bobtheump

In reading the posts today at one of the quote and quip political sites there was a Bill Maher comment about the Arnold scandal.  He snarks that we in America are overly interested in sex scandals in the political world and “can’t we compartmentalize?”  The response to such comment is of course, “Geez, are you really that effing stupid?”  Now I have watched Maher on occasion and I can tell you from a very limited experimental probability he is absolutely that effing stupid but this particular comment really puts the liberal central philosophical flaw on full display.  To wit: Character can be compartmentalized. Mr. Maher and others who have defended the most flawed of persons such as Mr. Clinton, Mr. Spitzer, Mr. Rostenkowski, and so many others find no such compartmentalized generosity when discussing Mr. Gingrich.  But the hypocrisy notwithstanding where is the logical argument?  I agree that Mr. Gingrich’s personal failings, if they are actually as reported, are enough to render his candidacy as unacceptable.  I believe that Mr. Spitzer is best suited for CNN where he can pal around with other reprobates and utilize his experiences in office to analyze others. But his flaws of personal morals and strength of character absolutely disqualify him from holding any office of real and not reflected relevance.  Mr. Gingrich is most qualified to teach others from the mantle of pundit and commentator as a brilliant historian and strategist.  But, his only passing acquaintance with the concept of fidelity and lifelong commitment render him as hardly trustworthy with the keys to the kingdom.  And, for sake of clarity lets not worry about the really big decisions.  Mr. Obama has proven, though I find him a poor example of a President, that even when you campaign to get elected on the premise that the last guy was a lying sack of crap, when it comes to the big decisions like how to prosecute a war political BS falls to the wayside.  Mr. Bush utilized Guantanamo Bay and military tribunals because it was the right thing to do and the strategy was the least of many evils.  Mr. Obama and the bought and paid for press railed against his choices as not just bad policy but the very essence of evil.  Yet, when the reality of dealing with an enemy that has no sense of proportion sets in, even the harridan-esque Mr. Obama keeps Gitmo open, the tribunals running and sends in the Seals to do the dirty work of killing the bad guys.  The nightmare scenario of having a person of weak character in a seat of real power is in the little deals they are willing to make.  Weakness of character allowed a whole generation of legal minds to accept the “living constitution” argument because it is so much easier to affect social change by judicial fiat.  Of course it is a ridiculous notion created to bypass the will of the people by folks who “know better” than you about how to live your life. Weakness of character is what allows a man who has sworn to uphold the constitution to stand in front of a crowd of people and admit he took illegal campaign contributions but since there was “…no controlling legal authority.”, he did it anyway.  Weak moral character is what allows the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States and Member of the Bar to lie under oath to a Grand Jury and put his political standing ahead of his sworn duty to uphold the law.  Weakness of character is what allows a man of great faith to authorize a burglary of his political opponents offices and then lie about it when lies would no longer do him any good. Weakness of character is what lets bad judicial appointments happen and excessive regulation and bridges to nowhere and highway mile marker signs every tenth of a mile and buildings and highways named after sitting Senators and congressional junkets to more fully understand the environmental impact of  the tides on Caribbean beaches.  I am not arguing that it is possible to only run a perfect person for public office.  I believe that only one person of perfection has ever walked the earth and He didn’t go to an Ivy League school and so could never get elected.  Man is flawed but it is not a mistake to sleep around on your wife.  A mistake is when you add  5 numbers in your head and get the wrong answer.  When a grown person decides to follow through on his or her baser desires they are saying something about themselves.  They are telling us all that they will put self ahead of sacrifice.  They are telling us that honor and commitment will come in second to ambition and power.  There is no compartmentalizing character.  It is who you are morning, noon and night.  It is who you are in the easy moments and the tough times.    Mr. Maher, it may be easy for you to overlook the character flaws of those we look to for leadership.  Me, I believe what Maya Angelou says, “When a person tells you who they are, believe them.”

I think we are missing the point when it comes to enhanced interrogation techniques. The controversy centers on whether the technique used is definable as torture? And, if it is defined as torture then doesn’t it reasonably follow that the “laws” or conventions governing the “fair play” of war lay fallow?  And, if that is true then, in an age of modern pharmaceuticals, wouldn’t interrogation under the influence of any number of tongue loosening drugs be far more effective and less strenuous?  Even morally preferable? If you have already decided that you will take whatever steps necessary to achieve your goals of intelligence gathering, and you have years to detain and question an enemy combatant, who chooses to torture?   Torture by every account is not very reliable.  A person under duress will tell you whatever they think you want to hear.  It is certainly detrimental to the morale of your own troops making it hard to feel like they serve a just cause.  And it provides motivational fodder to the enemy.   It certainly demoralizes the public and, when made public, erodes political support for the mission.  On the other hand, the United States military and our intelligence gathering agencies have access to every drug and psychotropic substance known to mankind.  If our leadership has decided that intelligence gathering in certain situations has such importance as to make any means acceptable, certainly the pharmaceutical route is easier and more reliable.  I have asked a couple of pharmacists I know and they tell me that there are any number of concoctions that make lying and resisting damn near impossible.  Furthermore, they make the experience impossible to remember.  GHB, GBL, Rohypnol and other drugs that are available on the street in the U.S. and often used as “date rape” drugs  provide rather clear evidence that if the conventions of war are not an issue the act of torture is only done for purposes of portraying an image.  It is perhaps done to frighten the enemy by instilling a sense that they are in for a no holds barred fight.  Perhaps it is done to make the front line combat troop feel that the folks back home will do whatever it takes to support their efforts. Or, maybe and more likely it is done to distract the public from the more serious but less stirring violations of conventional interrogation techniques.  If you can get the useful idiots up in arms over an interrogation technique that cannot even be universally defined as torture who is gonna notice when you slip Khalid Sheik Mohammed a mickey in his Gatorade?

The House of Representatives voted recently, in what will be an entirely symbolic gesture, to make illegal any taxpayer funding of abortions.  The Republicans in control of the House cite all manner of statistics but their argument falls entirely on an unsustainable premise. They don’t want any person who is morally opposed to abortion to have any portion of their tax dollars go to paying for one.  On its face this seems a generous and even somewhat reasonable stance.  Of course, like many other liberal attempts to legislate through the back door, this one is fraught with impossible philosophical obstacles.  Simplest and most important is that as a representative democracy the rule of law is a function of both the constitution and civil consent.  Individual moral codes are in almost no case considered an acceptable reason to deviate from the legal process.  For instance, if you are a conscientious objector in the military you can and will be placed in a job that is not objectionable within the military.  You may be passing paper instead of ammo but in the Army you will stay.  I have serious moral objection to our endless funding of unemployment insurance but I cannot conceive of a legal argument that would exempt me from my share of that burden.  I am deeply morally opposed to increased federal spending in the face of massive deficits and debt.  Nonetheless, I am honor bound and legally obligated to pay my taxes.  So must those who oppose  abortion or the death penalty or end of life counseling by government insurance agents or buying bullets for the U.S. Marines.

If you want an end to abortion cite the unequivocal science that shows abortion is murder and vote in legislators and presidents who will make laws and appoint judges who will strike down the tortured logic of Roe.  In the meantime stop circumventing the system and playing the rules and the country for suckers.

If you knew me at all you would know I celebrate the victory of justice over one of the worlds most heinous war criminals.  Bin Laden was a legitimate target in the war of defense against radical Islamic terrorists.  And, his devout followers are still legitimate targets and should be pursued with the same vigor and daring.  You won’t find me celebrating in the streets, however.  You won’t find me praising the President for killing another human being no matter how deserved of the act the man was.  You won’t find me patting myself on the back for the actions of men and women who go to places and do things I cannot or will not do.

No, not me.

But last night on college campuses across the U.S. and in front of the White house there were students who voted for the first time in elections for Mr. Obama, throwing parties and celebrating hugely a victory they did not earn.  These same folks who called Mr. Bush the most vile of names and accused him of the most hideous of crimes shouted in joyous celebration at the fruition of plans he put in place in the months after 9/11/01.  These same children who voted for Mr. Obama because he was the one who would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and close Gitmo and repudiate all that was and is President Bush now claim victory in the name of Obama for what Mr. Bush set in motion. These same children who profess peace and non-violence at any and all costs now gesticulate in reflected glory over the killing of one man and several of his cohorts as if they participated in the battle. These same souls who decry the “creation of martyrs” by the US Military on the battlefield seem to have abandoned this argument in the face of the opportunity to celebrate any “good” news on behalf of Mr. Obama.

The children of whatever age celebrated the violent death of the scourge Bin Laden.

The grown-ups went to Ground Zero and paid their respects.  The grown-ups sang the National Anthem and cried for they know what is coming.  The grown-ups hit their knees and prayed that Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines would be safe from the coming retaliation.  The grown-ups hugged their children because they know this is not over.

Not by a long shot.

I am absolutely maddened by the failure of so many to understand the impact of the Barry Bonds steroid use.  I have heard, even on otherwise well-informed sports talk shows, the comment that taking steroids did not make it possible for Bonds to hit the ball.  If anything the fact that Bonds could hit makes the use of the juice even more heinous in terms of its effect.  Steroids in the short-term allow for muscles to recover from injury faster than normal.  For the purpose of understanding what this means you have to be aware that the term injury does not refer to pulled muscles and damaged tendons.  It refers to the type of injury that makes your muscles sore after failing to work out for too long.  It refers to the cellular level of bruising that occurs from repeated and strenuous exercise like hitting and running flat-out after a ball in deep left and throwing a hard strike to second to get the runner.  Those efforts cause injury to the muscle.  They bruise the muscle and that is why you tire and ache.  The injury is cumulative and causes not only short-term aches and pain but a longer harder to shake fatigue in the muscle.  The fact that Bonds had exquisite hand-eye coordination in the first place makes the use of steroids even more effective for him than for most any other player in the game.  He is one of the few whose ability to maintain his timing over a long season without suffering the normal slowing of the hands and resultant failure to make easy clean contact would make a huge difference.  He would be able to avoid the weaknesses and slumps that other players who were not cheating must face in the marathon that is a major league baseball season.  He was able to avoid the same kind of slumping and weakness that he himself faced for the years he did not cheat.  In point of fact the steroid use does make it possible for him to hit the ball.  It is the most fundamental of cheats.  He was a ringer.  Game after game and night after night he was the guy who was a step fresher and stronger than the competition could reasonably be expected to be as they had played 50 or 100 games without benefit of unnatural recovery provided by use of illegal designer drugs.

The second frustrating thing that seems to be missed by the talking heads is the fact that the increased strength gained during off-season workouts was not on display in only the monster home runs into the depths of McCovey Cove. It was also in play on the 20 to 25 warning track fly ball outs from previous years that crept over the wall by 6 or 8 or 10 feet.  It was in use on the 15 or 18 foul pop ups that were outs over 600 at bats in previous years that flew out of play to become another hittable pitch.  It was on display with the 15 or 20 or so ground balls that bounced too high or got into the hole too quickly to turn into ground outs and then became another base hit.  The only negative would be a couple of “Texasleaguers” that made it to the outfielder and a couple of balls that were turned into double plays because of how quickly they got to the fielder instead of slow rollers.  Bonds never hit the ball weakly and after ‘roids he was able to take advantage of not 50 feet of more power but rather 15 feet of power on fly ball after fly ball and still keep the 2 feet you would normally lose on the fastball by August.  Baseball is game of delicate balance played in mathematically precise dimensions.  Freakish consistency makes the game robotic.  Freakish consistency turns the game into a video game.  Freakish consistency makes baseball into a game that only people who think fantasy leagues are more than a math exercise can stand to watch.

I have a woman friend whom I love dearly.  Her husband is one of my best friends and she is as supportive of my family as any one could be.  That as preamble to the fact that I have a bone to pick.  Admittedly it is probably an issue of simple semantics but in any case it is something that bugs me.  It helps to know that I am an incurable teaser.  I like to play with folks and have a good time.  I think I am harmless as I have never been accused of doing harm with my teasing but, there could be those to whom I have offered offense.  I am not really too sorry about that.  You see I figure if your sense of offense is so sensitive as to be set off at a level that does not require you calling me on it your offended sensitivity meter is set too low.  Anyhoo…my friend is very attractive and I always tease her about having to fight off annoying men, like me.  She always responds with an earnest, “I am non-violent.” There in resides my annoyance.  I cannot truly suss out what that means.  Other than a niggling sense that she is castigating me for my thought processes; that smacking away annoying advances is appropriate, I can not logically accept that anyone is completely non-violent.  For instance I do not believe for a moment that my friend would fail to fight off an attacker if the target of the attack was one of my daughters. Should the simple of tactic of bopping an assailant on the noggin with a skillet keep my 13 year old from harm I am certain she would avail herself of that tactic.  I can accept that she is ANTI-violence but by saying she is NON-violent she is telling me that she would tolerate an attack on my daughter, or even her own with no physical response.  I on the other hand embrace violence as a part of life.  Not that I do violence on a regular basis or even more than very rarely.  Nonetheless, in a world like ours and in times like these, the threat of violence as an attitude and as an option is not only prudent but part of the survival of the species.  And, while I have not done anything violent in many years I am practiced at it and have done in my past things that I am certain my friend would find unthinkable, since she finds all violence unthinkable.  And, if she or her family and certainly if mine were threatened with harm that I could prevent only by a violent act, act I most certainly would.  Harboring that attitude, I am always a little lost when someone tells me that they are non-violent.  I wonder if they really believe that the lives of the innocent are truly worth staying true to their ethical choice.  I wonder if they think that the violence done to the innocent is truly no more evil than the violence done to protect the innocent.  I wonder what else of those they are not willing to protect they are equally willing to sacrifice.  Their money? Their home? Their life? I fully understand “turning the other cheek”.  I ascribe to “turning the other cheek”.  But in failing to protect others I suspect I am no less part of the process of forcefully turning their cheek than I would be if I were wielding the fist. I also understand that in fairly short order I will run out of cheeks and then it is a whole new ballgame.  What price moral certitude?

I am an umpire.  It is not what defines me but like a lot of us it is how I think of myself.  I own a small, small business but I don’t identify myself in my own mind as a business owner.  Nope.  I am an umpire.  I think it is because I love both baseball, and rules.  I believe there is right and wrong.  I believe that the moment you cheat you stop playing baseball and start playing some other game that the other team  isn’t playing.  So, even if the final score may show you scored more runs than the other guy, you didn’t win.  You weren’t even playing the same game.  Life is similar.  If you are debating the finer points of an issue and you have to resort to half truths or outright lies to make your point, you didn’t really have a point.  You weren’t even playing the same game.  I listened to a lot of sports talk show hosts this week debating the Barry Bonds trial verdict.  A common thread was that the government wasted millions of dollars trying a guy about a silly thing like lying to a grand jury.  I am an umpire.  I think they should have gone this far and maybe even farther.  I am holding out hope that they will retry the man on the remaining issues that resulted in a mistrial.  I think most people miss the point of trials like these.  The whole of our legal system relies on the participants, willingly or not, telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  And, when a prominent citizen lies to the Grand Jury or a Judge in a legal proceeding as did President Clinton, the impact on the integrity of the process is even more severe.  If the President of the United States is held to the same standard I am in a legal proceeding then we are a nation of laws and equal justice.  If the President or a man of great fame and fortune like Mr. Bonds is allowed to skate on the fundamentals of telling the truth when you swear to God that you will then we are a feudal society of Lords, Ladies, peasants and serfs.  Guess which one you are?  You see in life like in baseball there is a way of doing things.  A proper order must occur for fair play to be maintained.  Many folks think the pitcher can never fake a throw to first.  He can.  He just has to step off the rubber to declare himself an infielder first.  But when he is on the rubber he is the pitcher and if he starts a motion to throw to first he must finish it true to his actions.  If not there is a penalty.  If you swear to God or the court that you are gonna tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth then you must or fair play breaks down; chaos ensues and the nature of the game changes.  It seems on its face a silly thing. But in truth it is all.