 1 counties. Press coverage of the lottery proposals also has hinted that the $500 million that it is expected to raise in the near term will help cover the $1.2 billion deficit this year. So I am concerned that this bill is being 'sold' to the General Assembly as a panacea, promising new funds for whatever ails the polity, when actually, in the out years, it will be treated as any other tax contributing to the General Fund. Clearly new money will not be thrown into education, for instance, without regard for the need for it, and programs which are truly needed which are funded by lottery money will then NOT be funded from the General Fund; therefore, the lottery will not be putting new money into education but merely more money to the General Fund for allocation to programs the General Assembly supports. So the lottery should be treated as any other tax, and the wisdom of levying it considered accordingly.
A state lottery might well be considered a 'sin' tax, as it taxes a behavior (gambling) which is generally thought to be undesirable. Gambling is also illegal in most forms; legalizing a form of gambling in order to tax it erodes the social stigma associated with it and erodes respect for the law.
State lotteries have uniformly been found to function as regressive taxes, transferring money from the poor, less educated, and less secure and hopeful sectors of society to those wise enough not to participate.
A lottery is an INEFFICIENT tax. Not only paying out winnings but also the need for large advertising campaigns give it a shockingly high 'overhead', and it collects money which might otherwise be spent by consumers on things which not only do the consumers more good, but are also taxed more sensibly.
I will not be paying any of this lottery tax, as I know that any scheme the state is taking some 30% out of, and as I have heard is projected to pay 18% long term in advertising and other overhead costs on, amounts to a suckers' bet. A North Carolina state lottery will nevertheless impact me personally, not on my wallet but on my psyche. Every lottery advertisement I see will remind me that my neighbors are being played. Every time I stand in line at the gas station or a convenience store behind someone buying lottery tickets I will be saddened that my government is participating in fleecing another victim. Every new jingle on radio or television depicting lottery players as happier than the rest of us, I will compare to the effort my government puts into the teaching of probability and statistics in schools.
An effort to continue collecting state revenue via a lottery would be a constant battle of glitz versus truth, pitting advertising professionals using every trick in the book against educators teaching probability, pastors and parents teaching responsibility, and each citizen's own eyes showing the desperation of people who put their trust in lottery winnings rather than in gainful employment; and it would distress me greatly to see my state government coming down on the side of deceitful advertising and pandering to what some call an addiction, and which I consider degrading ignorance.
I hope that you will refuse to support a state lottery.
Sincerely yours,
Kent Ross
Chairman, Halifax County Republican Party
I wrote to the new General Assemblyman, Ed Jones of Enfield, who was apparently officially appointed yesterday to serve out the term of John Hall; his page on the General Assembly website is up now. As I mention in my letter below, I met him at the meeting of the Democratic Executive Committee for the 7th Legislative District in Halifax on Monday, when the local Democrats chose him for the governor to officially appoint. His speech asking for this designation was short on specific issues but long on humility, sincerity, and promises to listen to all his constituents. So I wrote him, we'll see. Those of you on the western edge of Halifax County and in downtown Roanoke Rapids are in the 49th Legislative District and should think about writing to Representative Lucy Allen, who is also a Democrat so who knows if she'll listen to us.
You'll note that I didn't use any of the exact talking points Chairman Blount supplied; calls for email campaigns generally encourage letter writers to personalize their letters for better impact. Anyway, here's what I wrote:
Dear Representative Jones,
First of all, congratulations on gaining the confidence of the Democrats of Halifax and Nash Counties and being appointed by the governor to serve out the term of John D. Hall; may he rest in peace. Your 'campaign' address to the Democratic 7th Legislative District Executive Committee, promising to serve with honesty and openness to all your constituents' ideas, reflected great credit upon you and I am sure your background in law enforcement will be an asset to the General Assembly.
I am writing to you today (rather than after you get settled in) as word has it that the bill establishing a state lottery may come up for a vote very soon. I noted that your principal opponent for your present seat, Sammy Webb, spoke in favor of this lottery, and specifically recommended it as a means of collecting (presumably new) money for education, Medicare, and aid to Tier 1 counties. Press coverage of the lottery proposals also has hinted that the $500 million that it is expected to raise in the near term will help cover the $1.2 billion deficit this year. So I am concerned that this bill is being 'sold' to the General Assembly as a panacea, promising new funds for whatever ails the polity, when actually, in the out years, it will be treated as any other tax contributing to the General Fund. Clearly new money will not be thrown into education, for instance, without regard for the need for it, and programs which are truly needed which are funded by lottery money will then NOT be funded from the General Fund; therefore, the lottery will not be putting new money into education but merely more money to the General Fund for allocation to programs the General Assembly supports. So the lottery should be treated as any other tax, and the wisdom of levying it considered accordingly.
A state lottery might well be considered a 'sin' tax, as it taxes a behavior (gambling) which is generally thought to be undesirable. Gambling is also illegal in most forms; legalizing a form of gambling in order to tax it erodes the social stigma associated with it and erodes respect for the law.
State lotteries have uniformly been found to function as regressive taxes, transferring money from the poor, less educated, and less secure and hopeful sectors of society to those wise enough not to participate.
A lottery is an INEFFICIENT tax. Not only paying out winnings but also the need for large advertising campaigns give it a shockingly high 'overhead', and it collects money which might otherwise be spent by consumers on things which not only do the consumers more good, but are also taxed more sensibly.
I will not be paying any of this lottery tax, as I know that any scheme the state is taking some 30% out of, and as I have heard is projected to pay 18% long term in advertising and other overhead costs on, amounts to a suckers' bet. A North Carolina state lottery will nevertheless impact me personally, not on my wallet but on my psyche. Every lottery advertisement I see will remind me that my neighbors are being played. Every time I stand in line at the gas station or a convenience store behind someone buying lottery tickets I will be saddened that my government is participating in fleecing another victim. Every new jingle on radio or television depicting lottery players as happier than the rest of us, I will compare to the effort my government puts into the teaching of probability and statistics in schools.
An effort to continue collecting state revenue via a lottery would be a constant battle of glitz versus truth, pitting advertising professionals using every trick in the book against educators teaching probability, pastors and parents teaching responsibility, and each citizen's own eyes showing the desperation of people who put their trust in lottery winnings rather than in gainful employment; and it would distress me greatly to see my state government coming down on the side of deceitful advertising and pandering to what some call an addiction, and which I consider degrading ignorance.
I hope that you will refuse to support a state lottery.
Sincerely yours,
Kent Ross
Chairman, Halifax County Republican Party
Monday, April 04, 2005
The 4 April BOC meeting
I went to the County Board of Commissioners meeting this morning. I can't say that it was exciting, but it did make me think that finding candidates for local offices shouldn't be as hard as I feared. We don't need lawyers or college professors; the Board has professional bureaucrats (remember back when that wasn't a pejorative word?) ensuring that all the paperwork is in order and able to explain the decisions that needed making in any detail the Commissioners desired. Certainly the Commissioners have a lot of responsibility for the (sometimes) large amounts of money riding on their decisions, and I have no idea how much work they put in between meetings directing ideas to be researched or checking the work of their staffs or lobbying state government or businesses which might be persuaded to move to Halifax County... But it struck me that the most important qualities for local candidates were not quick wits or breadth of knowledge, but just honesty and common sense. And familiarity with the local area would be a good bonus. Ex-police sergeants would do just fine, as would housewives with volunteer experience.
Few of the issues were really contentious, even. On the most contentious issue, 'our' (Republican) Commissioner Minton really shone. Health Director Lynda Smith came in to request that a new position be added to the county payroll, a $20,000/year position for someone to man the animal control facility all day and maybe half-days on Saturdays. The rationale was to free the four animal control officers from having to switch off spending most of the morning cleaning the place and feeding the penned animals. Now, it made some sense because:
a) each qualified animal control officer spends half of every fourth day doing a job that can be done by someone less qualified and lower-paid,
b) having the facility manned all day would save the animal control officers from being called back to the facility to get animals out if someone turned up to claim them,
c) having someone at the facility might prevent people who came to dump unwanted pets off on animal control from finding the place closed and just leaving their animals to run wild, and
d) this extra person (who, you'll remember, has only about half a day's work to do beyond minding the place) might be able to run an adoption program, so fewer animals would have to be destroyed.
Commissioner Minton did a fine job of refuting each of these points without ticking anyone off or even seeming to dominate the conversation. It turns out that the animal control office was cut back to two officers only two years ago in a downsizing, and here it was already back up to its previous strength and wanting to grow further. Ms. Smith, under probing, had only vague guesses as to how often animal control officers were called back to get animals out of the facility when owners came to get them, and had never considered setting fixed opening hours for the mornings to let owners pick up pets when officers were there anyway, cleaning up and feeding the animals. Commissioner Pierce and Vice-Chairman Johnson clearly thought they'd been getting too many complaints about loose animals, but didn't have any specifics to give or know to what degree four animal control officers might do better than 3.5. Vice-Chairman Johnson seemed to think it would be unreasonable to tell a pet owner wanting to get their pet back to wait until the next morning, as there'd be emotions involved (which made me wonder whether people whose pets caused such trouble that animal control had to be called didn't need some sort of talking-to in addition to doing without their pet overnight).
And it was pointed out that a county pet adoption program wasn't necessarily needed: animal control officers now are able to select adoptable animals to take to the Humane Society whenever the latter has room. Sadly, I expect even the Humane Society has to put many of their animals down in Halifax County as everywhere else; getting the county into the adoption business won't likely spare any of our cute little friends and it might well step on the toes of the Humane Society, if their financial patrons start to feel like they're paying taxes to support a rival to a well-run charity.
Commissioner Minton looked a little frustrated as he said that it seemed to him like the Board was adding to the county payroll at each meeting, and said that he wasn't going to support any new positions without real justification. It seemed to me that he was getting at least Commissioner Manning onto his side, but the rest of the Board was looking for some sort of compromise, perhaps a part-time worker for nine months to see how that worked out? Commissioner Manning went along with it on a 4-1 party-line vote. Commissioner Minton's last word on it was asking what sort of metrics would be used to decide if the position was a success. None were offered; the success of this 'temporary' position will apparently be contingent on Commissioner Pierce's and Vice-Chairman Johnson's subjective opinion about the complaints they get.
The other contentious issue was the mere acceptance of a progress report on a study of regional wastewater systems in Halifax and Northhampton Counties, a study funded by something called "Halifax Horizons" (sounds like a lobbying group or state-funded nonprofit, in any case, we're probably paying for it, now, later, or indirectly). I tried to follow what the study was finding, but the gist of it was what Phillip Brown of the Herald later summed up succinctly as "Roanoke Rapids' wastewater processing plant is working at only about half its capacity, and is (therefore?) the most expensive plant in the area. Eastern Northhampton County has a number of local wastewater plants which are inadequate". Other tidbits the study had uncovered were that Weldon has some excess capacity (just enough that they're not required to start feasibility studies toward expanding capacity), and that a plan to connect eastern Northhampton County wastewater plants to Roanoke Rapids' processing facility would cost $33 million. That's a one-way connection, to treat water and dump it into the Roanoke. No water systems in Halifax or Northhampton Counties need to get fresh water piped in. Anyway, the 'study' looks predestined to recommend a 'regional solution' to the 'problem' of excess capacity here and out-of-specs effluent controls there. I couldn't tell if it was a well-meaning state study telling our Commissioners what they already knew, some nonprofit pushing regionalization for its own sake, or a front organization for a contractor who wants to sell us a $33 million pipeline, but Commissioner Manning was having none of it and insisted that the board not 'accept' or 'approve' the interim report lest it be thought to commit the Board to something later. I think they agreed to tone it down to 'accept for consideration' or something like that, heck, it was someone other than the county paying for the study, they couldn't very well decide not to listen. Maybe someone will put out a boondoggle alert, or a reasonable proposal could emerge, but for now the Board consensus is properly cautious.
Oh, and if anyone saw me on TV-20 talking to the Black Caucus rally outside, don't get too enthused: I didn't make any converts. I have to admit that it looks suspicious when the three black Commissioners want Commissioner Pierce as Chairman, while the three white Commissioners want Commissioner Minton, but I can't fault the good taste of (white) Democratic Commissioners Manning and Hux for trusting a Republican; I just wish I knew more about the real issues behind the split. If it really is just racism, I'll have to encourage Republicans to condemn it.
Few of the issues were really contentious, even. On the most contentious issue, 'our' (Republican) Commissioner Minton really shone. Health Director Lynda Smith came in to request that a new position be added to the county payroll, a $20,000/year position for someone to man the animal control facility all day and maybe half-days on Saturdays. The rationale was to free the four animal control officers from having to switch off spending most of the morning cleaning the place and feeding the penned animals. Now, it made some sense because:
a) each qualified animal control officer spends half of every fourth day doing a job that can be done by someone less qualified and lower-paid,
b) having the facility manned all day would save the animal control officers from being called back to the facility to get animals out if someone turned up to claim them,
c) having someone at the facility might prevent people who came to dump unwanted pets off on animal control from finding the place closed and just leaving their animals to run wild, and
d) this extra person (who, you'll remember, has only about half a day's work to do beyond minding the place) might be able to run an adoption program, so fewer animals would have to be destroyed.
Commissioner Minton did a fine job of refuting each of these points without ticking anyone off or even seeming to dominate the conversation. It turns out that the animal control office was cut back to two officers only two years ago in a downsizing, and here it was already back up to its previous strength and wanting to grow further. Ms. Smith, under probing, had only vague guesses as to how often animal control officers were called back to get animals out of the facility when owners came to get them, and had never considered setting fixed opening hours for the mornings to let owners pick up pets when officers were there anyway, cleaning up and feeding the animals. Commissioner Pierce and Vice-Chairman Johnson clearly thought they'd been getting too many complaints about loose animals, but didn't have any specifics to give or know to what degree four animal control officers might do better than 3.5. Vice-Chairman Johnson seemed to think it would be unreasonable to tell a pet owner wanting to get their pet back to wait until the next morning, as there'd be emotions involved (which made me wonder whether people whose pets caused such trouble that animal control had to be called didn't need some sort of talking-to in addition to doing without their pet overnight).
And it was pointed out that a county pet adoption program wasn't necessarily needed: animal control officers now are able to select adoptable animals to take to the Humane Society whenever the latter has room. Sadly, I expect even the Humane Society has to put many of their animals down in Halifax County as everywhere else; getting the county into the adoption business won't likely spare any of our cute little friends and it might well step on the toes of the Humane Society, if their financial patrons start to feel like they're paying taxes to support a rival to a well-run charity.
Commissioner Minton looked a little frustrated as he said that it seemed to him like the Board was adding to the county payroll at each meeting, and said that he wasn't going to support any new positions without real justification. It seemed to me that he was getting at least Commissioner Manning onto his side, but the rest of the Board was looking for some sort of compromise, perhaps a part-time worker for nine months to see how that worked out? Commissioner Manning went along with it on a 4-1 party-line vote. Commissioner Minton's last word on it was asking what sort of metrics would be used to decide if the position was a success. None were offered; the success of this 'temporary' position will apparently be contingent on Commissioner Pierce's and Vice-Chairman Johnson's subjective opinion about the complaints they get.
The other contentious issue was the mere acceptance of a progress report on a study of regional wastewater systems in Halifax and Northhampton Counties, a study funded by something called "Halifax Horizons" (sounds like a lobbying group or state-funded nonprofit, in any case, we're probably paying for it, now, later, or indirectly). I tried to follow what the study was finding, but the gist of it was what Phillip Brown of the Herald later summed up succinctly as "Roanoke Rapids' wastewater processing plant is working at only about half its capacity, and is (therefore?) the most expensive plant in the area. Eastern Northhampton County has a number of local wastewater plants which are inadequate". Other tidbits the study had uncovered were that Weldon has some excess capacity (just enough that they're not required to start feasibility studies toward expanding capacity), and that a plan to connect eastern Northhampton County wastewater plants to Roanoke Rapids' processing facility would cost $33 million. That's a one-way connection, to treat water and dump it into the Roanoke. No water systems in Halifax or Northhampton Counties need to get fresh water piped in. Anyway, the 'study' looks predestined to recommend a 'regional solution' to the 'problem' of excess capacity here and out-of-specs effluent controls there. I couldn't tell if it was a well-meaning state study telling our Commissioners what they already knew, some nonprofit pushing regionalization for its own sake, or a front organization for a contractor who wants to sell us a $33 million pipeline, but Commissioner Manning was having none of it and insisted that the board not 'accept' or 'approve' the interim report lest it be thought to commit the Board to something later. I think they agreed to tone it down to 'accept for consideration' or something like that, heck, it was someone other than the county paying for the study, they couldn't very well decide not to listen. Maybe someone will put out a boondoggle alert, or a reasonable proposal could emerge, but for now the Board consensus is properly cautious.
Oh, and if anyone saw me on TV-20 talking to the Black Caucus rally outside, don't get too enthused: I didn't make any converts. I have to admit that it looks suspicious when the three black Commissioners want Commissioner Pierce as Chairman, while the three white Commissioners want Commissioner Minton, but I can't fault the good taste of (white) Democratic Commissioners Manning and Hux for trusting a Republican; I just wish I knew more about the real issues behind the split. If it really is just racism, I'll have to encourage Republicans to condemn it.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
The Pope's Death
President Bush called him a "champion of human liberty". Everyone else has good things to say about the man, also. He was an inspiration to many people, regardless of how you feel about Catholicism or even religion in general (as I've mentioned to some of you, I'm an agnostic myself, but I'm glad to make common cause with religious Americans in recognition of your conservative values, generally superior families, and wholehearted embrace of the 'self-evident truths' in our Declaration of Independence).
Since I'm thinking of alliances with folk I don't entirely agree with, the Pope's death reminds me of what conservative Catholic William F. Buckley said in the mid-70s about liberal Catholic Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when the latter struck some particularly effective blow for freedom in his capacity as US Ambassador to the UN in the Ford Administration. Buckley said something to the effect that it was slightly sad that 'should the Almighty clear his throat and remove the scourge of Communism from the globe', he should then find himself squabbling with this fine man over minor differences in domestic priorities, rather than standing together with him for America's ideals.
Well, here we stand on the shoulders of giants, squabbling with the Democrats over domestic priorities. Let us reflect well on what we owe to Karol Wojtyla, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher for bringing the Iron Curtain down. If I ever do become religious, I'll point to the coincidence of their partnership as a proof of the benevolence of divine providence.
Since I'm thinking of alliances with folk I don't entirely agree with, the Pope's death reminds me of what conservative Catholic William F. Buckley said in the mid-70s about liberal Catholic Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when the latter struck some particularly effective blow for freedom in his capacity as US Ambassador to the UN in the Ford Administration. Buckley said something to the effect that it was slightly sad that 'should the Almighty clear his throat and remove the scourge of Communism from the globe', he should then find himself squabbling with this fine man over minor differences in domestic priorities, rather than standing together with him for America's ideals.
Well, here we stand on the shoulders of giants, squabbling with the Democrats over domestic priorities. Let us reflect well on what we owe to Karol Wojtyla, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher for bringing the Iron Curtain down. If I ever do become religious, I'll point to the coincidence of their partnership as a proof of the benevolence of divine providence.
Friday, April 01, 2005
What're those opthamologists up to?
I have three almost completely unrelated things to say today, but coincidentally, they all bear at least tangentially on opthamology. (And before someone picks on me, no, I'm not entirely clear on who's an opthamologist and who's an optometrist; I think opthamologists in general can do surgery and prescribe medications, while optometrists do more measuring and prescribe eyeglasses, but if I'm wrong, don't worry, the difference isn't germane to any of my points.)
First off, I think doctors, on average, are fine people. I find it upsetting when they get sued for not being entirely perfect (by Monday-morning quarterbacks who sometimes take YEARS to decide what doctors might have done wrong), and it seems very wrong to me that 'punitive' monetary damages can be levied against them in civil courts (you can punish damage done intentionally, and you can punish criminal negligence, but you punish those in CRIMINAL court and prison terms and fines are imposed by the state in the name of all of us, not by any lawyer who sees a chance to earn a big commission). I sent an email via Senator Dole's website a few weeks ago asking when civil lawyers got the right to usurp the power of the state by 'punishing' doctors and collecting huge commissions for doing so (I was reading about her bill to cap noneconomic damages in OB/GYN malpractice suits which got filibustered in 2004 and hasn't been reintroduced in the present 109th Congress, and I thought I might ask why they should be capped rather than cut to ZERO). Perhaps it is too broad a question; I've not gotten an answer. Anyway, doctors can earn lots of money but they had to be awfully smart and spend ever so long in school to get there, and they generally have to work long and irregular hours to earn it, so I think they deserve to be well paid. No one ever complains that there are too many doctors around. And to connect to my other two points, some doctors are opthamologists.
Now there's one opthamologist I don't like at all. His name is Bashar al-Assad. He may be smart, and he may have studied for a long time to become an opthamologist, but he's not fixing any eyes these days. He is now the 'President' of Syria, a poor, corrupt, state-terror-sponsoring dictatorship which is still trying to become important enough to earn the spot in the Axis of Evil that Iraq is vacating. I don't have much to say about Bashar al-Assad today other than that I'm pleased at the continuing news from Lebanon (that doesn't seem to be making the news much lately) as Assad's troops and secret police accelerate their departure, with their tails between their legs, under pressure from the soft speech of our President, the big stick he probably won't even have to use on Syria, and the huge prodemocracy demonstrations they're calling the 'Cedar Revolution'. (There's something the United Nations is good for, by the way: people talk a lot there in order to sound important, and sometimes they even write things down. Back in September 2004, when the insurgency in Iraq was going strong and it looked like we'd be bogged down in Iraq and never get back on the offensive in the War on Terror, the French were running off at the mouth with words they never expected to have to back up, but some smart American was actually listening (bless him for staying awake when France speaks) and got them to sign a document, Resolution 1559, calling on Syria to leave Lebanon. Who knew? I sure didn't hear about it. Surely the Syrians weren't going to take it seriously, hey, it was only the U.N. But a Lebanese patriot named Hariri heard about it, thought, here's my chance, resigned his position and started calling on Syria to get out. Still no big problem for the Syrians, their troops in Lebanon comfortably outnumbered the Lebanese Army (which, along with Lebanese politics, they controlled with their secret police), and America's hands were still tied by the insurgency in Iraq. True, they had no credible substitute for their current puppet 'Lebanese President' whose term was running out, so they just extended the term of the current puppet (unconstitutionally) and tried to assassinate one of Hariri's associates to keep the rest of them intimidated. Then came President Bush's second Inaugural Address, the media went wild accusing him of wanting to be the 'World's Policeman', saying, what, you are going to use military force to support any prodemocracy movement in the whole world? The antiAmerican Left was scandalized at this 'breach of international norms', this unilateralism, this, this... well, I'd call it the use of certain SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS as the basis of a practical foreign policy, but the Left had lots of other things to call it, none good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I never heard our President back down one bit, he just let the Left scream itself hoarse, and by the time their voices recovered, they had something else to rant about.
And then came 30 January, and the Iraqis voted. I hope every good Republican already knows plenty about that, so I won't go into it, except to say that suddenly it was obvious to everyone (except most leftists) that the insurgency in Iraq had failed, and a time would soon come when President Bush could decide which took fewer troops, pacifying Iraq alone, or pacifying Iraq AND the insurgents' armory, treasury, and sanctuary, Syria, simultaneously. Now, the Syrians aren't leftists (they just get plenty of sympathy from every antiAmerican group around the world because they're vocally antiAmerican, too), in fact, their Baathist party traces its heritage directly back to Nazi efforts to build an antiWestern fifth column in Egypt during World War II, so they understood that their position had suddenly weakened considerably. They had Hariri to the west stirring up Lebanese nationalism and actually getting some press coverage even in France by pointing out that Syria had made a naked anticonstitutional power grab by extending the term of the 'President', and to their east Iraqis were stepping up, defying and turning in insurgents, streaming into the Army, National Guard, and police forces, freeing up American troops, while President Bush was smirking (oh, how the leftists love to point out that smirk! Me, I like to see it, it is as if MY President was saying directly to me, "I've got the answer") and softly telling Syria it should stop supporting terrorism.
So this was the critical point for revolution vs. 'stability' in the Middle East, and it shows the appropriateness of the President's long-term strategy for winning the War on Terror. Remember how the Left loves to shriek that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror, there were no WMDs in Iraq, this was an optional and not a necessary war, we could have waited, given the inspectors more time, etc.? I don't think any of that was important to the President. Sure, he thought there were WMDs there, and getting them out of Saddam's hands would be a good bonus, but his thinking was more direct: America is at war, we must stay on the offensive (because a 'Fortress America' can't make itself safe from individual fanatics without curtailing civil liberties to a degree Americans would never accept), the CIA, FBI, and State Department (to the extent that the State Department ever supports a Republican president) were gearing up for a long-term war on Al Qaeda cells and finances, and most of our military was going to sit idle? (Leaving lots of troops in Afghanistan would have been a waste; you can't use huge armored formations to chase small units through mountainous terrain (that's why DOD Secretary Rumsfeld has been pushing 'transformation' all this time, to make the military more agile), and we couldn't send any troops at all into Pakistan without embarrassing President Musharraf, who has enough problems with his own Muslim radicals.)
The way forward was pretty clear even to me: invade a Muslim nation, preferrably an influential Arab one with a large, educated population that wasn't too mountainous. And then do our best to stay out of the way while they reshaped their nation, with all the Muslim world watching. They'd have to build a new government to maintain order, and they'd have to build a legitimate, popular government (or we would just suppress it easily, being right there), and best of all, they'd have to develop an ARAB governing philosophy which could combat Islamic terrorism, because they'd have to build their new government while under siege by the same radical Islamic elements we were at war with; the radicals would have to come out and fight our army, and they'd have to stay and fight the new government, too, or be exposed as a dead end in Muslim philosophy, unable to win a war of ideas or hold territory. Even I knew the Arabs would get it right eventually (I actually expected we'd have to set up forts in the desert and let them experience anarchy for a while, and sweep away five or six failed governments first), but our President was right in his Second Inaugural: people will choose freedom when they get a chance, and they realized they had that chance on their first try!
Iraq was a perfect target: we were already sort of there, patrolling the no-fly zones to protect the friendly Kurds in the north, Saddam was regularly shooting at our planes anyway, Iraq is historically second to none in influence in Muslim culture, why, they even had some experience with democracy, a weak fragile democracy lasting only from about 1920 to 1950, true, but in the Middle East, that is a comparatively GOOD record. Best of all, all the diplomacy had already been done, you'd think... 16 Security Council Resolutions, and Saddam was still cheating and obfuscating and defiant. Most of his people hated him, all his fellow Arab states feared and loathed him, no one would regret his dispatch to the ashbin of history. So we finished the diplomacy with that 17th Resolution, a clear ultimatum, in diplomatic terms. Then came the whole sad story of Chiraq and de Villepin stabbing Colin Powell in the back and organizing the Security council against an 18th Resolution, and maintaining that 'serious consequences' in the 17th Resolution didn't mean military force. I won't go into that here; suffice it to say that everyone with half a brain knew that Saddam Hussein was an outlaw and we (or anyone else) had a right to take him down, unilaterally or not. (And by the way, I expect I or any other veteran would've approved all the sleep deprivation or bright lights necessary to get from him the truth about the fate of M. Scott Speicher, the still-missing pilot we think Saddam was holding after the first Gulf War.)
So the critical point came after the January 30th vote in Iraq: would a prodemocracy movement spread in the Middle East? President Bush's assertion that the Iraqi people would stand up had been borne out, but could neighboring nations turn on their illegitimate dictators? The answer is, yes, eventually. Any little sign of weakness or misstep by those dictators will be magnified by the world's scrutiny, and once they slip, they have no legitimacy to fall back on when the landslide begins against them. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt slipped at least to some degree, arresting a street demonstration leader and having to back down and promise real elections when the Secretary Rice put the heat on him by cancelling a trip to Egypt, but I don't know much about the details on this and I want to get back to Bashar al-Assad and HIS slipup, because it has to do with opthamology.
Bashar's father, you see, was the famous Hafez al-Assad, who with Saddam set the standard for maintaining power and repressing a whole nation with only a small power base of one's own. We've all heard how Saddam kept the power in Iraq in Sunni Arab hands even though Iraq is about 20% Sunni Arab, 20% Sunni Kurd, and 60% Shiite Arab. But the Assads were managing it with an even smaller demographic base: they're Alawites, members of a minority culture which comprises only about 10% of Syria's population. So they have to be very good at repression of democracy. Hafez was very good at it. He's the man who gave the name to "Hama Rules", which the blogosphere uses to describe the power of the state in the Arab world, the delimiting factor is, "are you capable of playing by Hama Rules, or not?" The implication is that the Bush Administration was going to have to be able to use naked violence to get credibility in the Middle East. Hama was a small city in Syria which revolted against Hafez al-Assad, and he surrounded it and pounded it to rubble with artillery, killing 20,000 people and in effect saying, "we play for keeps around here." Thing is, Hafez had two sons, one he was grooming to succeed him, and one that he allowed to go off to Europe and study opthamology. When the elder son died (I think it was given out as being a traffic accident, but cause of death of political figures in the Middle East is a very political matter; people who one might think could have been assassinated or murdered by secret police get "killed in traffic accidents" suspiciously often), Hafez had to call the younger son back to be his heir apparent, and he didn't have enough time, by all accounts, before his own death to retrain Bashar in statecraft and "Hama Rules".
So there was an opthamologist running Syria, and all his subordinates were seriously worried about Syria's position after the Iraqi vote. Bashar might have stepped into his father's shoes and shown himself to be a born dictator like his father and, with skill or luck, secured his position, but having spent most of his life preparing to fix eyes, the odds weren't on his side. And he did screw up. He either allowed paniced subordinates to kill Hariri, or he had him killed himself (no one in Lebanon, outside of maybe Hezbollah, takes seriously allegations from the 'blame Israel' crowd that the Mossad killed Hariri in an incredibly subtle play to promote Lebanese democracy by killing its leading proponent). Hariri's death is what brought 1.3 million Lebanese (out of a population of 3.4 million) into the streets to demand Syria withdraw from Lebanon and take its secret police with 'em, and it is working!
Here's some more impact of opthamology on the situation in Lebanon: it is a great time (for males at least) to have good vision in Lebanon. I'm trying to get into this blog community, and one common thread running through every right-wing blog on the net these days seems to be headlines reading, "Hot Chicks March for Freedom in Lebanon" or the like, with pictures of same. I'm not going to try and put pictures here, but I'll link to somehere . (Click on the 'here', if you're new to html links, if it doesn't work, blame my inexperience.)
Now we come to my third opthamology point for today. I recently became aware that NC House Speaker Jim Black is an opthamologist. A newspaper I read, can't remember if it was the News and Observer or our own Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald, had nice pictures of him actually working with patients. As I said way back at the beginning of this post (you've forgotten, haven't you? I need an editor to combat my long-windedness), I think doctors are generally good people. Certainly I don't mean to imply that the study of opthamology can turn one into a bloodthirsty dictator like Bashar al-Assad, or cause him to brutally oppress people when he only has, for instance, 49% of the NC House vote on his side yet runs things anyway, I just thought it was interesting. (My psychologist told me I'd best keep my parallel-drawing in check lest people think I was a wild-eyed-black-helicopter-paranoid. I know sometimes my satire and irony is too subtle.) Today my beef with our Speaker/opthamologist is just with his organizing a committee of lottery proponents to draft a bill authorizing a state lottery and get it voted on next week. Some people are saying that creating a committee only of PRO-lottery politicians and having them meet behind closed doors to write the bill is antidemocratic, since no one will know how they come to decisions no matter how good their eyesight might be, because of the closed doors, you know. Personally, I don't see the sense in demanding that people who are going to vote against a lottery anyway have input into the bill's drafting, but that's just me, maybe I'll learn better. I plan on writing more about why I oppose a lottery some time soon, but for now I just want to make a suggestion for the bill-drafting committee: absolutely keep it behind closed doors. For that matter, get all the pro-lottery lobbyists in there too, to make sure they can help with their input. Close the doors securely, and let them have, maybe once a week or once a month, a drawing where the winner gets to come OUT of their meeting room. And pipe in, every 10 or 15 minutes, a 30-second ad telling them that lottery players drive around with better-looking women in their convertibles than non-lottery-players, and lottery players are much more likely to burst into happy song-and-dance routines at their local convenience stores than dour non-lottery players, you know, things like you see all day every day on TV in lottery states (can you tell I lived in Maryland before I retired to NC?).
So I'll end this post, and hope to see what, if anything, people found interesting or provocative in it. And for those who may say I'm implying that Jim Black is a wicked behind-the-scenes power broker for a minority regime like Bashar al-Assad is, I may have to point out that this post can also be interpreted as a call for Bashar al-Assad to be brought up in criminal court for murder rather than just sued in civil court, or as a rallying cry for more pretty young ladies to turn out for lottery protest marches. Me, I'd like to talk to anyone who agrees with any of those three propositions. The Halifax County Republican Party needs YOU!
First off, I think doctors, on average, are fine people. I find it upsetting when they get sued for not being entirely perfect (by Monday-morning quarterbacks who sometimes take YEARS to decide what doctors might have done wrong), and it seems very wrong to me that 'punitive' monetary damages can be levied against them in civil courts (you can punish damage done intentionally, and you can punish criminal negligence, but you punish those in CRIMINAL court and prison terms and fines are imposed by the state in the name of all of us, not by any lawyer who sees a chance to earn a big commission). I sent an email via Senator Dole's website a few weeks ago asking when civil lawyers got the right to usurp the power of the state by 'punishing' doctors and collecting huge commissions for doing so (I was reading about her bill to cap noneconomic damages in OB/GYN malpractice suits which got filibustered in 2004 and hasn't been reintroduced in the present 109th Congress, and I thought I might ask why they should be capped rather than cut to ZERO). Perhaps it is too broad a question; I've not gotten an answer. Anyway, doctors can earn lots of money but they had to be awfully smart and spend ever so long in school to get there, and they generally have to work long and irregular hours to earn it, so I think they deserve to be well paid. No one ever complains that there are too many doctors around. And to connect to my other two points, some doctors are opthamologists.
Now there's one opthamologist I don't like at all. His name is Bashar al-Assad. He may be smart, and he may have studied for a long time to become an opthamologist, but he's not fixing any eyes these days. He is now the 'President' of Syria, a poor, corrupt, state-terror-sponsoring dictatorship which is still trying to become important enough to earn the spot in the Axis of Evil that Iraq is vacating. I don't have much to say about Bashar al-Assad today other than that I'm pleased at the continuing news from Lebanon (that doesn't seem to be making the news much lately) as Assad's troops and secret police accelerate their departure, with their tails between their legs, under pressure from the soft speech of our President, the big stick he probably won't even have to use on Syria, and the huge prodemocracy demonstrations they're calling the 'Cedar Revolution'. (There's something the United Nations is good for, by the way: people talk a lot there in order to sound important, and sometimes they even write things down. Back in September 2004, when the insurgency in Iraq was going strong and it looked like we'd be bogged down in Iraq and never get back on the offensive in the War on Terror, the French were running off at the mouth with words they never expected to have to back up, but some smart American was actually listening (bless him for staying awake when France speaks) and got them to sign a document, Resolution 1559, calling on Syria to leave Lebanon. Who knew? I sure didn't hear about it. Surely the Syrians weren't going to take it seriously, hey, it was only the U.N. But a Lebanese patriot named Hariri heard about it, thought, here's my chance, resigned his position and started calling on Syria to get out. Still no big problem for the Syrians, their troops in Lebanon comfortably outnumbered the Lebanese Army (which, along with Lebanese politics, they controlled with their secret police), and America's hands were still tied by the insurgency in Iraq. True, they had no credible substitute for their current puppet 'Lebanese President' whose term was running out, so they just extended the term of the current puppet (unconstitutionally) and tried to assassinate one of Hariri's associates to keep the rest of them intimidated. Then came President Bush's second Inaugural Address, the media went wild accusing him of wanting to be the 'World's Policeman', saying, what, you are going to use military force to support any prodemocracy movement in the whole world? The antiAmerican Left was scandalized at this 'breach of international norms', this unilateralism, this, this... well, I'd call it the use of certain SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS as the basis of a practical foreign policy, but the Left had lots of other things to call it, none good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I never heard our President back down one bit, he just let the Left scream itself hoarse, and by the time their voices recovered, they had something else to rant about.
And then came 30 January, and the Iraqis voted. I hope every good Republican already knows plenty about that, so I won't go into it, except to say that suddenly it was obvious to everyone (except most leftists) that the insurgency in Iraq had failed, and a time would soon come when President Bush could decide which took fewer troops, pacifying Iraq alone, or pacifying Iraq AND the insurgents' armory, treasury, and sanctuary, Syria, simultaneously. Now, the Syrians aren't leftists (they just get plenty of sympathy from every antiAmerican group around the world because they're vocally antiAmerican, too), in fact, their Baathist party traces its heritage directly back to Nazi efforts to build an antiWestern fifth column in Egypt during World War II, so they understood that their position had suddenly weakened considerably. They had Hariri to the west stirring up Lebanese nationalism and actually getting some press coverage even in France by pointing out that Syria had made a naked anticonstitutional power grab by extending the term of the 'President', and to their east Iraqis were stepping up, defying and turning in insurgents, streaming into the Army, National Guard, and police forces, freeing up American troops, while President Bush was smirking (oh, how the leftists love to point out that smirk! Me, I like to see it, it is as if MY President was saying directly to me, "I've got the answer") and softly telling Syria it should stop supporting terrorism.
So this was the critical point for revolution vs. 'stability' in the Middle East, and it shows the appropriateness of the President's long-term strategy for winning the War on Terror. Remember how the Left loves to shriek that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror, there were no WMDs in Iraq, this was an optional and not a necessary war, we could have waited, given the inspectors more time, etc.? I don't think any of that was important to the President. Sure, he thought there were WMDs there, and getting them out of Saddam's hands would be a good bonus, but his thinking was more direct: America is at war, we must stay on the offensive (because a 'Fortress America' can't make itself safe from individual fanatics without curtailing civil liberties to a degree Americans would never accept), the CIA, FBI, and State Department (to the extent that the State Department ever supports a Republican president) were gearing up for a long-term war on Al Qaeda cells and finances, and most of our military was going to sit idle? (Leaving lots of troops in Afghanistan would have been a waste; you can't use huge armored formations to chase small units through mountainous terrain (that's why DOD Secretary Rumsfeld has been pushing 'transformation' all this time, to make the military more agile), and we couldn't send any troops at all into Pakistan without embarrassing President Musharraf, who has enough problems with his own Muslim radicals.)
The way forward was pretty clear even to me: invade a Muslim nation, preferrably an influential Arab one with a large, educated population that wasn't too mountainous. And then do our best to stay out of the way while they reshaped their nation, with all the Muslim world watching. They'd have to build a new government to maintain order, and they'd have to build a legitimate, popular government (or we would just suppress it easily, being right there), and best of all, they'd have to develop an ARAB governing philosophy which could combat Islamic terrorism, because they'd have to build their new government while under siege by the same radical Islamic elements we were at war with; the radicals would have to come out and fight our army, and they'd have to stay and fight the new government, too, or be exposed as a dead end in Muslim philosophy, unable to win a war of ideas or hold territory. Even I knew the Arabs would get it right eventually (I actually expected we'd have to set up forts in the desert and let them experience anarchy for a while, and sweep away five or six failed governments first), but our President was right in his Second Inaugural: people will choose freedom when they get a chance, and they realized they had that chance on their first try!
Iraq was a perfect target: we were already sort of there, patrolling the no-fly zones to protect the friendly Kurds in the north, Saddam was regularly shooting at our planes anyway, Iraq is historically second to none in influence in Muslim culture, why, they even had some experience with democracy, a weak fragile democracy lasting only from about 1920 to 1950, true, but in the Middle East, that is a comparatively GOOD record. Best of all, all the diplomacy had already been done, you'd think... 16 Security Council Resolutions, and Saddam was still cheating and obfuscating and defiant. Most of his people hated him, all his fellow Arab states feared and loathed him, no one would regret his dispatch to the ashbin of history. So we finished the diplomacy with that 17th Resolution, a clear ultimatum, in diplomatic terms. Then came the whole sad story of Chiraq and de Villepin stabbing Colin Powell in the back and organizing the Security council against an 18th Resolution, and maintaining that 'serious consequences' in the 17th Resolution didn't mean military force. I won't go into that here; suffice it to say that everyone with half a brain knew that Saddam Hussein was an outlaw and we (or anyone else) had a right to take him down, unilaterally or not. (And by the way, I expect I or any other veteran would've approved all the sleep deprivation or bright lights necessary to get from him the truth about the fate of M. Scott Speicher, the still-missing pilot we think Saddam was holding after the first Gulf War.)
So the critical point came after the January 30th vote in Iraq: would a prodemocracy movement spread in the Middle East? President Bush's assertion that the Iraqi people would stand up had been borne out, but could neighboring nations turn on their illegitimate dictators? The answer is, yes, eventually. Any little sign of weakness or misstep by those dictators will be magnified by the world's scrutiny, and once they slip, they have no legitimacy to fall back on when the landslide begins against them. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt slipped at least to some degree, arresting a street demonstration leader and having to back down and promise real elections when the Secretary Rice put the heat on him by cancelling a trip to Egypt, but I don't know much about the details on this and I want to get back to Bashar al-Assad and HIS slipup, because it has to do with opthamology.
Bashar's father, you see, was the famous Hafez al-Assad, who with Saddam set the standard for maintaining power and repressing a whole nation with only a small power base of one's own. We've all heard how Saddam kept the power in Iraq in Sunni Arab hands even though Iraq is about 20% Sunni Arab, 20% Sunni Kurd, and 60% Shiite Arab. But the Assads were managing it with an even smaller demographic base: they're Alawites, members of a minority culture which comprises only about 10% of Syria's population. So they have to be very good at repression of democracy. Hafez was very good at it. He's the man who gave the name to "Hama Rules", which the blogosphere uses to describe the power of the state in the Arab world, the delimiting factor is, "are you capable of playing by Hama Rules, or not?" The implication is that the Bush Administration was going to have to be able to use naked violence to get credibility in the Middle East. Hama was a small city in Syria which revolted against Hafez al-Assad, and he surrounded it and pounded it to rubble with artillery, killing 20,000 people and in effect saying, "we play for keeps around here." Thing is, Hafez had two sons, one he was grooming to succeed him, and one that he allowed to go off to Europe and study opthamology. When the elder son died (I think it was given out as being a traffic accident, but cause of death of political figures in the Middle East is a very political matter; people who one might think could have been assassinated or murdered by secret police get "killed in traffic accidents" suspiciously often), Hafez had to call the younger son back to be his heir apparent, and he didn't have enough time, by all accounts, before his own death to retrain Bashar in statecraft and "Hama Rules".
So there was an opthamologist running Syria, and all his subordinates were seriously worried about Syria's position after the Iraqi vote. Bashar might have stepped into his father's shoes and shown himself to be a born dictator like his father and, with skill or luck, secured his position, but having spent most of his life preparing to fix eyes, the odds weren't on his side. And he did screw up. He either allowed paniced subordinates to kill Hariri, or he had him killed himself (no one in Lebanon, outside of maybe Hezbollah, takes seriously allegations from the 'blame Israel' crowd that the Mossad killed Hariri in an incredibly subtle play to promote Lebanese democracy by killing its leading proponent). Hariri's death is what brought 1.3 million Lebanese (out of a population of 3.4 million) into the streets to demand Syria withdraw from Lebanon and take its secret police with 'em, and it is working!
Here's some more impact of opthamology on the situation in Lebanon: it is a great time (for males at least) to have good vision in Lebanon. I'm trying to get into this blog community, and one common thread running through every right-wing blog on the net these days seems to be headlines reading, "Hot Chicks March for Freedom in Lebanon" or the like, with pictures of same. I'm not going to try and put pictures here, but I'll link to some
Now we come to my third opthamology point for today. I recently became aware that NC House Speaker Jim Black is an opthamologist. A newspaper I read, can't remember if it was the News and Observer or our own Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald, had nice pictures of him actually working with patients. As I said way back at the beginning of this post (you've forgotten, haven't you? I need an editor to combat my long-windedness), I think doctors are generally good people. Certainly I don't mean to imply that the study of opthamology can turn one into a bloodthirsty dictator like Bashar al-Assad, or cause him to brutally oppress people when he only has, for instance, 49% of the NC House vote on his side yet runs things anyway, I just thought it was interesting. (My psychologist told me I'd best keep my parallel-drawing in check lest people think I was a wild-eyed-black-helicopter-paranoid. I know sometimes my satire and irony is too subtle.) Today my beef with our Speaker/opthamologist is just with his organizing a committee of lottery proponents to draft a bill authorizing a state lottery and get it voted on next week. Some people are saying that creating a committee only of PRO-lottery politicians and having them meet behind closed doors to write the bill is antidemocratic, since no one will know how they come to decisions no matter how good their eyesight might be, because of the closed doors, you know. Personally, I don't see the sense in demanding that people who are going to vote against a lottery anyway have input into the bill's drafting, but that's just me, maybe I'll learn better. I plan on writing more about why I oppose a lottery some time soon, but for now I just want to make a suggestion for the bill-drafting committee: absolutely keep it behind closed doors. For that matter, get all the pro-lottery lobbyists in there too, to make sure they can help with their input. Close the doors securely, and let them have, maybe once a week or once a month, a drawing where the winner gets to come OUT of their meeting room. And pipe in, every 10 or 15 minutes, a 30-second ad telling them that lottery players drive around with better-looking women in their convertibles than non-lottery-players, and lottery players are much more likely to burst into happy song-and-dance routines at their local convenience stores than dour non-lottery players, you know, things like you see all day every day on TV in lottery states (can you tell I lived in Maryland before I retired to NC?).
So I'll end this post, and hope to see what, if anything, people found interesting or provocative in it. And for those who may say I'm implying that Jim Black is a wicked behind-the-scenes power broker for a minority regime like Bashar al-Assad is, I may have to point out that this post can also be interpreted as a call for Bashar al-Assad to be brought up in criminal court for murder rather than just sued in civil court, or as a rallying cry for more pretty young ladies to turn out for lottery protest marches. Me, I'd like to talk to anyone who agrees with any of those three propositions. The Halifax County Republican Party needs YOU!
