Welcome to the Main Event

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen! Welcome to the Main Event of the evening!

In this corner, weighing in at a sloppy 25,000 pounds; with swollen noses and wearing brown-stained Armani trunks are the 100 Senators of the United States…Senators! [boo, hiss, grumble]

In the opposing corner, weighing in at 300 million votes; carrying the rule of law, reason, and a well-defined sense of fair play upon their shoulders; and wearing Red, White, and Blue Trunks are the Citizens of the United States…Citizens! [yea!]

Referee: Alright gentlemen, I want a fair fight. No ad hominem arguments or name calling—just go out there and debate the issue at hand and do what’s right for the country.

Citizens: Hey…the Senator's boxing gloves are stuffed with cash and rolled coins.

Referee: Those are campaign contributions, questionable book deal revenues, and consulting contract income.

Citizens: Is that fair?

Referee: No,…what’s your point? At the sound of the Liberty Bell, come out swinging.

[Ding!]

Announcer: And the Senators make the first move!

Senators: It’s not really “Amnesty,” It’s more like a “Pardon!”

Citizens: That makes no sense.

Senators: What we have now is “De-facto Amnesty!”

Citizens: So we should go from “De-facto Amnesty” to “Actual Amnesty?”

Senators: It’s actually “Earned Citizenship!” Quick—someone get me a Thesaurus!!

Citizens: You’re not fooling anyone.

Senators: You're a Racist! You want to break up families! Hamburgers will be $20 each! Who’s going to pick my lettuce?? You just don't understand the issues! If we legalize them then they will vote for us!!!!!!

Announcer: A large cut has opened up in the Senators' position—the audience gasps as the Citizens come charging back!

Citizens: We tried the legalization thing before and you guys did nothing to enforce the laws. You passed a bill to build a border fence and then play political games with it so it won’t get built.

Announcer: Body-Blow! Body-Blow!

Senators: This is all the fault of talk-radio fear-mongers who have to be stopped!

Citizens: You mean those guys who helped you all get elected last time?

Announcer: The Senators are realing—bearly able to stand on their own two feet!

Citizens: Your plan doesn’t make economic, legal, or moral sense at all.

Senators: It’s the best deal we could make! It’s even Bi-partisan and everything!!

Citizens: You are running this thing like a game of Three-Card-Monte. No matter what we choose, we lose, because you are the guys dealing the cards and deciding what the choices are. I’ve had enough of this—we’re going to vote your deal-making, double-talking, legacy seeking, self-centered butts right out of office!

Senators: So you do not like this immigration bill? Why didn’t you just say so?

Announcer: The Senators have just run out of the ring and are sprinting for the door!

Referee: The winner, defender of liberty, and still champion of Constitutional Republican governance…The Citizens! [yea!]

Well, the good guys took this round with the defeat of the terrible Immigration bill in the Senate. But don’t forget, friends—the Senators will be back for another round of Sophistry and Mayhem. Let’s make sure that we are ready for them.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Immigration--Where do Solutions Begin?
In fact, they begin right here! (With a little Milton Friedman wisdom thrown in for good measure.)

And it begins with the truth that we are still talking about illegal immigration--not "immigrants" or "migrants" or any others who might legally lay claim to opportunity in this country. Let's dispense will all the talk of racism, nativism, and the rest. We have all seen, heard, and read the dribbling rants of those who are racists out there. We know them when we see them. There are elements of that everywhere and on both sides of this debate. They are the fringe, the out-landers to the American Dream--but they are a noisy lot at times and ultimately cowards. Let us set the misanthropes aside as history undoubtedly will do and get ourselves on to the business at hand.

Arizona is the Huckleberry State
I am a native Arizonan (not of the "Native-American Tribal" variety, but still enough of a rarity) and have witnessed a great deal regarding illegal immigration first-hand. I have seen illegal immigrants who work exceedingly hard and generally within the context of legality (of course, excepting their immigration status) and I have been the victim of crime at the hands of....how do we now say this...."doubly illegals?" Again, I am not shocked by the fact that a societal subset contains elements of both. Any random set of humanity with sufficient scope would do the same.

Ideas--At Least I Know Where to Start
Only you can determine if you believe that 'Ol Huck has something constructive to offer on this matter, but let me give you a taste. It is my contention that:

• The most important elements in any solution to illegal immigration are sequence, measure, and pacing. (Think of how the Fed manages interest rates to avoid "shocking" the economy.)
• The most fearful aspects of the current legislation are that it was quickly negotiated in secret and, in fact, the most current version is unavailable for public review. (Never a good sign. The Heritage Foundation managed to review an early summary before they published their scathing account.)
• It is vital to remember that any solution must take into account the relative incompetence of the Federal government in administrating such programs. (Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.").
• It is also important to view the current proposal in the context of the failures of the previous attempt in 1986 and to not repeat those errors (Milton Friedman also said, "Governments never learn. Only people learn.").
• Finally, incentives must be in place to induce lawfulness. It is clear to me that the Senators do not have a firm enough grasp of Economics to place these incentives in the correct locations. I would argue that the incentives, as I understand them, contained in the current bill encourage lawlessness. (one last Milton Friedman quote, "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." He was a pretty bright guy, eh?)

But What About the Families and the Children, etc.?
With regards to this issue it is also plain that many are leading from their heart. I do not fault them too much for this. Grace, mercy, and compassion are the hallmarks of my faith--political and theological. But we do not benefit those who wish to come to our country under noble goals and lofty aspirations if, by doing so, we lessen the quality or value of that which they seek to achieve. In so doing, the "economy" of Freedom is put into Recession and the sum total of "good" is diminished. If the mechanism is properly in place and the "market" for such remains governed by the rule of law, only then does each transaction (of immigration) add value to the whole. This is true of every system designed by the hand of man.

Enforcement Slander
Before I sign off, I would also offer that the majority of opponents to the bill (excepting a few) are not necessarily "pro-enforcement-only" as is commonly inferred. Rather, they are largely "Pro-enforcement-first" (not the same thing) and that any government unwilling to enforce current laws cannot be trusted to enforce any.

We keep hearing John McCain and other politicians parroting the party-line:

"Those who oppose this legislation have a duty to propose an alternative."

I would have hoped that the legislators involved might have asked this same question of us prior to their first, clandestine Drafting sessions. I assure you that I would have spoken up. Now, each attempt that I and my philosophical brethren make to contact our representatives is met with disdain, slander, and silence.

"You want solutions and alternatives?
Here I am John, but it appears that you will not take my call."

Be well,
Huckleberry

Immigration and Sophistry in America

“Truth, that’s it! For when a man lies he murders some part of the world...you should know that!” (1)

Good ‘Ol Huck is starting to get in a bad way about this whole mess—refering to the mis-named Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. It’s getting awfully lonely out here on the Intellectual Conservative front. Our evidence today comes from those previously claiming to profess Conservative Principles.

Did They Really Say That?
Is Huckleberry willing to name names? Why sure he is:

• Trent Lott (You should hear some of the tragic interviews he has been giving—this will likely end his chances at further Republican Leadership. And did he really say that “Talk Radio is a problem” that needs to be addressed? Yes he did, to his lasting shame.)
  
• Senator Jon Kyl (I am very sorry to include this fine man in this list of shame, but he has boxed himself into a rather ugly corner on this one. If he comes up with another “it’s more like a pardon, not amnesty” comment I may become ill.)
  
• President Bush (Don’t get me started. When he is right, he is mostly right, though fumbling a bit. When he is wrong, he can be tragically, horribly wrong. Is it correct to say logarithmically wrong? Hurling accusations and name calling at your political base--one that is shrinking fast do to other concerns--because they disagree with you qualifies as being just that wrong.)
  
• The Goldwater Institute (My email exchange with Clint Bolick, a staff member at the Institute, was equal parts enlightening, comic, and horrific. Did he really suggest in an Arizona Republic editorial that Republicans prostitute themselves upon this bill in order to improve their election chances? Yes he did; thus lowering the term “craven” to new depths and debasing the name of the Senator his employer is named for. By the way, ‘Ol Huck ain’t done with the Goldwater Institute just yet. They have done a bit of good work over the years and, if they can be saved from themselves, I will give them that chance.)
  
• John McCain (Perhaps someone whispered in his ear that his support for this bill would augment his Presidential aspirations…and perhaps that person was James Carville…and perhaps even he didn’t think McCain would take him seriously.)

Lest you think that your favorite blogger has gone off the deep end, allow me to mention those few who so far are fighting the good fight on this critical issue:

• Almost all of Conservative Talk Radio that I have heard (see: Trent Lott above)


• The Heritage Foundation (Bucking the trend, they have attempted some scholarly research on the costs involved. By the way, pocket change won’t do it.)


• National Review and the online incarnation of this relatively steady and philosophically sound magazine.


• I cannot think of anyone else right now, but I felt compelled to add a fourth bullet so that it does not look like reasoned Conservativism is so greatly outnumbered—though that appears to be the case.

Sophistry Shuffle
Come to think of it, this isn’t really a Conservative or Liberal issue at all. In anything near its current form this bill violates sound economic principles, denies human nature, ignores the concept of the rule of law, twists the US Constitution into some pretty bizarre shapes, caters to a few special interests and select industries, incentivizes criminal behavior, and plays a shell game with the various extended implications (Health care, Social Security, and so much more). Is it any wonder that a signifcant number of us are outraged?

But perhaps worst of all it is causing the Republican leadership--who have been duped into supporting this travesty--to lie, twist, mangle, and dance the Sophistry Shuffle as they spit into the wind and tell us it’s raining.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Quote from the character Merlin in the movie Excalibur, 1981, Orion Pictures Corporation

Snow, Cement, and Ivory Young Towers (1)

Some eons ago mankind spoke one language. One may differ on which root language that was and whether the several “branch” languages were the result of geographic isolation after tribal migrations or the result of divine intervention into human hubris at—you guessed it—The Tower of Babel. It is interesting and instructive to note that modern linguistic science points rather decisively to a “Mother Tongue” for humanity and that a quorum of historical traditions and religions do so as well. So let us refer back, if we may, to our favorite Neolithic ancestor, Cousin Og. (2)

Good Cousin Og is sitting in his mud hut one day when the local leader walks up to him and says, “Hey buddy, can you make bricks?” Or one imagines such an exchange taking place (Cousin Og is a bit fuzzy on the conversation now, seeing as he is 10,000 years old and his memory is not quite what it used to be). The point being that by this time in human history, it seems we could all communicate with each other in one, unified language—Let’s call this language "Basic Rock." (3) Anyway, the request is made and appropriations allocated for another public works construction project.

So make bricks they do and up goes a tower. Now the story gets tangled a bit, but it appears their prehistoric intent was to (literally and metaphorically) build a tower so high that the locals could poke a stick into God’s eye. The Hucklebberry Legal Team tells me that I must warn you not to try this at home. Such impertinence is likely to anger deities from any and all religious traditions that I am aware of and—if you are an atheist—it makes you look like a jerk anyway.

You know how the story ends. Cut to the present day and we now have six-billion people in the world (more or less) who speak a couple-hundred different languages and one is left to wonder what could be accomplished if that were not the case.

Now, this author is a professional communicator by trade and I can assure you that I am the only one on the planet who speaks clearly, concisely, effectively, and correctly. If you do not understand me, then there is something wrong with you.

My point is that I would tend to argue that what we really have today are six-billion-odd humans speaking six-billion-odd dialects of a couple hundred languages. I speak, well, "Huckleberry English" and you speak "Whatever-English." Some words, concepts, inflections, and idiomatic expressions hold subtly different “meaning" for you than they do for me. I am reminded daily of the difficulties of being understood experienced by family members and close associates, let alone co-workers and complete strangers. Even people related by blood and raised in the same households come to each conversation with their own completely unique set of agendas, biases, conceptions, and linguistic relationships that compound the burden of clear intent. It is a wonder that we can understand each other at all. Communication is hard!

But did the pre-Babel folks have a more perfect system? Did they literally speak with the tongues of angels and understand each other perfectly? If so, I am jealous and would gladly trade my Ipod and plasma screen TV for a few happy days in mutual comprehensive bliss. That local leader who recruited Cousin Og to make bricks may have been able to communicate the request with a level of purpose, precision, and brevity that would astound us (please avoid the temptation at this point to contrast such linguistic efficiency with this blog entry). Imagine, a few words that not only communicated the desire to have bricks made, but detailed their composition, physical dimensions, method of construction, where they needed to go, and--perhaps--even their purpose and reason better than any set of architectural drawings. Cousin Og would have related to him the completeness of meaning distilled down to its most efficient form.

This idea of Babel and it's antecedent potentially "prefect" communication has stimulated many thoughts on my part and I have started referring to this concept as "singularity of meaning" (the irony of ‘Ol Huck venturing to coin a term in an attempt to define this is not lost on me). It is, if you will, the natural horizon of communications--the vanishing point at which the injection of one additional word, inflection, pause, or guttural sound would add nothing to the understanding. Conversely, the removal of any single element would bring loss. Unfortunately, this may be unattainable for us today. For us it is a mathematical limit--like the speed of light. With great effort and energy we can approach it ever closer, but we can never reach that pinnacle of meaning singularity. Ah, but the effort has given us some wonderful art, has it not?

On the more mushy side on the concept is the notion of the tortured artist--being so tortured by his or her inability to properly or fully express the desired "meaning." Just like an infant fusses at times due to his inability to communicate the specificity of his wants and needs, the artist storms about in frustration at the inadequacy of his medium, vocabulary, and talent to express the intended meaning. Thus art is often described as being "felt" and we defer to our "sense" of it.

Taken to its edges, one may find perfect communication--perfect language--to therefore define perfect art. But this is a bit of a digression. For the moment let's turn our attention to the concept of "language as repression" and step in to gently correct Sigmund Freud by suggesting that language is better understood as not the point of repression, but rather the point of limitation (not the same thing). Repression may be thought of as the internalized result of our frustration at our limitations. Repression is the humanistic and flawed response of man (the spoiled and frustrated child) straining at his/her own limits. That which we cannot express en veritas toto we either repress, transfer, or act out upon unproductively.

Returning to the singularity of meaning, we discover then that there is one more example that begs our address--Epiphany. Epiphany is the rare moment when meaning crystallizes for us in a brilliant flash of comprehension. We rush about looking for a note pad because even the act of starting up our computer would take too long. The "meaning" and comprehension are flying by us and we get but a glimpse of it. We are then limited by our ability to record such moments effectively and, ultimately, some portion of each Epiphany is lost to us every time.

Who could communicate so quickly, beautifully, and with such full and complete meaning....standing, if you will, at the point of singularity and...perhpas...at the speed of light? It is only God who speaks in such ways and can do no less.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) First line of the song “Tower of Babel” by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, from the album “
Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy,” 1975. This post has nothing to do with the religio-phobic and self-aggrandized homosexual diaspora intended by the song—but it is a solid cultural reference point for “Babel.”
(2) Yes, I know that I have referred to Cousin Og in previous posts as “Paleolithic.” He called me last week from his condo in South Boca to correct me and remind me that he is “not THAT old.”
(3) I stand on the shoulders of Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks (2000 Year Old Man)
* The graphic used in this post is that of a woodcut image by M. C. Esher titled “Tower of Babel

Go Get'em Peggy

I do not always agree with her, but Peggy Noonan expresses the current sentiments amongst Republicans rather well in her June 1st, 2007 editorial.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Be Well,

Huckleberry

I Guess 'Ol Huck Just Doesn't Understand
An Open Letter to President George Bush

Mr. President -

It is relatively easy for me to understand and accept political disagreement. I am accustomed to such as I am sure you are. I also understand that my President may not, on occasion, completely agree with me on every position--this is one of the realities I am content to live with.

It is quite another thing for my President--and ostensibly the leader of my party--to lecture me on my need to accept diversity. Please understand, sir, that I do not intend to lecture you and I intend no disrespect. But I cannot support the current (and terribly mis-named) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in anywhere near its current form. I would further say that my reasoning's have nothing to do with fear of diversity or racism and that I have not been manipulated by fear-mongers. Quite frankly, sir, I resent your saying so. In rhetorical arguments, the first one to defer to ad homonyms and non sequiturs is usually the one with the weaker case. I am left to assume that this implies my arguments against this legislation are stronger indeed.

The current bill is mis-guided from the perspectives of economics (monetary and incentive), our established concept of justice, the establishment of unwarranted precedent, and quite frankly our American sense of fair play. Your support and defense of this bill should be abandoned and I have equally communicated this sentiment to my state Senators--Kyle and McCain. I will continue my resistance in the form of my vote, communications (my blog, letters, and related articles), and the withholding of financial and moral support from my Republican Party, you sir, and my Senators to make my position known.

Respectfully--Be Well,
Huckleberry

Nature, Nurture, and……What’s Left

Recent discussions have recalled one of the oldest controversies since the dawn of the scientific age—are odds of our success in any endeavor more dictated by the genetic blueprint that forms the mortal coil (nature); or more by the conditioning and training of the environment we are dropped into.

Trading Places

The debate has raged for centuries and inspired the literati (novels and scientific papers proliferate) as well other media (theatrical productions and cinematic efforts included). In these, the debate is carried alternately by one side of the argument or the other, and sometimes the result is a draw. Ultimately, it seems, each of us is left to determine for ourselves that which is more formative in the development of the human animal.

Human Animal, eh?

There is certainly fodder for both camps. Statistics can be found that variously suggest that simple DNA and its vagaries control our destinies or that education, social status, poverty (or lack thereof), or some other environmental influence has a greater impact. The problem for both sides of the debate arises in the exceptions. All of us know of some personal story of success where an individual springs forth from hardship or poverty to reach the pinnacles of prosperity and status. We even cherish such stories and revere them enough to make more movies and books in celebration of their biography. It is equally true that as many (if not more) who are born to wealth, position, status, and fame have floundered and squandered such advantageous positioning unto nothingness and sometimes criminal acts. The exception, it is said, proves the rule. But there must come a point where the exceptions are so numerous as to make the rule moot.

Will You….Or Will You Not?

In such cases, it is incumbent upon those seeking truth to consider that the premise itself is flawed or that all options are not yet considered. Could it be that Nature and Nurture are not the only options and, further, that perhaps they are the lesser of the totality?

The Great Bluff

Let's imagine life as a great card game that comes down to the final hand—poker, it is. The players have their chips and sit at the appointed table across from a set of other players they had never met before, within a casino owned and operated by others, and playing a game whose rules were laid down centuries before this day dawned. The environment—Nuture—is so defined. The dealer taps the table and, with an experience flick of the wrist, deals the cards to each player in turn, thus granting a random set of attributes to each player's hand. Nature is equally blind and chaotic in its dealings, is it not. You? You are the great humanistic scientist who is given access to “see” each player's cards, examine the table and chips in play, and determine who will win the hand before the first bet is made or the first card is revealed. You have been trained that you can do this, but now you are not so sure.

Any reasonably good card player will tell you that this is a fool’s errand. Because, in the end, the winner is not always the one who has the most chips at the start, nor is it the person who is dealt the best cards—almost always, the winner is the one who does the best job of playing the game. The greatest influence is neither Nature nor Nurture, but what is done with them by……what unknown force?

What Force?
That force is a part of what puts lie to the term “Human Animal.” For we understand that even animals have Nature and Nurture. What we do, or do not, is the Human part of it all—the want and the will of it.


Be well,

Huckleberry

Immigration Reform...NOT

Today, we have a topic from the Government Office Of Oxymorons (GOOO). The Senate has just agreed upon Compromise Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. Each word of this mis-titled bill is severely mal-placed.

Compromise
When an issue is black or white, there is no such thing as compromise. In this particular debate, one side says that illegally crossing national borders, regularly taking payment under the table while here, and appropriating a false identity and/or social security number are crimes. The other side says, "well, not really." The current bill obviates the debate in favor of the latter. No compromise has taken place.

Comprehensive
One can only apply this word to the bill if one removes the topics of health care; criminal punishment; consequences to the nation under the interpretation of Clause one, section one of the 14th amendment to the Constitution; and the economic analysis of the migration incentives (a long topic by itself).

Immigration
We have long-standing immigration laws and restrictions in place. This bill seeks to circumvent such policy and the incumbent mandate to enforce it. If you are unwilling to prefix the word "Illegal" to the term, then "Migration" is probably a better choice of words as it infers a free, unrestricted, and perhaps seasonal flow.

Reform
I do not want to get all "word wonk-ish" on you, but I cannot see how our immigration policy will be reformed by this terrible little bill. We have, at the heart of all this, an enforcement problem. Jiggling around the periphery in order to avoid enforcement is not likely to solve or reform much of anything.

That group of Senators (normally stalwart Jon Kyl included) is trying to pull a David Copperfield on the nation--flash, bang, and dazzle abounds; but the illegal aliens didn't really disappear--they just hide under the sheets.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Spiritu Ex Machina
(Charlie Stross has a blog: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/ . He is a writer and "futurist." I reply to his post of May 13.)

Millennia ago as our ancestors stacked one rock upon another to construct the first shelter in the first cluster of shelters in what would become the first town of the first civilization, one of the brightest in the group (let's call him Cousin Og) realized that rocks were pretty heavy and that there was a limit to the size rock that he could lift. (Coincidentally, this was also the first time that Mrs. Og gave that look of disapproval because the neighbor's house was built of bigger, shinier rocks--but I digress). This now henpecked and Paleolithic cousin discovered that when he wedged a stick under one side of the large rock and pressed down, he could then move that which he was incapable of with his directly applied strength. He thus discovered leverage (launching the first Hedge Fund, I imagine).

Futurisms and Techno-philosophy fail most when they fail to consider advancements within this context. Every device we build and every machine or process we design is a leverage upon what we already possess. Computers work because they run programs that we create. We work them over and over again--often thousands of times--until that set of instructions works well. Then we let that machine do it again for us efficiently. The computer and software that I am using right now is simply the leveraged millions of man-hours brought to efficiency to build my terminal, write the software, and link the whole mess together.

Specialization is a form of leverage. In the GPS world, specialization allows Garmin and Galileo to get very very good at mapping places and finding people (and saving a lot of trees and frustration in the process). This allows me to be very very good at......well, I'll think of something later; but you get my point.

As memory chips advance and becomes cheaper, we are simply finding new and unique ways to leverage our own memories and resources--to "remember" and access more; and to get more memory from whatever resources we already have, both physical and mental. Ken Burnes (the film documentarian) has made a career out of reading the letters and journals of Civil War era citizens into a microphone to record and display what, for those citizens, was memory. Digital memory is simply a more efficient version--it is leverage against what is for us a natural instinct--taking notes to communicate and remember.

Will we design a machine that thinks better than we do? The question is moot because such a machine would only be a leverage of the billions of combined man-hours and trillions of dollars in resources that are put into it. It will be an efficiency--a leverage of what we already do and have already created. It will be an expression....of us. And Cousin Og would be proud.

Be well,
Huckleberry

* The Cross image above originally appeared as the cover illustration for the DEcember 2002 issue of WIRED Magazine.

The Wolves are Feasting Upon Wolfie

Well, today Paul Wolfowitz resigned as President of the World Bank. Lefties cheer and Bushies jeer. So we set aside all the cheering and jeering to see if there is anything to glean from the cacophony.

Cheers?
Paul Wolfowitz, you see, was assistant Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld at the start of the current Iraq War. Any time misfortune or evil befalls a so-labeled "Neocon" proponent of the invasion, everyone who disagrees thumps their chest in a display of voyeuristic victory.

Jeers?
As for the jeering, many respected journalists--even many without a political axe to grind--have labeled this a hit job that intentionally smears the good name and reputation or a decent guy doing a decent job on many fronts--including his cleaning up of much that is messy at the chronically corrupt World Bank.

Why is he stepping down?
Good question. It appears that Mr. Wolowitz likes the ladies. Normally that is not too much of a problem for an American male, but in Mr. Wolfowitz's case he apparently likes the ladies that are not necessarily his wife.........in a serial fashion, I might add. Worse, he gives the impression of playing favorites with the ladies he does like in matters of job position and salary when they happen to work with him. It appears that the Democrat Party is not the only harbor for marital scoundrels.

Now the World Bank has an Ethics Committee (I know, this shocked me too). This Ethics Committee approved his appointment; even though they were aware of his "relationship" with a current World Bank staffer; and were aware that Wolfie (that nickname has a whole new meaning for us now, doesn't it?) had stepped out in similar fashion previously on at least one occasion in 2001 (causing a permanent, though not formalized, rift with his wife); then murkily colluded to buy-off the World Bank staffer with a substantial bump in pay and a State Department reassignment. Yes, that Ethics Committee. They are now shocked and stunned that this conflict of interest might have interfered with Mr. Wolfowitz's duties (Gasp!).

Yes, He Is Our Problem
Well, what is President Bush to do now. He appointed the guy and will reappoint his successor. The Left is making quieter hay about this situation than usual because......think about it.

Setting aside whether you like the decisions and influence of Wolfowitz or not--or whether you like Republicans or Democrats for that matter--we have been taught over the last fifteen years that personal lives do not matter. Morally, I agree that serial infidelity can indicate a lack of philosophical and moral standing that should not be ignored. But how can the Democrats and the media (et al) now stand up and claim "If we had only known!" Remember that the left-leaning side of the media built a presidential campaign--and supported an entire Presidency--on the premise that it just didn't matter.

Well....whose pigeons are coming home to roost? Whose ever pigeons they are, it sure doesn't smell very good, does it......and I think that some of it is stuck to the media's shoes.

Be well,
Huckleberry

The Riddle of the Sphinx Amongst Wistful Memories

Four Legs in the Morning
Early in our lives we are in awe of them. We hang in rapt attention upon their answers to all of our questions in total acceptance as if gospel. In fairness to our parents we must remember that they are humans--and as such they are more like us than we care to consider. Any mis-step or failing that we have had, it is likely they also failed and tripped many of the same ways and included a certain unique subset of their own. We become disillusioned with our folks usually to the extent that our expectations are unrealistic. This is compounded by the necessary inclusion of a measure of hero-worship and respect incumbent in the parent-child relationship. Otherwise, few of us would have ever gone to bed on time nor attended class when other interests beckoned.


Two Legs in the Noon
But as time advances, the hero-worship tempers into a different kind of respect. Sometimes one wonders how the folks managed to get through it at all--especially at the time when you are wondering for yourself if you will be able to endure. So--from the vantage point of this male writer--instead of gazing at Father as "Superman," we begin to look at him as the experienced soldier who has marched into battle ahead of you and cleared a little of the path. Instead of seeing mother as linen-wrapped saint and healer of all boo-boos, she morphs into a defining reference point of wife and care-giver.


Three Legs in the Evening
Later still, as one reaches the dreaded middle ages, your parents' role can feel inverted. The world you live in--the technology, speed, and standards experienced in your halcyon days--can be estranged from them. You are called upon to help them understand the world because certain aspects of it have left them behind. But help them you do, in much the same way as they helped you when for you the world was new.


Further, by your forties you have had the opportunity to see your parents fail; and in their failing you have seen them both shine and fail miserably. You realize that they are just like you--or, more correctly--that you are just like them, but different. Respect remains to a degree, but that respect is more focused on specific accomplishments and attributes rather than on the whole. All vestiges of hero-worship have faded with the years, and you may find yourself reciting the moral and philosophical lessons to the generation that came before you as often as you do to the one that follows.


Tell Me Soon
What remains for us as we don our temporal and temporary mantles--as we take our parents position as the caretaker of the generations--as we find our faith, sometimes lose it, and then hopefully find it again--is love. Our love for them and their love for us.


Be well,
Huckleberry

Saint Cripsin's Day Falls in May This Year

Recent efforts and travels have kept me from my blogger's keyboard and dedicated to more wordly pusuits. The struggles of a friend have called to my mind one of Good Bill's most famous soliloquies. Forgive my lack of attention and read the better words of another.

"What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmorland. No, my fair cousin:
If we are marked to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will, I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It ernes me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more.
Rather proclaim it presently through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a-tiptoe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t'old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
Henry V, Act IV, scene iii

Be well,
Huckleberry

Amazing Fossil Discovery in Washington DC

HuckleberryNewsWire
Washinton DC, April 26, 2007
staff writer

The fossilized remains of a new species of human-like ape have been discovered under our Nation’s Capital.

Paleontologists have dubbed the new hominid species Hillarius Clintoni because of its unique political and evolutionary advantage of being able to kiss up to the minority co-species Jessimus Jackassicus and Judisicus Liberalis while storing its head inside of its rectum--much like a kangaroo carries its young in a pouch—thus protecting it from rational dissenting argument. Scientists speculate that Hillarius Clintoni accomplished this extraordinary maneuver through the use of two horizontally opposed faces and a great deal of unpleasant attitude.

Further evidence indicates that the new species would likely have met with rapid extinction without the direct support of an earlier, larger species—Williamus Clintoni—that had evolved long, coat-tail like appendages that trailed behind it and which Hillarius Clintoni rode upon as the larger species roamed about, in search of mating opportunities.

Both the Williamus and Hillarius branches of the Clintoni thrived in the swamp-bogs common to what is now the Washington DC area. Artifacts related to these primitive nomads have been found as far North as the Lower Catskill Mountains in New York State and as far West as the White Water River in Arkansas, though the evidence indicates that the Clintoni never set up permanent settlements in these remote areas—preferring instead to pass through them and return to the lowland swamps.

Tool marks and dental scans seem to point to a diet rich in interns, subordinates, and graft—though recent analysis of petrified Clintoni feces have indicated that the hominids, though relatively dim-witted, occasionally had the opportunity to feast upon cattle-futures contracts, and large chunks tax dollars have been pulled from the stool samples.

So what caused the eventual extinction of the Clintoni? No one knows for certain, but a poll of tenured college professors revealed that the ultimate elimination of the Clintoni occurred after a vast alliance of Humans—the Reaganites—arrived from the right-side of the continent driving SUVs. Thus, their extinction may be largely attributable to Global Warming.

Sometimes, just for fun.
Be well,
Huckleberry

Evil in the Kingdom

Once again we are stunned by the actions that one insane man can wreck upon us. The damage to lives and property is only exceeded by the damage to our psyches. Virginia Tech is a university and community in mourning.

The calls of remedy and blame will invariably persist:

• "Ban all firearms!"
• "The university should have done something!"
• "The teachers and administrators were suspicious and did nothing!"
• And undoubtedly at some point we will hear, "It's George Bush's fault!"

Protect ourselves, we should. Plan and prepare, of course. Sensibly regulate and legislate, if need be. But it seems one of the highest forms of denial and ego to think that we as individuals, a people, or a nation can act, do, or prepare in any way sufficient to strip the world completely of evil and its effects. Were we to try, we would populate our land with closeted phobics devoid of freedom and will--but still evil would appear to stun us again, and again.

Serve Us Justice
Insanity is just that. To expect that the reasoning and methods of insanity would make sense or be controllable in the planning and rationale of the sane is itself .....well, insane. We should take what reasonable measures we must, and then accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as are flung at us by those evil and insane. That is what justice is for. For if we truly have the power to prevent evil, we have no use for justice. It is the rational realization that evil exists somewhat on the fringes of our ability to plan for and cope that the concept of justice finds its meaning.

This is true if you seek justice in the corporeal or spiritual.

As for me, I send my condolences to the families of the dead and wounded--equally to those who witnessed that dreaded day and have had their confidences shaken. I offer only that they--and we--consider that the fault of such a tragedy lays solely with its perpetrator--and evil itself.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Beware Strange Men Bearing Gifts

The Gift
So....How did he phrase it? Well, according to a transcription posted on The Independent (1), he said it thus:

"On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the great Prophet of Islam, and on the occasion of Easter and Passover, I would like to announce that the great nation of Iran, while it is entitled to put the British military personnel on trial, has pardoned these 15 sailors and gives their release to the people of Britain as a gift...."

The last time I saw such a gift, it involved Don Corleone and an unfortunate horse.

International pressure was certainly a factor--nobody believed that the British sailors were captured in Iranian waters. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can rest comfortably in the knowledge that he accomplished his primary mission. Though in person he may be physically diminutive in stature, he was able to pull up to the grown-up's table using the booster-seat of this contrived crisis. That's what he really wanted. And he got what he wanted by stomping about and raising a ruckus like a spoiled child who has been spared the rod too often.

Imams, Ayatollahs, and Sheiks (Oh, my!)
Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insane? Maybe. But likely his madness is just enough to allow his adequate function on the world's stage. He will play his pawns and subsequently be played as one by the Imams, Ayatollahs, and sheiks. For rarely does one who plays humanity cheaply avoid getting played himself. It is the way of totalitarians and tyrants.

Ashes to Ashes
We will undoubtedly hear from the Iranian president again soon as he either creates another crisis or inserts himself into one. Ronald Reagan once famously consigned communism to the "ash heap of history." Certainly, Ahmadinejad will one day join his Islamofascist brethren in that smouldering pile. Let us pray that he does not take a city or two with him as he goes.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Published: 05 April 2007;
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2422638.ece

In a Tip to the Bard

It's a smack-down....really "old school"....in the Shakespeare style.

"You have the understanding of an infant--but this is very well, if a child you are--reliant on the willingness and care of those 'round about to hold their noses, gather your soiled garments, and wipe your bare ass. This is a task that all do quite willingly for the very young. But there have been decades since you sat up to your mother's breast; What then is your reasoning? You speak proudly of your manhood and erudition, then soil yourself in your naiveté' and crass calumny. Is there no hair yet upon your chest and arms? You wryly lay claim to a salient command of science and art, yet spout only childish philosophies.

Well it seems that you would have me run through your gates and traps once again; defend my faith yet cry "foul!" if I venture the slightest retort. Quite the fragile boy, you are!

But you are worse than a child, for a babe knows nothing more. You embrace your reckless ignorance like a drunkard does his wine. It is both shield and sword to you--but good for neither.

Fine then! As I have been the needy recipient of grace up til this very day, may the Lord in Heaven give me patience as I come 'round to mop up your filth once again, resist the temptation to strike your bare bottom with a cane in the process whilst it hangs out, and explain it to you one more time.

But remember this: I may be willing to wipe your ass, dear child, but dare not ask that I kiss it."

I giggleth, therfore I am.

Be well,
Huckleberry

The Bones of the Past

"For who can say they be loose their mortal coil
And think that their flesh will be saved from the soil?
Be you scoundrel or fool, prince or a poet
You walk over the bones of your past, 'ere you know it."

Thirty years ago or so, a ragtag group of misanthropic Iranian students marched upon the US Embassy--taking it and capturing the staff as hostages. Rumored among this group, a youngish Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The more things change....
Apparently time and maturity have not diminished Mr. Ahmadinejad's appetite for hostages and chaos as he wets his pen to author his latest ransom demands--yet to be revealed. I think that his real demand has already been amply met. Attention and aggrandizement are what he craves. And get them he does, in spades and to the detriment of the people he purports to serve.

Scoundrels and Fools
The last time the world was thusly held at the point of Iranian scimitar, all it took was the raising of a leader to back down the Ayatollahs who appropriated the uprising. As I look to my right and to my left...well, the pickings may be slim. Ronald Reagan did his job, it is time for another.

We are told (often by Ahmadinejad himself) that he lives in prophesized times. I might tend to agree. But history has tended to demonstrate that scoundrels and fools are usually displeased by the eventual outcome of such struggles--goodness and freedom being, as they are, stubbornly triumphant. I will remain faithfully confident in Mr. Ahmadinejad's eventual disappointment.

To the British sailors now held without just cause I say, "Godspeed."

To Mr. Ahmadinejad I say, "You walk over the bones of your past, 'ere you know it."

Be well,
Huckleberry

Scooter, Scuttled

Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been found guilty. Asking the random passer-by what he has been found guilty “of” elicits some interesting responses.

Some say, “He ‘out’ed’ Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, endangering her and in violation of law.” Actually no—that was Richard Armitage.

Others state that, “He leaked classified information to the press for political purposes.” Armitage once again, I’m afraid. In fact, Mr. Armitage actually admitted this to Patrick Fitzgerald (the Special Prosecutor in the case) quite early on in the investigation. One would have thought Case Closed! But alas, not. Mr. Fitzgerald had some more investigating to do, it seems.

Harry Reid (D), the current Senate majority leader, said that someone was finally being held accountable for the “campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics.” (1) What? I will double check, but I am rather certain that there is not a crime delineated in that chunk of political rhetoric—true or not.

The most common claim I seem to hear and read is that Scooter Libby was just the convenient “fall guy” for Dick Cheney (et al) and that they are the ones who really committed the crimes. Even the jury thought as much during the trial and deliberations. One jury member (coincidentally a former employee of The Washington Post) said in an interview, “We wish we weren’t judging Libby…This sucks.” (1)

When trying to determine exactly what Mr. Libby was convicted of we are faced with the uncomfortable realization that federal courts have determined that no crime occurred at all (this ruling survived several appeals and re-filings). The courts determined that Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA operative at the time her name was mentioned. Further, they determined that Richard Armitage revealed her name to reporter Robert Novak by accident in a fit of piqued bravado and that no violation of any state or federal law had occurred. What then of Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation and multiple grand juries? Well, Richard Armitage is no friend of the Bush administration and a bit of a buffoon—there is no sport in chasing him. But I am sure he found something for the investigators and juries to do.

So, while Mr. Libby sits in some half-darkened room with his attorneys vigorously preparing an appeal while contemplating the significance of his unfortunate nickname upon daily prison life, I ask you: What was he convicted of?

Answer?
The answer is that he was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice—serious crimes, to be sure. It seems that when the feces was hitting the fan (actually, more like the ACME Turbo Feces Flinger), Mr. Libby panicked a bit, dithered, obfuscated, delayed, laid claim to failed memory, and—the Granddaddy of all political parsing—“did not recall” as he strived to be loyal to those around him and figure out what to do. Turns out the paper trail and witnesses could reasonably testify that he should have recalled quite a bit. Thus, the jury is in and Mr. Libby leaves Washington….in stripes, pending appeal.

Even Handed Justice
Assuming the jury took to heart the task at their feet, we will trust that they were as fair as they could be. If the verdict holds, Scooter should by all rights scoot-off to the big house with our thanks for that which he did well, and the even-handed punishment justice delivers for his criminal failings. Hmmm…..Even handed Justice?

As Democrats and Liberals celebrate this verdict as a political victory, they would do well to remember the charge and conviction—perjury—as they cast their eyes up to the podium to see Bill Clinton standing at the side of their candidate Hillary….with Sandy Berger in the shadows, his pockets stuffed anew.

Be Well,
Huckleberry

(1) The Economist, March 10th-16th, page 27

An Open Letter to The Reagan Foundation and Library

Please Assuage My Fear
I am concerned.

As I opened my mail--discovering the latest "Coming Events at the Reagan Library" flyer-- I was at first comforted by the listing of conservative speakers and family events planned. My eye then quickly fell to the scheduled Reagan Forum event of April 28th with...Senator Edward M. Kennedy?
( http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/calendar.asp )

Now then; there are most certainly Democrats of national renown that might be appropriate for this event (Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman?). However, I feel safe in stating that if the entire universe of possible Forum presenters were to be drawn into a list with the most appropriate at the top, the current Senior Senator from Massachusetts would undoubtedly appear quite near the bottom--perhaps just below Jimmy Carter and one or two rungs above Muammar Khdafi (pardon the gentle hyperbole--but the mind reels).

As a long term supporter of both the Reagan Foundation and the Reagan Library I feel entitled to ask who made this decision and why? So often, fine institutions with noble purpose are segued into politically corrected prattlers by time and distance from those who honorably set out their bylaws and courses. It seems far too soon to have such a fate fall upon any institution with the name Reagan attached. Please keep my heart from breaking by defending the Kennedy decision.

Regards,
Huckleberry

A Word from Huck - Diaspora

When capitalized, Diaspora is used to refer specifically to the scattering of Jews from their ancestral homeland. Used in lower case, it refers to a migration or movement of any group of people from their traditional, accustomed, or assumed area. The word comes to us from the Greek (as so many interesting words do)--but more on that in a moment.

In common usage, it has come to be a reference to the history of not just the scattering of a people, but to include their struggle to return. One can therefore be interested in the diaspora of nomadic tribes as they pursue new pastures. Further, I do not believe that the lexicographers at Webster's nor the grammatically prickly in Chicago would complain too awfully much if the word were used in the singular--referring to an individual or self. Thus I give myself the permission to refer properly to the scriptural passage as the "Diaspora of the Prodigal Son."

Prodigal Son....Hmmmm....

What was the original meaning? Well, the Greek prefix "dia-" had several uses. In certain instances it implied "through" or "from" among other things. Sometimes, dia- meant "apart," which is the case here. The root word "speirin," meant "sow" or "sown" as in seeds or grain. In this sense, diaspora means to sow or be planted apart.

Well, what which was planted has grown. And the fruits of that growth are made complete in their return--whole once again.

Recent events and family news have brought this to my mind as I celebrate the diaspora.

Be well,
Huckleberry