MorningBird

NOW OR LATER

When I was growing up, my parents moved a few times.  Four elementary schools, two junior highs (middle school), and two years in a boarding school gave me opportunities to make new friends--and to be tested. There is a bully everywhere you go, and they always pick on the new kid.  I had a lot of fights, but I never started one.

It is human nature to avoid conflict, and that was my first tactic--always.  First I tried to appease them--you know, attempt to make friends, but that invariably failed.  And sometimes I tried to bribe them--"You want to ride my bike?"  But that stuff never worked for long; they kept coming back until I stood my ground.  Their weapon was fear.  Once I penetrated that flimsy veil, it was all over.  But to do that, I had to clean their clock.

I learned a lesson from that--you can fight them now, or you can fight them later.

Is it any different with the terrorists?

Hang-up on Spanish

The Spanish language is in the spotlight. Last month The U.S. Senate passed the immigration-reform bill (S.2611), including a provision declaring English the official national language of the United States. As I write this, there is a similar bill working its way through the House of Representatives (HR 5456). A lot of Americans, including me, are concerned that we are headed for a language duopoly, hence the flurry of activity on Capitol Hill.

Others pooh-pooh that notion and point to past generations of non-English speaking immigrants, primarily Europeans, whose offspring mastered the new language within a generation. But we did not genuflect before the Italian language; or the German language, or the Polish language. One could argue that learning the language of the land allowed the children of those immigrants to quickly move into the mainstream of society; and commerce.

But those immigrants arrived here legally. They were above board, and they jumped through hoops to become naturalized citizens. Now we have a flood in the Rio Grande; a flood of bodies. Never before have so many come so fast, and never have so many illegal immigrants crossed our border, doomed by their unauthorized entry to remain in the shadows. Remember when Jimmy Carter opened the door to Cuban's wanting to flee Fidel's iron hand? And Fidel opened the jailhouse doors and loaded the boats with criminals; remember that? I'm not suggesting that President Fox is pulling a Fidel, but you know there are a fair number of criminals among the hordes of people coming across our southern border. From the shadows to the shadows.

Spanish language newspapers, TV and Radio networks proliferate in the U.S. and they serve to isolate non-English speaking Mexicans even more. Why should they learn English? But why should we be concerned? I don't have to talk to the guy who mows my grass; if I have a complaint I go to his supervisor. And the guy who mows my grass does not have to communicate with me, because that same supervisor insulates him.

It's not hard to understand the motivation behind this flood. Jobs. Apparently there are no jobs in Mexico for these people; or if there are jobs, they do not pay a living wage. And so they come here, take jobs American's do not want (so they say) and send a large part of their earnings back across the border (over $20 billion in 2005). And so, let's assume for a moment that we could find all of them, and load them onto buses and airplanes, and send them home. All 10 million of them; or 15 million; or 20 million, depending on which estimate you believe. What would happen to Mexico's economy? Would that loss in income usher in another left-wing dictator as in Cuba and Venezuela? And then what? Nationalization of GM and Ford plants? Coca-Cola? More oil spikes?

We've allowed a cancer to metastasize before our eyes, afraid to go to the doctor, because we fear the cure more than the disease. Who would harvest our crops? Who would mow our grass? Who would clean our offices? Who would baby-sit our children?

Government--at all levels--contributed to this. Our schools permit Spanish-speaking students to use their English language deficiency as a crutch. We do not force them to learn English as a primary language, and in some school districts, not even as a second language. So much for the second generation learns English theory. In those communities, Spanish rules.

Election ballots are printed in Spanish (and dozens of other languages). What is that about? Doesn't a naturalized citizen have to learn English before they take the oath? Who are these people who vote in another language? Why do we allow that?

I could go on and on about the government's enabling policies and procedures, but government is not the problem. The government is a follower, not a leader. Governments typically react after the fact. They are ponderous, and for good reason.

Commerce is to blame. Without jobs there would be no immigration problem. Forged documents and no documents are the norm. Who checks papers? Who cares? OK, I can empathize with that. You have a business to run and a job you can't fill with legal applicants. You learn about a pool of immigrant workers--day laborers--and you do what you have to do. Meanwhile, the government looks the other way. This is how we got here; it happens hundreds of thousands of times every day and the result is that we have an underground pool of millions of illegal workers. The government ignores their presence, but their needs are not ignored; they are blessed with security blankets for medical care, education, driver's licenses, etc.

But here is my real gripe. The Captains of Commerce have endorsed the Spanish language. What is the first thing you hear when you call your cellular company, your rental car company, or your airline? "Press 1 for English, or 2 for Spanish." The business world has capitulated; greed rules. I suppose we should be grateful that English is the first option. How long will that last?

It's one thing to hire them. It's another thing to put their language on par with ours. We need to hang-up on Spanish.

WHO IS GUARDING OUR BORDERS?

The 9/11 terrorists arrived in the United States by air, and performed their awful deeds in the air. Since that day, the American aviation system has been in a state of high alert.

There are five ways to enter the United States. You can drive, fly, sail, swim, or walk in. What are we doing to protect the other gateways?

After flying, driving might be the most inspected mode of entry. Travelers and vehicles enter this country through border stations operated by the Department of Homeland Security, where Customs agents inspect passengers, vehicles, personal property, passports, and other documentation. Reportedly, there are a handful of unofficial entry points on the Canadian border manned by private security guards.

Visitors, who sail to the U.S., arrive on cruise ships, cargo vessels, ferries, charter boats and privately owned vessels. Customs procedures vary as to vessel type, point of entry and other variables. Container ships offer plentiful opportunities for stowaways. And there are thousands of miles of shoreline stretching from Maine to Mexico on the east, and Washington to Mexico on the west, including thousands of inlets where a small boat can put ashore.

Swimming is another way to get here. Passengers may be transported by vessel until close to shore, where they are put overboard, and using an inflatable raft or scuba gear, simply float ashore. Again, the thousands of miles of unprotected shoreline make this an inconspicuous option. Mexico, Canada, Cuba, and the Bahamas are convenient launching pads for this type of entry.

The U.S. coastline is porous and the U.S. Coast Guard, mysteriously mired in the Department of Transportation, does not have the resources to cope.

Yet, with a 2,000 mile land border on the south and almost 4,000 miles on the north, simply walking in may be the easiest way to enter the United States.

In the south, the government cannot, or will not, stop the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. To the north, Canada gets even less attention, and its rough and remote geography offers a safer environment for slipping across undetected.

I am not a Homeland Security or Homeland Defense expert, and it is not my intention to examine the convoluted reasons for our porous borders; however, we now face a new kind of illegal alien, one who is coming here not to work for us, but to kill us.

I have an idea for plugging our borders, and it is free; the resources are already on the U.S. Government payroll.

Once a year 1.2 million Reserve and National Guard troops go away for two-weeks of active duty drills. Some units go the same place year-in and year-out; others go to different locations. The destination is a function of their mission in coordination with the military command structure, but my point is this: they all go somewhere for two weeks. Once a year, Army, Air Force, Marines, and Navy personnel get into their jeeps, trucks, buses, boats and aircraft and go off to hone their skills.

Why not deploy them to guard our borders for that two-week period?

The 9/11 Commission asked the question, “Who is responsible for defending us at home?” And the answer was, “Our national defense at home is the responsibility, first, of the Department of Defense and, second, of the Department of Homeland Security.”

1.2 million troops, deployed on a rotating two-week duty cycle on the borders with Mexico and Canada would provide a constant contingent of approximately 45,000 personnel. (1) That assignment would be more than a training drill for them; they would be our first line of defense. Can there be a more important mission than that? And since those two-week exercises are already budgeted, the incremental cost to U.S. taxpayers would be minimal.

(1) The war in Iraq put an enormous strain on Reserve and National Guard resources, and I am not ignoring the dilutive effect that war would have on this proposal. Obviously, Reserve and National Guard commanders would consider active-duty cycles when scheduling summer drills.

IT'S TOO QUIET

This week the world will focus on burying a Pope.  And after that, the election of his successor.  That will keep us preoccupied for most of April.

Meanwhile, the Israeli’s and Palestinians are playing kissy-face.

Syria is making plans to march out of Lebanon.

From Kabul, that Democratic corral surrounded by Afghanistan, we hear nothing.

Iraq is actually forming a government.

The crazy man in North Korea is nowhere to be seen.

The Chinese are too busy emulating Taiwan to attack Taiwan.

Egypt had elections?

Be alert.  It’s too quiet.

KERIK THE NANNY KILLER

This Kerik stuff is interesting; it makes the President, and whoever vetted the guy, look like amateurs.  Not good.

I remember when Guiliana named Kerik Commissioner of NYC; I thought it was strange, because the guy had no management experience to speak of, not for a job like that.  And the guy he beat out had all the credentials.

But Kerik's demise is nothing compared to the damage it will do to the economy. This is terrible for the nanny industry.  What do they expect us to do, pay the poor devils a minimum wage?  Hell, they can't even speak English. And social security and workmen's comp?  My God, the paperwork will drive us crazy, not to mention the taxes.  Guess we'll have to eliminate some perks--or let them go.

I can see it now.  The help for which we collected and paid zero taxes, will now collect unemployment benefits, food stamps, and if they're smart and fall down on the way out of the building, workmen's comp.  Is this a great country or what?

Blame it on Rudy.

My Predictions

President Bush and Vice-President Cheyney will be re-elected.

John Kerry will lose the election, but win a townhouse in Boston (a pre-nuptial benefit). Teresa will throw him out like an old bottle of ketchup. I give it a year.

John Edwards will be the biggest loser (no V-P job, no Senate job, and with Rodham in the wings, no way he will have a job in 08’). Back to suing doctors.

Other winners and losers:

Winner: Hillary Rodham. On November 3rd, in a front-page headline above the fold, and above the election results, The New York Times will declare Rodham the big winner. (More hate in 08’.)

Winner: Michael Moore will win the consolation prize (Hollywood will whip itself into frenzy on Oscar night).

Winner: Terry McAullife. Bill Clinton will save the architect of the disastrous early-primary strategy that produced a John Kerry. (The greasy-man will survive to raise another billion for Democrats.)

Losers: Robert Scheer, Paul Krugman, E.J Dionne, and the editorial boards of the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, the Knight Ridder chain…too many to list here. (All puppets of the Democratic Party, they will spend the next four years explaining what happened, and how they saw it coming).

Loser: bin Laden. Osama will be chased by warriors, not the keystone cops of John Kerry's imagination.

Winner: Ariel Sharon. He will have another four years to secure Israel without interference from a Nobel chasing President.

Loser: Ted Kennedy. Faux Camelot is dead; give it up.

Winner: Antonin Scalia. Help is on the way.

Loser: Dan Rather. What can I say? What can he say?

Winner: Karl Rove. What Karl wants, Karl gets.

Loser: Vermont. Two Senators: one a turncoat, and the other a “Go f*** yourself,” Darth Vader nemesis. (Secession might be an attractive option for Vermont.)

Winner: FOX News. Roger Ailes for FCC Chairman? (I thought he already was.)

Loser: The United Nations. Make them pay the parking tickets!

Winner: Aaahhhnold. The man is doing everything right. He is big, but where can he go?

Loser: France. What else is new?

Loser: U.S. Taxpayers. Bush is a bigger tax spender than tax cutter. (The day of reckoning is nigh.)

Winners or losers? George Pataki, John McCain, Rudi Giuliani, and Jeb Bush will compete for the chance to defeat Rodham. Is there a conservative in that group? (Look for another name to surface.)

.

US Airways & Uncle Sam

US Airways is back for more food stamps; they filed Chapter 11—again. We gave them $650,000,000.00 after 9-11, but that ran out. Actually, we (the taxpayers) did not give it to them then, we simply guaranteed their loans; the loans they can’t pay now. Now we’ll give it to them, so they can pay the banks.

But there is more. US Airways wants us to pick-up their pension costs too. And to get our attention, they stopped making payments to the machinist’s and flight attendant’s retirement funds.

The employees and retirees covered by those plans are remarkably silent. Why aren’t they screaming their heads off? Because the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation will pick up the tab. Who is the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation? You got it; taxpayers to the rescue again. If US Airways goes down for the count, retirees will get their pension checks from Uncle Sam.

The airline industry is in the pits. A lot of things are going on; 9-11 was one factor, but other structural changes were in the works long before that. Low cost airlines, for one. Years ago, Southwest Air pioneered a novel concept, which was that low-cost, no frills, on time service would sell. And that with rigid attention to costs—like flying one product, the Boeing 737, which simplified training of pilots and maintenance personnel, not to mention the savings and efficiency of maintaining one spare parts inventory—it could make a reasonable profit. They have. Eventually others saw the light, and now we have a plethora of low cost alternatives, e.g. Jet Blue, Air Tran, Frontier and others. (US Airways is not one of them.)

How do they do that? There are two major cost centers in the airline business, fuel and labor; everything else takes a back seat. Fuel is fuel; they all use the same stuff. Costs can be shaved by gambling on the future price of fuel (they call that hedging and Southwest is good at it), but still, they all use the same fuel. It’s not as if they can wean themselves off premium.

However, labor costs are another matter; not all airlines were created equal, with the same inalienable rights to manage their destiny. A long time ago, before the airline industry was deregulated, the government regulated airline prices and we all know what that means. High prices and high costs were the rule. Airline pilots were paid like rock stars, and worked less. That privileged concept rippled throughout the industry and flight attendants, ticket agents and machinists reaped the benefits of an inflated wage structure. Today, US Airways and other traditional carriers are shackled with those out-of-date labor contracts. According to those who know, workers take home 40% of the ticket price.

The unions are not blind; they have made concessions, but still, US Airways cannot survive with its current wage structure. So what will happen? I do not know, but here is one scenario:

US Airways will fail. Employees will lose their jobs. Discount airlines will move in, hire the same employees, and pay them less.

Meanwhile the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation will make good on the pension payments to the US Airways employees who now work at a discount airline for the same wages they rejected at US Airways. Guess who will pick up the tab.

The Undermanned Military

Many reporters, columnists, analysts and a few retired military chieftains out of the game, claim that we do not have enough soldiers--Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines--in Iraq. The Pentagon denies that, all the while extending tours of duty, recalling veterans for repeat service, and dipping deeper into the Reserve and National Guard for help.

Whom to believe? I do not know, but in reading and listening to the competing claims, I wonder if the two camps are even on the same page. 140,000 is the number referenced, and does not seem to be in dispute. However unlike wars past, when the military was monolithic, and carried everything on its back, it now has contractors galore to perform mundane non-fighting tasks, e.g., cooking, maintenance, logistics, sanitation, blah, blah, blah. The same scribes and experts that deride the size of the puny fighting force decry the presence of these contractors and diligently snoop about looking for excess behavior, i.e., the Halliburton overcharges.

So, what does "140,000" include? Are they all fighting personnel? If so, how many cooks, clerks, mechanics, doctors, nurses, and truck drivers do we have in Iraq? Add those to the 140,000 warriors there and you get a total fighting force; isn’t that the relevant number?

Where Will We Make A Stand?

Every person, group, organization—whatever—has a built-in code of conduct. It may be codified, as laws and religions are; or it may be dotted line, as family rules are. Regardless, however structured a community may be, its members tolerate minor infractions and they cut some slack for those who wander outside the boundaries of accepted behavior - to a point. For example: in our country, a teenager who violates curfew might be scolded by the family instead of grounded; in a civil matter, a police officer might issue a warning instead of a speeding ticket, and in a criminal situation, a judge might suspend a jail sentence in return for community service.

What happens when authority breaks down? Fortunately, there are backstops for that. In the family, members on the periphery might fill in, as grandparents often do. When a law is broken, communities rely on the police and the courts to handle the problem; there are avenues for help; civilized societies have resources for dealing with misbehavior.

But what happens when the community is broken? Iraq is shattered, its authority structure is in shambles. The war and its aftermath dismantled the police, suspended the courts, gutted the schools and dismembered families. Where are the backstops? The religious sects remain intact, but early on those communities appeared to contribute more to the chaos than to a solution; however in the Muslim world there is no way out without their participation; their concurrence.

Meanwhile the indiscriminate killing goes on. Oh yea, I know; the Americans and their lackeys are the targets, but bombs are not precise instruments; they kill everyone within range—targets and innocents; adults and children—no one is spared.

Yet in spite of the civil war raging around them, every day 25,000,000 Iraqi’s go about their business and presumably conduct their lives within acceptable norms—at least within the norms they were accustomed to under Saddam’s rule. See for yourself. Go to Chrenkoff and click on the “Good news from Iraq.” Mr. Andrew Chrenkoff, the weblog author, grew up in Communist Poland and now lives in Australia.

Why do Iraqi’s tolerate the killing?

One reason they might tolerate the killing is because the violence is concentrated in the Sunni triangle, and presumably, Iraqi’s who live outside that killing zone are not affected. Nevertheless in recent days, the violence has spread; what will happen if it encompasses the entire country?

Another reason they might tolerate the killing is that after twenty-five years of iron-fisted rule with no tolerance for dissent, Iraqi’s do not know how to resist. You cannot change attitude overnight. Yet, that does not explain the violent behavior of the Bathhist’s and their contemporaries. The bullies know how to fight, and are apparently well financed. Do they recruit the bombers with only money?

How long will Iraqi’s tolerate the slaughter of their brethren? That is the question, for only the citizens of Iraq can end the violent anarchy raging inside their country.

What is “the country?” Religion, blood, and tribal allegiances take precedence over the community drawn in the sand by the British, and divide Iraq. We may be witnessing the beginning-of-the-end of that British map. If so, will not other sand kingdoms be far behind?

If we abandon the Iraqi’s, where will we make a stand?

2004 - What Choice Do We Have?

Political parties are not my cup of tea; I am simply not a joiner, and as a registered independent voter, I am resigned to my fate—romanced by competing suitors every four years—and then forgotten. Moreover, I am out of step with other voters; I do not give a hoot about local elections; national issues are my hot buttons.

If I had to label myself, I would be a fiscal conservative, but what I really am, is a fan of small government; the less, the better. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you wind up with lower taxes. Therefore, for me, “fiscal conservative” is a misnomer; it is merely a description of the byproduct, smaller government. However, the public has come to expect more and more from its government, and for salaried workers, the withholding tax removes the pain of paying income taxes; consequently, we are doomed to an ever-expanding government. I liken government to a benign tumor; you don’t notice it until it becomes the size of a grapefruit, and even then, it may not be perceived as a threat.

The Republicans fought big spending—until they got control of Congress and the White House. Now, Bush and his friends in the House spend our taxes faster than they cut them; you cannot tell a Republican from a Democrat anymore. Wait…I take that back; there is a way. Now the Democrats oppose deficits. Has the political world turned on its head?

As I write this in the summer of 2004, the economy has turned the corner and the federal government is producing monthly surpluses, but there is no denying that George W. is a big spender. (Bush has given supply-siders a bad name. Under his leadership, it is indeed Voodoo economics, as his father once claimed. I happen to believe in the supply-side theory, and I am disappointed to watch W spend his Reagan heritage in a vain attempt to coax liberal voters.) The Democrats bemoan his tax cuts as nothing more than give-a-way to the rich and they want to repeal them…but for what purpose? To pay off the war? No. To reduce the debt? No. For what then? To spend more on social programs, e.g., education, health care, blah, blah, blah. Is anyone concerned about the size of government?

So, considering both Bush and Kerry will spend us silly, what choice do we have in the 2004 presidential election?

Will it be the 1st Lieutenant with four months of active duty and an early ticket home; and who as a U.S. Senator, voted against most—if not all—military pay increases and most—if not all—major weapons programs, in spite of earning the most liberal voting record in the Senate. What did he vote to spend all of that money for, if not defense? Ah…defense; let us not forget that Mr. Kerry voted against the first Gulf War. Where would Saddam be today if we had not pushed him out of Kuwait?

Or, will it be the incumbent President? Mr. Bush has blundered his way through Iraq, but that is the way of war; it is a game of mistakes. It is too early to know if our invasion of Iraq justifies the awful loss of American lives there, but our presence in the Middle East has sent a message to the other regional bullies. Whatever happens in Iraq will not quell the religious fanatics, but if the Iraqi’s can emerge with a stable self-governing country, their ambitious neighbors will pay attention. In spite of his rough start, Mr. Bush did not stand idly by after 9-11 while the third strike whizzed over the plate, but instead swung the bat. Maybe he didn’t hit a home run, but we’re still batting.

Forgive me, but I must throw in another sports metaphor. In football, the team that keeps the ball in play on its opponent’s end of the field—whether on offense or defense—wins. So be it in war.