The Leary Letter

The Issue of Obama's Intelligence

2009-08-29T06:08:00.003-04:00

Is President Obama a smart guy? Any smarter than George W. Bush? Clinton? GHW Bush? Reagan?

If we are to believe the mainstream media, Obama is a genius whose intellect towers above all before him. Yet, the evidence to the contrary continues to mount.

His approval numbers continue to drop as voters realize he is not the great leader they thought (or hoped) they had elected. He continues to break campaign promises, betrays an inappropriate arrogant mentality, runs away from responsibility by claiming decisions are in the hands of others, chooses a clearly incapable vice president, undermines his own presidency by allowing such things as a probe of CIA interrogation methods of terrorists which can only backfire in the eyes of the public, holds a spellbound belief in the historically-discredited theory of socialism (not exactly the hallmark of a great mind, is it?), and already seems nothing more than a prisoner of his own psychological demons which are the source of his anger at traditional American values--capitalism, for one.

But look at these quotes from a new Washington Post story ostensibly written about a "new dynamic" between the White House and the Justice Department. The real point of the story in the liberal DC newspaper is to portray Obama as a great intellect. The authors quote members of Obama's staff and a Democratic Member of Congress, as if their opinion of Obama's intelligence is gospel:

official accounts did not mention Holder's conversations with the White House, nor Obama's deep, if cautious, engagement with the issues.

For his part, Obama appears determined to enter relationships with his Cabinet members as a strategic participant. People who brief him say he is able to game out scenarios before the experts in the room, even on foreign policy, national security and other issues in which he had relatively little expertise before running for president.

Obama is approaching the issues as a game of "three-dimensional chess," said John O. Brennan, an assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. "It's not kinetic checkers. And I think the approach in the past was kinetic checkers. There are moves that are made on the chess board that really have implications, so the president is always looking at those dimensions of it."

"The president is a very sophisticated thinker and understands the implications of these decisions and events, and wants to make sure that he is aware of what those repercussions might be on the workforce, and on the reputation and image of the United States," Brennan said in an interview.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Obama has "put a lot of thought" into how to balance security and civil liberties.

"I think he is very much aware that this area has been something of a constitutional teeter-totter," said Wyden, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

You get the point. But as noted above and as I've written here before, Obama shows signs of troubling psychological weaknesses, both in his decision-making and in his public utterances. That does not bode well for the American people over the next several years. How bad is he? We're about to find out.

Hemingway's A Moveable Feast New Edition Book Review

2009-07-20T17:34:00.003-04:00

This book is Ernest Hemingway's reminisce about his life in Paris in the 1920s and the literary figures he knew, such as Gertrude Stein, Ford Maddox Ford, Ezra Pound, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. It was left unfinished at the time of Hemingway's death in 1961 and originally published in 1964, edited by his fourth and last wife, Mary. This new "restored" version presents the same book as re-edited by Hemingway's grandson Sean.

The original book is a highly-regarded literary work of art, leaving open the question of why the world needs a new version. The one and only advantage is the inclusion of new, previously unpublished chapters included after the main text, called "Additional Paris Sketches." Anything new written by Hemingway is always welcome.

The problem is Sean Hemingway's editing and the motivation behind it. In his Introduction, he would have us believe Mary somehow wrecked Hemingway's vision of the book and he has now reshuffled the chapters to reflect what his grandfather would have really wanted. Forty-five years after the original publication, Sean writes with what seems to me unusually strong venom at Mary and what he sees as her agenda in making her edits: "The extensive edits Mary Hemingway made to this text seem to have served her own personal relationship with the writer as his fourth and final wife, rather than the interests of the book, or of the author, who comes across in the posthumous first edition as something of an unknowing victim, which he clearly was not." Sean needed to provide some sort of rationale for the new edition, and this is what he would have us believe: the original book reflected Mary's wishes, not Ernest's.

But since the manuscript was left unfinished when Hemingway died, no one knows what he really would have wanted. There is no "definitive" edition and never can one be. Even worse, Sean can well be accused of the same sin as he asserts for Mary: his edits are designed specifically to paint his grandmother Pauline Pfeiffer, Hemingway's second wife and his own grandmother, in a far more favorable light. Readers and scholars can compare the two editions and judge for themselves: is Sean protecting his grandfather's true wishes--whatever they were--or is he doing a favor for his own grandmother at the expense of Hemingway's conception? Sean dug around in the archives and found some things that look good for his grandmother, included them, and rejiggered the original contents in her favor as well.

The good news surely must be that the various heirs of Hemingway can't destroy his work, no matter what their motivations. The text is still the work of one of the 20th century's greatest and most influential writers. Most readers won't need the new edition, as the original, as literature, hasn't really been improved upon. Scholars and Hemingway fans will want to see the new sketches. Probably 45 years into the future, a "scholar's" edition will be published, sans any input from the various heirs of Hemingway, in an attempt to "set the record straight."

The Clockmaker by Georges Simenon (Review)

2009-07-03T20:32:00.003-04:00

Dave Galloway is a watch repairman in the mythical city of Everton, New York. His life is one of familiar routine—he goes through the same motions every day at work and at home. But this comfortable existence is unexpectedly thrown into chaos when Dave’s 16-year-old son Ben runs away from home. We learn that Ben has left with 15-year-old Lillian Hawkins and they plan to get married in Illinois, which recognizes marriage between young teenagers.

While Dave reflects that Ben has abandoned him, we learn that Dave’s wife had abandoned him as well, when Ben was just one year old. The story takes an uglier turn when police break the news that Ben has shot and killed someone and taken his car. While the police chase Ben, the news media interview Dave and he agrees to pose for pictures and answer all their prying questions.

Soon, Ben is captured by the police after a shootout and is taken to Indianapolis. Dave travels there only to suffer more embarrassment when Ben refuses to see him and the police tell him they are moving Ben back to New York and he traveled to Indiana for nothing.

Dave hires an expensive lawyer for Ben, who since his capture has expressed no remorse for his crime, seems proud of what he has done, and acts as if he wants to sit in the electric chair. A psychiatrist evaluates Ben and determines he is sane and can stand trial.

While these events transpire, Dave examines his own mind to try to discover some sense to Ben’s crime, which seems completely pointless and unnecessary. Much of the novel has Dave retracing the signal nerve points of his own life in an attempt to extract meaning from Ben’s actions—his own father’s one night of cheating on his mother; his own decision to marry the cheapest woman in town who had already slept with all his friends; and now Ben’s murder of a stranger for his car and a few dollars. All three of these events were solitary acts of “rebellion” by three men of the same genetic line who otherwise spent all their lives getting ”whipped” in life. Unsatisfied, they needed to temporarily revolt against their own nature. The question is left at the end whether this cycle would turn in the other direction in the future.

The Clockmaker, also published in English as The Watchmaker (first published as L’horloger d’Everton in French in 1954), is a psychological thriller written without Simenon’s most famous character, Inspector Maigret. Only 124 pages, it can be read in a few sittings. Simenon forces the reader to consider if Ben’s actions were already somehow foreordained; the culpability, if any, of his father; and if the similar psychology of Dave, his father, and his son, will change or remain the same in future generations. The New York Review of Books has reissued a number of Simenon’s novels in recent years and this would make a fine addition.

My Twitter Account

2009-07-02T07:33:00.001-04:00

Here is my Twitter account.
http://twitter.com/stephenleary

Kreskin Confidential (Book Review)

2009-06-27T15:08:00.003-04:00

The chance to meet Kreskin recently came up and we spoke for a minute or two. I recounted my story of first seeing his TV show on visits to Toronto in the early 1970s when I was a kid. He inscribed a copy of his book to me and gave me his business card. He's a friendly man and it was a delight to meet him in person.

Kreskin's narrative takes us back to his childhood when he was inspired to a career in mentalism by the Mandrake the Magician comic books. He somehow found a hidden penny as a kid without help, and performed several times for his classmates.

Houdini, Kreskin tells us, was the greatest escape artist, but merely a second- or third-rate magician. Magic as seen on TV nowadays is mostly illegitimate, as it involves scripting, editing, trick photography, and paid or volunteer "people on the street" who have been coached by the producers how to act for best effect. This is more theater than magic, and is dishonest with the viewers.

His first late night TV appearance was on the Steve Allen Show, March 30, 1964 (billed as "George Kreskin"). As Kreskin tells it, this is the show where he stumbled during his entrance because he was blinded by the studio lights. He claims this inspired Johnny Carson to create the "Carnac the Magnificent" character (who always stumbles upon his entrance) from seeing him on the Allen show.

A severe chapter on Orson Welles recounts his blundering attempts at mentalism on Johnny Carson's show. He exposes some chicanery surrounding Jean Dixon's "predictions" as well.

There is no such thing as a hypnotic trance, he reminds us again, and Kreskin offers a reward for anyone who can contradict him. Hypnotism involves the power of suggestion, not an altered state.

Kreskin's trademark stunt is finding his own paycheck hidden by the audience. Over his career, he has failed to find it 9 times, and if he fails again, he will retire that part of his show. Considering how many times he has searched for his check, it seems remarkable he has failed (whether legitimately or didn't want to find it) only 9 times--especially when one realizes he isn't cheating.

A major point of the book is to drive home Kreskin's belief that there is a legitimate way to perform mentalism and an illegitimate method. The dishonest way involves the use of audience plants or secret electronic devices and other types of chicanery. Legitimate mentalism uses only those techniques and skills possessed by the performer himself, along with his props. Kreskin isn't talking about psychic mind reading, as if a person could really tune into the thought broadcasts of another person like turning on a radio, but rather the traditional performing skills related to stage magic. Playing "fair" with the audience using these guidelines means a lot to him and I can't see him violating this code of trust.

Kreskin has always said he uses no electronic devices or confederates in his show, and like the great pioneering mentalist Joseph Dunninger (1892-1975) before him, offers large rewards for anyone who can prove that he does. It's wonderful marketing and no one has any hope of collecting.

After explaining several mentalism stunts the reader can perform on his own, Kreskin then tells the story of meeting the respected magician Dr. Stanley Jaks (1903-1960) and unexpectedly receiving his library after his death. He is now interested in selling those books, listing the sales price at no less than $4 million, after turning down an offer of over $1 million. Kreskin issues a startling threat: if he doesn't find a buyer who will pay the price and properly care for the books, he may well burn them.

He mentions some problems at the Library of Congress, where Houdini's library and other valuable collections were mishandled. As someone who once worked there, I think there would be quite a number of reasons for that. And as someone who worked in an academic library special collections department, I think it would be imperative for a valuable collection to be placed where the staff and institution have a long-term interest in the person or subject matter, as well as the desire and ability to maintain the books and papers. How often is that the case? It makes me wonder what Kreskin's plans are for his own extensive library and manuscripts.

Kreskin has managed to keep himself in the public eye for over 40 years. In the 1960s, he marketed an ESP game that eventually morphed into an aid to accessing the subconscious called "Kreskin's Krystal & Pendulum." He hosted his own TV show in the 1970s and has made hundreds of guest appearances on popular talk shows over the years, such as Merv Griffin, Tom Snyder, Mike Douglas, and the Tonight Show. Kreskin challenged chess champions Anatoly Karpov, Victor Korchnoi, and Bobby Fischer, although they didn't respond. He makes annual predictions and claims he predicted 9/11 (the transcript from CNN, January 1, 2001, begins: "by September or October there will be two major plane crashes....") He backtracked after that, insisting he didn't really mean airplane crashes, but forgetting what he said later, it's a noteworthy prediction if you stop there. Kreskin still keeps a heavy personal appearance schedule.

From what I've seen, most professional mentalists like and respect Kreskin but there are some that don't, and they charge him with not coming entirely clean with the fact that his act is a variant of stage magic and he has no psychic or legitimate mind-reading abilities. But I keep reading statements by Kreskin, in this book and elsewhere, that he claims no special skills, and his abilities are "perceiving and influencing people's thoughts, both mentally and through suggestion." That is not uncommon for anyone inside or outside this profession.

Professional mentalists are in a position where "having it both ways" is good for business. Apparently Dunninger thought so. While professing no special skills for himself, he also wrote books like What's on Your Mind? and The Art of Thought Reading--the sole apparent point of which was to impress upon the American public that he possessed nothing less than genuine psychic thought-reading abilities.

Critics have cited the first edition of the book The Psychology of the Psychic (1980) in which Kreskin was lumped in with the likes of Uri Geller as someone claiming paranormal powers. However, in the second edition published in 2000, the authors removed the chapters on Kreskin, as they admitted he makes no claims to unusual abilities and therefore he didn't belong in their book.

Kreskin Confidential provides a good overview of the professional life of Kreskin from his beginnings up to recent days. He mentions the movie The Great Buck Howard (2008, based on his own life) a number of times. It's not anything approaching a thorough autobiography and can be read in a few sittings. For anyone wanting to know what Kreskin is all about, including his recent activities as well, this book is probably as good as any available right now.

Obama, Biden Served Undercooked Ratburgers at Ray's Hell-Burger?

2009-05-05T18:39:00.003-04:00

President Obama and veep Joe Biden strolled over to Arlington for lunch at Ray's Hell-Burger today. It's likely their staffs didn't vet the place, given its latest restaurant inspection report by the Arlington Health District (listed under "Butcher Burger" which is apparently the true name of the joint).

Among the violations listed in the most recent inspection (dated Dec. 18, 2008):

1. Insect, rodent, and/or other pest harborage conditions exist on the premises [mouse droppings were observed on the floor of the storage room].

2. CRITICAL: The food establishment serves hamburgers [cooked-to-order] undercooked without informing consumers of the significantly increased risk consuming such food by way of a disclosure and reminder using brochures, deli case or menu advisories, label statements, table tents, placards, or other effective written means.

So we have the President of the United States and the Vice President tagging along for a meal at an establishment where mouse droppings were seen during the latest inspection, and the joint serves up hamburgers that are "undercooked without informing consumers of the...risk."

Well, I have to wonder if any employees at Ray's informed Obama, Biden or their security details about any of this. Have the problems been corrected or not? I would have wanted to know. And I wouldn't knowingly eat at a place with a report like that.

We'll have to watch Obama and Biden carefully over the next several days to see if they suffer any ill effects. Is it wise for people in important positions to just go and eat anywhere without checking? What else are they doing without proper forethought? Rhetorical question, of course.

Shootdown of a North Korean Missile

2009-03-08T11:56:00.008-04:00

North Korea's expected launch of a missile or satellite has drawn comments from various quarters about the possibility of shooting it down, if it should pose a threat to the US or Japan.

Since the US says it wants "dialog" with North Korea, the terms under which we would shoot down their missile should be made clear to them, either publicly or privately. But "dialog" has been ongoing for years. Kim Jong Il lied to Madeleine Albright about their nukes and missiles in 2000. And if anyone is going to get out-talked in any discussions, I think I know who that would be. Dialog is a two-edged sword and doesn't necessarily help your own cause. And as John Bolton has pointed out, North Korea will not be talked out of its nuclear program. And beware of "North Korea experts" bearing appeasement.

Hillary Clinton wants dialog with the North. Stephen Bosworth, special rep to North Korea says he wants to do some talking as well, yet he has no current plans to travel to North Korea. Some other time, perhaps. Hillary said he "wasn't invited," raising the question of how you dialog when all you have is a monologue.

North Korea's nukes are for deterrence, international prestige and coercive diplomacy rather than for warfighting--so says Clinton and the latest annual threat assessment of the intelligence community. So then why is Japan so fearful of the impending missile launch? Why are we threatening to shoot it down?

Meanwhile, North Korea counseled against anyone invading "even 0.001mm into our territory" lest they face retaliation. Perhaps this leaves an opening for dialog: can someone invade 0.0001 of their territory with impunity?

The North Koreans view Obama as an "articulate Jimmy Carter," which must be the most terrible insult to be hurled at any president. Pleas for "dialog" and responding to the North's belligerent rhetoric with the use of the laconic mantra "unhelpful" can't possibly change that assessment in their minds.

Barnes & Noble Can't Escape the Ebook Revolution

2009-03-08T11:06:00.008-04:00

Barnes & Noble has entered the ebook market once again, joining Amazon and Sony. Ebook sales have jumped recently while print book sales are flat. Apparently B&N will offer its own reader, just as Amazon and Sony have their own. Kindle sales have been on fire lately, even with a steep price tag.

It still boggles how so many librarians, in particular, are naysayers to the ebook future, and American Libraries, the flagship publication of the American Library Association, promotes and fuels this attitude.

Surely it should be clear to all by now that ebooks aren't going away and some of its detractors (not to mention any names) should be publicly eating their words.

Push the Reset Button on the State Department

2009-03-07T08:20:00.005-05:00

Hillary Clinton's short tenure as Secretary of State has been remarkable for its uninterrupted string of gaffes--the latest is the mistranslation of the word "reset" into Russian--and Romanized Russian at that. Luckily whoever made that reset button didn't attempt to print the word in the Cyrillic alphabet or we'd probably be exchanging nukes with Russia right now.

Every interaction with a foreign government reveals the lack of thought and seriousness of the policies of this administration.

Hillary's "reset" button is really a "panic" button, but it won't remove her or us from the problems we face with Putin and the Russians.

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could just press a button and erase all our problems? Would the American public like to use such a button right now?

Obama's Psychological Demons

2009-03-07T07:59:00.006-05:00

President Obama this week finally had something to say about the stock market that has been crashing since he was sworn into office. He gave the country an investment tip: now is the time to buy stocks, since they have become so cheap lately.

Already, just one month into his presidency, it is painfully clear that Obama knows little about the market and doesn't like the people of Wall Street. He seems completely detached from the economic crisis around him, refusing, or unable to do anything serious to calm the market. The equivalent of voting Present?

One can only wonder who gave him that investment tidbit he offered as a tonic for our troubles: his friend Warren Buffet, or perhaps the CIA, since we know the intelligence agency is providing Obama with a daily economic intelligence document about the economic crisis around the world.

Obama's behavior is causing concern not just at home but around the globe, particularly in Europe. Are Obama's psychological demons greater than Nixon's or Clinton's?

How Dangerous Are Our Leaders?

2009-02-28T21:13:00.006-05:00

The economy is on its sickbed and the market continues to submerge to the bottom of the financial sea, eliminating the traditional act of self-defenestration as an inadequate and ultimately pointless reactionary response. It's not a window we need but a mirror.

Yet Congress, with the country in flames all around them, spend hundreds of billions on non-stimulus projects that are remarkable for their lack of relevance to the state of the economy.

And President Obama, not to be outdone or upstaged, addresses the nation on TV with the firm intention not of calming the markets and reassuring the people, but of declaring war on capitalism and excoriating his personal enemies--Wall Street executives and businessmen in general--with an angry tirade promising wealth redistribution that will bring them all to their knees. The stock market has reacted predictably, with Obama oblivious to the damage to all. Mirroring Lincoln, Obama steers the nation toward a new kind of civil war.

Is the public unable to elect responsible leaders? I would sooner be governed by a random selection of 435 people on MySpace instead of the current members of the House of Representatives. I would rather be governed by 100 random members of Facebook than the current members of the Senate. And I would would accept one member of LinkedIn selected at random as President of the United States instead of Barack Obama. Those individuals, I am confident, would do less damage to our country than those who hold power in Washington.

But what do we do about the voters? Leave them alone to elect any charlatan with a talent for conning them? Elections to high public office are nothing more than exercises in who can snow the voters better than his opponent. Do we raise the voting age to 30? Or lower it to 5? Would that help? Maybe it's time to try?

DHS: The FBI Is Full of Beans

2009-02-23T21:02:00.004-05:00

FBI Director Robert Mueller spoke today to the Council on Foreign Relations about the possibility of terrorists, homegrown or otherwise, attacking the US and what is being done to stop or mitigate these potential attacks.

But a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael Keegan, said today that the odds of homegrown terrorists attacking the US "are very low."

So who is right--the FBI or DHS? Should we be "particularly concerned" about homegrown terror or is its likelihood "very low" and therefore we don't need to concern ourselves too much about it?

In the recent Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair wrote:

We remain concerned about the potential for homegrown extremists inspired by al-Qa’ida’s militant ideology to plan attacks inside the United States, Europe, and elsewhere without operational direction from the group itself. In this regard, over the next year we will remain focused on identifying any ties between US-based individuals and extremist networks overseas....Signs that self-generating cells in the US identify with Bin Ladin’s violent objectives all point to the likelihood that a small but violent number of cells may develop here.

So we know 2 things: The FBI Director is concerned about homegrown terrorism. And the Director of National Intelligence is also concerned about homegrown terrorism.

Yet, a spokesman for DHS says it's not likely. He was apparently interviewed specifically for the Fox News story, and said "the latest intelligence" indicates a homegrown attack isn't likely "anytime soon." I'd like to know what intelligence he's talking about and what is his definition, with respect to time, of the word "soon."

This is another unfortunate example of different national security agencies saying different things and giving the American public conflicting signals. I have to go with the FBI and DNI on this one, not the DHS. Homegrown terrorism is a concern to everyone in the country--with the apparent exception of DHS. And does anyone seriously doubt an attack could come at any time? DHS should explain to the public why it feels the need to downplay the likelihood of homegrown terror.

Hopefully the story as written doesn't accurately reflect the true views of the spokesman or DHS, although given the countless well-documented problems of that particular department, nothing would surprise me.

The Robot Armies of the Future

2009-02-21T12:30:00.005-05:00

Future wars will be fought between robots rather than humans. He who builds the better robot will achieve military superiority. But the future is almost now, because the use of military robots is increasing dramatically.

A new report "Autonomous Military Robotics" focuses on the question of ethics: how do you program a robot to behave in an ethical manner, so that it will not just randomly kill people or turn on its own makers?

Robots are currently used to find IEDs in Iraq and target terrorists in Pakistan, among other things. Ideally, the military would want human-like robots to replace warfighters on the battlefield to reduce human casualties.

Human soldiers turning on their own fellow troops happens occasionally, but it seems the possibility of robots being "hacked" by an enemy to rewrite their programming and make them fight against their own army would be a significant problem to be overcome.

Aside from hacking, robots and their networked command structures could be subjected to jamming, rendering them harmless. Could the Future Combat Systems be taken out by jamming a satellite? Could the Pentagon's robots be disabled by an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)? How easily can our electronic army be defeated by cyber attacks?

An army with advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean an unbeatable force. We know how difficult it has been to destroy al Qaeda, operating with their own far less sophisticated technology, and Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority" served as a warning as well. What studies have been done to consider the vulnerabilities of an electronic army by an adversary using a much lower level of technology and what are the advantages of such a strategy? That will be the only option available for most or all of our enemies in the future.

Will robot armies make wars more or less likely in the future, if human lives are no longer on the line? The world community (the United Nations and the like) may deem it "unfair" for a country with a robot army to fight a country with human soldiers--basically making robot versus human wars illegal in the eyes of the world.

These are all questions no longer reserved for science fiction but are coming soon to a battlefield near you.

Hillary Gives Human Rights Abusers Green Light

2009-02-21T12:06:00.005-05:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled to China, and by implication other regimes infamous for their human rights abuses, the green light to not worry about offending the US, because there are more important issues for the US, such as the economy.

Human rights groups expressed shock at her comments. Despite Hillary's half-hearted attempt to claim the Obama administration will still bring up these issues when meeting foreign leaders, it is abundantly clear to all that human rights in countries like China is not considered a pressing problem and Hillary will raise the issue in a perfunctory, unserious way.

The Chinese communist government must surely have been thrilled to hear this. And so other rogue regimes will take notice that this is the kind of "change" the world can expect from Obama.

It's been a dismal first month for the Obama administration as foreign policy missteps and conflicting signals are the rule, rather than the exception. Meanwhile Wall Street continues to give Obama a no confidence vote on a daily basis.

Since no one ever really thought Obama was more qualified to be president than his main rival, John McCain, and since more people didn't cast a vote on that basis, it should be no surprise that we are stuck with a president in over his head and lacking any leadership qualities useful for all the things that matter. Look out below.

Welcome Mat Out for Gitmo Terrorists in Europe

2009-01-24T14:07:00.004-05:00

European governments have been crying for the US to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for years and soon they will get their wish, due to President Obama's recent decision.

And it's good to see several European countries show a willingness to accept some of the terrorists. Here is a list of the countries favorably disposed to providing a new home for the terrorists:

Germany
France
Portugal
Switzerland
Finland

Statements by many other EU countries display a certain lack of alacrity at the prospect of taking in any prisoners at all because, after all, they are terrorists and they want to kill people.

Over 60 Gitmo detainees who were previously released went back to terrorism, so those who have been portraying them as innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time are contradicted by their recent behavior after being given their freedom.

EU leaders will meet Monday to decide their response to the Guantanamo question. France has suggested the EU take in 60 prisoners, which seems a paltry figure considering there are about 245 inmates left. Why so few? Why not more? You wanted Gitmo closed, so now is the time to help out.

For those countries willing to take some prisoners, I have a proposal for integrating them into European society. Create "Terrortowns" on the model of "Chinatowns." Provide housing for the prisoners in one small geographic area within large cities. Force them to live there and stay there. Assist the terrorists with starting up businesses designed to attract tourists. This would include bookstores selling jihadist literature and manuals on making explosives.

A blind eye would be turned on black market sales in the backrooms of such things as IEDs, rocket-propelled grenades, etc. Tourists would pay to hear terrorists tell stories of their capture and how they were innocent of all charges all along, that all they ever wanted to do was to be good citizens, that they were wrongfully jailed, that every human being is their brother, and that they deserve reparations.

I thank those European countries willing to help out the US with the problem of what to do with the jihadists. We don't want them, so if someone has to take them, it may as well be you.

In Times of Crisis, Turn to Socialism?

2008-10-12T12:44:00.005-04:00

Do our political & financial leaders believe in free market capitalism?

The recent financial meltdown has been met with calls for unprecedented governmental intervention--taking stakes in the leading banks and ownership of financial institutions, short-term regulatory quick fixes, and the transfer of unlimited taxpayer dollars to the Treasury with no oversight.

In the depths of a crisis, the first instinct of our supposedly free enterprise-loving leaders is to stampede headlong in the direction of socialism as the answer to our gravest problems. Clearly, they don't believe in capitalism, and governmental interference is contributing to the panic.

Syncronized with the declining financial values on Wall Street are John McCain's political fortunes. Just as the stock market began its precipitous fall, so did McCain's poll numbers.

Barack Obama is the closest thing to a socialist in the political race, and he is the beneficiary of the turmoil. So not only our governmental leaders turn to socialism in a time of crisis, but apparently the American public and voters do as well. McCain has favored the bailout as well, but the socialism candidate in this race is Obama, not McCain, and socialism is winning handily at this point in time.

The liberal Congress is expected to become even more liberal after the November elections. Socialism is yawping on the horizon.

Why the sudden eagerness to jettison free enterprise? Hasn't it given us the greatest country on earth, with millions and millions attempting to move here legally and otherwise? And hasn't socialism proven to be a terminally failed idea that hasn't succeeded anywhere?

What is the attraction to an idea that is in the trashcan of history? Does anyone really expect anything good to come of it?

Gitmo Terrorists Next Door

2008-10-11T07:49:00.005-04:00

One of the strongest arguments against giving the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay their day in court and the same rights as anyone else, is the prospect that the legal evidence against them might not be sufficient. Therefore, they might get to walk and go back to their terrorists ways--as previous Gitmo inmates have done.

But I doubt few considered that our legal system might not only set some of the Gitmo terrorists free, but allow them to live free in the United States!

The Wall Street Journal has a story on this likely scenario--courtesy of the US Supreme Court and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The onus is now on Congress to legislate a solution preventing "the terrorists next door." But will this Congress have any interest in doing so? A liberal Congress perhaps joined by a socialist president, Barack Obama? Seems absurdly unlikely to me, as their opinions would coincide with Kennedy's judgment.

Wall Street isn't the only American institution suffering a meltdown; it is joined by our legal and legislative branches of government as well. Once we've "turned ourselves upside down" and seen the other side, then what?

Wall Street Shudders at First Socialist President

2008-10-11T06:46:00.004-04:00

Barack Obama is the likely next President of the United States, based on the opinion polls, and Wall Street knows what that means: A socialist president and the end of American capitalism.

Investor's Business Daily published an editorial stating this as the reason why the stock markets in the US and around the world are crashing. And I find it a plausible theory.

Obama and his minions can try to market him as a moderate to the general electorate and succeed, but those who aren't so easily led know the truth. Not only is Obama the most liberal senator in the Senate, he is in truth a socialist with a socialist agenda that will manifest itself and become clear to all after the November election.

The prospect of Obama raising taxes across the board as the start of a redistribution of wealth agenda has caused 100 economists, including Nobel winners, to warn of a deepening economic crisis if his ideas are implemented.

Yet the general public has bought into the idea of Obama as the messiah of a positive kind of social change with little discernible effect on the type of government we have. Most who vote for Obama appear oblivious that they are voting against themselves and their way of life that surpasses that of any other nation on the earth.

Meanwhile the questions continue to be raised on Wall Street: What is the true source of the problem, and is it different this time?

FBI Warning on Suicide Attacks

2008-10-07T21:04:00.004-04:00

The FBI has recently notified law enforcement agencies that al Qaeda could use suicide bombers to blow up public buildings.

This is always a possibility but I would imagine al Qaeda wants to destroy very high profile buildings that are guarded better than most (I would hope).

What interested me about the story was the point made by the terrorists that many publicly accessible buildings have poorly trained or unarmed security guards. And it reminded me of local shopping malls and the security guards I see there. Looking them over with a critical eye, they don't make me feel secure at all; quite the opposite. I imagine if real terrorists attacked, they would be in big trouble and so would the customers, such as myself.

Al Qaeda could have done something like this by now but they haven't. It isn't such a desirable scenario for them.

New Poll: Boot All Congressmen

2008-10-07T20:38:00.004-04:00

A new poll says 60% of voters want to boot out all Members of Congress and elect an entirely new Congress.

Do you believe that will happen this November? I don't.

If this is true, at least 60% of incumbents up for re-election will be defeated. But we know that in every election, over 90% of incumbents are re-elected. This is because voters don't do their job and merely vote by name recognition or party affiliation regardless of how incompetent the incumbent may be. 90% re-elected every time! Those are Soviet "election" numbers. Are our Members of Congress so fantastic that they deserve automatic re-election? Obviously not. Approval ratings of congressmen are at historic lows.

But now, I'm supposed to believe the voters are really mad this time and will vote for new blood in Congress. In November, we can forget that 90% re-election statistic. Historic "change" is coming and most of the incumbents will be voted out, right? Or is it just temporary anger with business as usual from the voters once again?

Cofer Black: 9/11 Couldn't Be Averted

2008-10-07T20:19:00.004-04:00

Cofer Black, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism division, said in a new interview that nothing could have been done to avert 9/11. He said he can't think of a thing "we could have done that would have changed anything."

It's a ridiculous statement with the apparent intention of exculpating himself from any blame for the 2001 terrorist attacks. Somehow, I don't think anyone will go for it. There is plenty of blame to go around and Black should accept that he deserves some of it.

If he could have done nothing, then that is an indictment of his tenure in that job at the CIA. Why are you in the counterterrorism business if you really can't think of anything you could have done to prevent 9/11? Aren't you in the wrong business if you really believe that?

Shouldn't the CIA hire people who know very well that something could have been done to avert 9/11 and know very well what those actions were?

Al Gore's Descent into Radicalism

2008-09-29T21:11:00.005-04:00

Did something happen to Al Gore's psyche in 2000 when he lost the presidential election to George W. Bush?

Since then, he has become a global warming messiah and his words have become increasingly radical:

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

The next logical step would be for Gore to recruit and train his environmental jihadist army and send them out on missions of "civil disobedience." Is "civil disobedience" a euphemism for advocating domestic terrorism against coal companies?

Elsewhere, Gore said new coal plants should be banned in the United States.

The problem is that coal accounts for about 50% of U.S. electricity, and without it, how do we make up that 50% from other sources, and how do we keep utility bills from skyrocketing? We don't.

As I said elsewhere some time ago, Al Gore believes what he says. He made a conscious decision following the events of 2000 to try to become some kind of modern day Gandhi, or John Brown, or Martin Luther King. The election loss may have precipitated a psychological break in him.

He is now advocating for "young people" (not himself, obviously) to break the law in the service of his so-called "planetary crisis." How far will he go to guarantee this happens?

How can he stay relevant and in the public eye with many countries, especially in Europe, balking at green initiatives because they are so expensive, with dubious results, and with a recession looming? Not to mention evidence the earth is cooling, not warming?

Are we seeing a fissure opening inside Gore? How radical will he feel he needs to go? And what internal conflicts are at the root of it all?

No Suicide Note from Ivins

2008-09-29T20:10:00.004-04:00

Bruce Ivins, the anthrax killer, left no suicide note, according to recently released FBI documents.

The absence of any mea culpa is consistent with his behavior as a loner refusing to accept responsibility or take the blame for anything.

We learn that a couple days before Ivins killed himself, he went to a public computer and read comments from FBI Director Robert Mueller that the anthrax case would soon be solved. That same day, Ivins had been released from a psychiatric hospital where the FBI had obtained a DNA sample from him. He knew the game was up at that point.

A Washington Post article claims there are "two irreconcilable versions" of Ivins: the supposed anthrax killer and the respected scientist who was kind to people. But really, can anyone in this day and age not believe that someone who appears kind and gentle can be a mass murderer as well? We know it's true, and certainly was the case with Ivins. There is nothing "irreconcilable" about it at all. Quite the contrary.

More quotes from his co-workers who, they say, just cannot believe it and want more proof. Why do they think he had guns and ammo at his house? Because he loved target practice? The FBI discovered that this great guy had tried to deceive them by doctoring samples from his lab. In light of the evidence, the doubts of Ivins' guilt by his co-workers takes on a bizarre tinge, as if they can't psychologically accept the truth, no matter what. It's eerie.

The source of Ivins' damaged psyche? His brother Tom said when they were kids, there was physical abuse in their family house. Were the anthrax victims stand-ins for the people he really wanted to kill but couldn't?

There is precious little in the way of statements or quotes from Ivins' family. The silence is deafening. They must know a great deal more than we've heard. Don't they have an obligation to the victims and their families? Yes, many questions remain unanswered in this case.

More evidence of Ivins' violent mind emerge. He told a counselor that he went out of town to watch a woman play soccer and if she lost, he was going to poison her. "It was not a crime of impulse. It was planned with cunning," she said.

New Ivins Documents Reveal Mind of a Killer

2008-09-24T19:27:00.004-04:00

How can anyone doubt Bruce Ivins is responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks? New documents reveal more evidence that Ivins was a sick, evil man often thinking about harming others while fretting that the feds were on to him.

Ivins sent an email (to himself) in 2007 announcing that he had discovered the identity of the anthrax killer. He didn't reveal the name of the killer, preferring to keep his own identity hidden from himself.

If he was innocent and had discovered the killer, he had ample opportunity to tell someone, but he didn't. The email to himself sounds like he was creating an email to possibly send to others around him at a later date to take suspicion off himself.

He talked about killing co-workers as well as the actress Kathryn Price from the TV show "The Mole," and sent an email to someone with her name asking if she was the actress and if she made public appearances where he could meet her.

In early 2008, Ivins spilled anthrax on himself and then tried to blame the accident on someone else.

Ivins was such a basket case, it is a puzzle why he was not the first and primary suspect all along, and further than that, why didn't his co-workers, knowing his mental problems, alert the FBI and insist he might well be the killer? Instead, the other scientists display surprise that the FBI points the finger at him! One even called him an "honorable man."

Without doubt, the FBI made many mistakes in its investigation of the killings. The National Academy of Sciences will review the scientific aspects of the investigation. But what about the non-scientific aspects?

Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey wants a national commission to study the anthrax attacks. But why is the extra cost and effort of a national commission necessary, rather than a congressional investigation? (Anthrax letters were mailed to a post office in his district.) Why not then have a national commission study any and every crime where several people were killed? Holt needs to answer the question why a national commission is necessary. Standard and unnecessary congressional overkill, but luckily, some are balking at the idea.

If anyone truly believes someone other than Ivins is responsible for the anthrax killings, they should speak up and tell us who they have in mind. This would include Sen. Patrick Leahy who has yet to present any details of his theory that someone else is responsible. I think it would be entertaining.

Sarah Palin Exposes the Left's Personal Inadequacies

2008-09-22T21:00:00.006-04:00

Why does the Left hate Sarah Palin to such an extreme? Talking heads on CNN and scribes in the print media have quickly devolved to adolescent schoolyard attacks against her. The final verdict explaining this behavior might reveal a lengthy list of ingredients in this strange stew, but an immediate (while not incorrect) answer is what I propose for now.

Sarah Palin exposes the personal inadequacies of men and women on the Left. It isn't just that she is a Republican and they are Democrats. This isn't about politics--not even close. The virulence of the attacks against her are proof enough of that.

Men on the Left are distingushed as abhorring war, afraid of guns, running away from religion, extremely pro-gay, and more than eager to stunt any trace of traditional masculine values. Palin, the pro-war, pro-guns, moose-hunting strong woman in effect reveals the self-castration of men on the Left. That explains the anger against her, and tellingly, men on the Left often try to hide their anger by couching their attacks as "jokes" and laughing while they talk about her. Campbell Brown's show on CNN tonight was a textbook example.

"Palin Fear" is rampant among the Left because she holds up a mirror to them and the result is embarrassment. The response from the men is to pretend Palin doesn't belong on the national stage and to attack her personally. But to attack a woman in public like that is to betray a personal lack of manhood and to accept the truth of that deficit as well.

For women on the Left, Palin represents the ultimate "goal" of the female that they have rejected and need to deny as worthy and rightful. She calls into question the validity of their womanhood.

The anti-Palin hate has a strong undercurrent of psychological chaos boiling within it. We are supposed to believe the "cover story" that this is about politics, but the political angle is a mask that serves to hide the true "argument" the Left has with Palin. It's personal and it hurts. I think of that every time I hear a guy on CNN laugh as he tries his best to diss a pretty, intelligent woman on national TV.