Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Some thoughts on Iraq, liberals and the upcoming elections

Under normal circumstances, you can expect that liberal Dems will do everything to support elections. They did in South Africa in the late 80s, El Salvador in '82, and Nicaragua in '90.

In Haiti '94, the liberals went as far as supporting the unilateral Clinton invasion of a country, occupation and installation of a new government.

I said normal circumstances. These are not normal times. Today's Dems are motivated by an irrational dislike of Bush and the US.

It reminds me of their irrational dislike of Reagan, the man that they use to mock as a crazy American cowboy who couldn't wait to blow up the world!

Reagan did blow up the world, the communist world that is. There are millions of Poles, Czechs, et al, who are grateful that someone referred to the USSR as "the evil empire". These are the same Poles and Czechs who are now building pro-American nations and creating jobs in an otherwise economically stagnant continent.

Do you think that they hate Bush around the world? Go to the internet and do a quick search of the world's major newspapers circa 1984. Pay special attention to what they used to write about Reagan when he stood up to the Soviets and did not listen to the millions who marched on behalf of the "nuclear freeze" movement.

Thankfully, Reagan did not want to be popular around the world. He was more interested in defending the US after Carter's weakness in the late 1970s. Reagan was reelected and those who marched in Europe carrying "Reagan is Hitler" placards are probably filling out work visa applications at the nearest US embassy.

As I wrote before, every anti-Bush line or joke came out of the Reagan playlist. The liberals are like Frankie Avalon doing a disco version of "Venus". It's the same song but with a different beat!

Like any addiction, irrational anti-Bushism, has turned many Dems into people who can't think straight.

During Bush's visit to Canada, an Alberta journalist said----where are the feminists celebrating the fact that thousands of women voted in Afghanistan?

There were the usual suspects marching against Bush's foreign policy:

1) There were the world's lesbians for peace, 2) The tree-huggers for Kyoto,
3) The world's homosexuals against the US military,
4) The atheists against Christmas,
5) The US is evil blues band,
6) The we hate everything about Israel gang,
7) The blame the US for all of the world's problems brigade,
8) The antiglobalists,
9) The Bush is Hitler parade,
10) The let's replace cars with horses environmentalists,
11) The US taxpayers need to contribute more to AIDS research,
12) Canadian students who think that Bush is evil,
13) Arafatistas against Israel, etc.

I can't count them all.

There were also lots of feminists blasting Bush's position on abortion. Yet, these feminists would not salute the man who made it possible for thousands of women to vote in Afghanistan for the first time.

Or, the same man who is now making it possible for hundreds of women to run for public office in Iraq!

Or, the man who has made it possible for little girls to go to school in Kabul.

Without Bush's leadership, the Taleban and Saddam would still be in power and women would not be voting, attending school or running for public office in these countries.

Where are the feminists? They don't want to give Bush the credit. Why? Because the feminists are more interested in abortion than whether or not women vote in the Middle East. Sadly, today's feminist movement is all about abortion and little else!

Whatever you think of this war, the people of Iraq are showing extreme courage in setting up an election under the fear of bombs and suicide bombers. They are risking their lives daily to have an election.

We voted six weeks ago in the US. There were no bombs or suicide killers running around threatening anyone.

Can you imagine what life is like in Iraq? Yet, they continue to set up their elections. The Iraqi people deserve our admiration.

Tony Blair made this point during his visit to Iraq:

"Our response should be to stand alongside the democrats--the people who've got the courage to see this thing through--and help them see it through. I've got no doubt at all that that is the right thing for us to do. . . .

Why aren't Dem liberals supporting the Iraqi people? The answer is that a successful Iraq election is a bonus for Bush. The liberal Dems want Bush to fail, even if failure hurts them as much as it does Bush!

Who would benefit from a collapse in Iraq? Nobody. Let me repeat. Nobody.

Sober liberals understand that.

Unfortunately, most liberals today are intoxicated with something called "irrational anti-Bushism"! Their leftist brothers and sisters in Europe and Canada are intoxicated with a variation of the virus called "Irrational anti-Americanism".

Let's look at some of the symptons of this international virus:

They blame Bush for Kyoto even though it was Clinton who killed the treaty and never brought it up to the US Senate for ratification.

They blame Bush for the bad economy even though the recession began in March '00 when the dot.com bubble burst into pieces. Furthermore, Europe's economic malaise has nothing to do with Bush or the US. It is the direct consequence of their high taxes and welfare state mentality.

They say that Bush has motivated terrorists to attack us since Iraq. Who motivated the terrorists during the 1990s when the US was attacked over and over again without a military response from Bill Clinton? Have any of these people read the 9-11 report?

This is why I call it irrational. These people are irrational.

Let me point out some reasons that liberal Dems hate Bush in the US.

First, It has nothing to do with Iraq. Let me repeat. It has nothing to do with Iraq.

If Gore had won, he would toppled Saddam too. Why? No US President was going to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt after 9-11.

Let me repeat. No US President was going to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt after 9-11.

Who would have been Gore's closest advisers? Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden.

Also, McCain would have opposed Gore in '04. McCain would have pounded Gore hard saying that he had left Saddam in power despite WMDs and violations of the cease fire.

Sorry revisionist liberal Dems. Al Gore would have taken out Saddam too! And he would have used the same military plan that Bush used.

Let me make another prediction.

If Bush had not removed Saddam, then John Kerry would have run in 2004 accusing Bush of failing to defend the US by leaving the reckless Saddam and his WMDs in power. (It worked for JFK in '60 when he accused the Eisenhower-Nixon administration of being soft with Castro!)
Again, this is not about Iraq.

There wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and GWBush on Iraq in 2000. Or between the first Bush and Clinton.

It was the Clinton-Gore administration who gave us The Regime Change Act of '98, which was a nice way of saying that the foreign policy objective of the US was to remove Saddam.

Furthermore, it was Clinton who went on national TV on Dec '98 to announce the bombing of Iraq because Saddam was in violation of the '91 cease fire and had just kicked out the inspectors in total disregard for the UN.

Clinton also said that Saddam was attacking US and UK planes enforcing UN resolutions. Those of you who say that Saddam "did not attack us" need to go back and read what Clinton said on this subject! Clinton was convinced in Dec '98 that Saddam was indeed attacking the US.

It was Madelaine Albright who warned us that Iraq was a threat to the US. Secretary Albright went to the UN and was greeted with the same indifference that met Sec. Collin Powell in '03.

It was John Kerry who went on CNN's "Crossfire" and said: Where is the backbone of the French? Kerry was complaining that the Europeans were not supporting Clinton on Iraq. The Europeans did not, except for Tony Blair.

Last but not least, it was Clinton who gave a stern speech in Feb '99 warning Iraq of dire consequences if they continued to defy UN resolutions.

Michael Moore knew all of this in 2000. Why? He voted for Ralph Nader rather than Al Gore. 4 million other liberals agreed with Moore. They voted for Nader, which arguably cost Gore the election.

Why did 4 million liberals vote for Nader rather than Gore in 2000? There were many reasons of course. Nader was a strong critic of Clinton's, and US policy in general, vis a vis Iraq. We have to assume that some of his 4 million voters felt the same way.

So this is not about Iraq.

Please do not rewrite history by telling me that Dems hate Bush because of Iraq.

The war in Iraq is a convenient vessel to load up with 10 years of electoral fustrations with Bush.

The Democrats have lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections and it translates into a lot of liberals with broken hearts.

"How can you mend a broken heart" was a Bee Gees tune. Liberals can mend their broken hearts by nominating a candidate who can win in the suburbs and who can persuade the American people that he has the stomach to defend the country.

All of these frustrations, and broken hearts, have been dumped in the Iraq vessel.

Since '94, Bush has beaten three Dem icons----Richards, Gore and Kerry.

Bush has also had phenomenal success electing Republicans across the country. What did Clinton do for the Democrats in the 90s? Nothing. What has Bush for the Republicans? Quite a lot of down ballot victories.

Let's look at the numbers.

In '92, or before Clinton, the Democrats had 256 House Members while Republicans had only 178. The Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate by a margin of 56 to 44.

Compare this with results after the 2004 elections:

Republicans have 232 Members of the House, Democrats have 202 and there was is one Independent.

That is a gain of 54 seats.

The Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Independent.

That is a gain of 11.

As to governors, there are now 28 Republican governors, 22 Democrat.

That is a gain of 8 from 1992.

That's what this irrational dislike is all about. Losers hate winners. And liberals have been doing a lot of losing since Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the vote in '92.

Like Reagan, Bush beats Dems.

Like Reagan, Bush drives the liberals crazy.

Like Reagan, Bush projects a self-confidence that drives the "weak" liberals mad.

They are still furious that Bush beat Anne Richards in '94.

Let's remember that Anne was the darling of the American left, the sweetheart of the NYTimes editorial page and Hillary before Hillary. Every liberal dreamed of Anne leading the Dems across the South and West in 2000 and retaking all of the electoral territory lost to Reagan.

After all, Anne was perfect. She was a pro-abortion liberal with a Texas accent.

On election night '94, Anne met reality. On that same night, even Al Gore could not stop Tennessee from electing 2 Republican Senators, one of them filling the seat he vacated to become VP.

Anne Richards, Mario Cuomo, and a bunch of other Democrats, were thrown into early retirement by the Clinton years.

Let me paraphrase very liberal Eleanor Clift---Clinton won but he lost everything else!

Why do liberals hate Bush? Why did Republicans hate FDR? Losers always hate winners.

Why did Red Sox fans hate the Yankees for 86 years?

Do you get the idea?

Speaking of Iraq, time has shown that certain UN Security Council members had very unique reasons for keeping Saddam in power. The French had business interests, for example. The Germans and Russians were in the same boat.

Please don't insult my intelligence by saying that France or Germany were acting on the basis of principle, unless you spell it PRINCIPAL.

Have Dem liberals, or their European brethren, heard of the Oil for Food Scandal at the UN?

Jonah Goldberg puts it best:

"The French and Germans puffed their chests and fluffed their feathers in pride over their refusal to topple Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't just their reluctance to deprive themselves of Saddam's petrodollars, nor their more enlightened natures, that prevented them from lending military support to the effort.

They simply didn't have much to offer. The little-discussed secret of European "enlightenment" on military affairs is that the most potent weapon in their arsenals is hot air.

Even if they wanted to, France and Germany combined couldn't send much more than 20,000 troops outside of Europe - and, not counting Britain, they're the military powerhouses in Europe.

France had the choice of playing the conscientious objector in the war and hero to the "oppressed" peoples of the world (and, thereby, staying bought by Saddam) or of joining the United States and revealing itself as a third-rate military power. "

Speaking of France and the UN Security Council, it won't get any easier on the subject of Iran. Reuel Marc Gerecht, the very respected expert on Middle East issues, writes in this week's Weekly Standard:

"President Bush personally has described Iran's nuclear-weapons aspirations as "unacceptable" to the United States. He has thrown his administration behind the French-British-German effort to use diplomacy to convince Tehran to forsake its uranium enrichment efforts, even though the conduct of the Europeans has convinced an increasing number of American officials that this soft-power approach has no chance of succeeding with a regime that has been lying about its intentions for nearly 20 years.

The Europeans have so far adamantly refused to consider serious economic sanctions against the mullahs.

In particular, France, which has probably had the best intelligence collection against the Iranian nuclear target among the Europeans, has clearly signaled that it wants to expand, not curtail, trade.

France's largest automotive company, Renault, in which the French government is an influential minority shareholder, has signed an agreement with Tehran to build factories in Iran for export to the entire Middle East and Central Asia"

Look for another Bush-Chirac dispute over Iran.

Speaking of the UN Security Council, please don't insult my intelligence by saying that France or Russia are interested in using force only when the UN supports it.

Why did Chirac send troops to the Ivory Coast recently? What UN resolution was he operating under?

Putin said that he was ready to act preemptively against the terrorists who killed 400 children in Beslan.

What UN Security Council resolution gave them these powers?

So here we are. One month before the elections in Iraq.

Again, where are the liberals? Where is the international left?

Nearly one-third of the candidates in Iraq are women. Where are the liberal feminists?

One would think that the liberals would be lined up to support elections in Iraq.

The enemy in Iraq has the kind of profile that liberals usually detest.

For example, the enemy in Iraq is:

1) against abortion
2) opposed to homosexual marriage on religious grounds
3) opposed to any kind of political dissent
4) doesn't like free newspapers
5) no rights for women (the ultimate macho society, where are the feminists?)
6) no Western media
7) no affirmative action

Under normal circumstances, one would expect liberals to be in up in arms against such an intolerant lot.

These so called insurgents don't believe in abortion. That should be enough to raise the anger of every liberal in the West. Abortion is the "rosary" of modern liberalism.

Yet, most liberals are quiet. They want Bush to fail. Their hatred of Bush is such that they would rather support those who kill election workers rather than those who want to vote.

In all fairness, some liberals are standing up and screaming.

Christopher Hitchens said:

"....with the Left, which is supposed to care about secularism and humanism, it's a bit harder to explain an alliance with woman-stoning, gay-burning, Jew-hating medieval theocrats. However, it can be done, once you assume that American imperialism is the main enemy."

Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes has written two outstanding articles on this subject.

In his last one, he writes:

"There is much to dislike about this war in Iraq, but there is no denying the stakes. And that picture really framed them: this is a war between some people in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world who - for the first time ever in their region - are trying to organize an election to choose their own leaders and write their own constitution versus all the forces arrayed against them".

Where are the liberals? They are sitting around hoping that Bush will fail.

Why will Bush succeed in Iraq? Because he is doing the right thing.

Saddam had to be removed. The corrupt UN was not going to do it. The weak Europeans can't do it.

Thank God for Bush and Blair, who were willing to take a political risk for doing the right thing.

Bush and Blair stand in contrast to the likes of Spain's Rodriguez-Zapatero, a first rate demagogue, who used the Madrid train bombing to promote his anti-US platform. The Spanish people are painfully learning that their troops left Iraq but the terrorists have not left Spain.

Bush and Blair stand in contrast to the corrupt Jacques Chirac, who uses anti-US rhetoric to distract his countrymen from the sickest economy in Europe. Chirac can't create jobs but he can criticize the US. There is no economic vitality in France but there is lots of anti-Bushism.

Want to get intoxicated with anti-Americanism? Just travel to Paris. However, don't look for a job there because you won't find one! France has 10% unemployment and it won't get any better in 2005!

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek is another liberal and he writes:

"The current issue of Foreign Affairs has an exchange between two scholars, Tony Smith and Larry Diamond. Smith accuses Diamond, a longtime supporter of human rights, of making a "pact with the devil" by working (briefly) for the United States in postwar Iraq.

Diamond, who had opposed the war, responds:

"I do not regard the post-war endeavor as a pact with the devil. Let Smith and other critics visit Iraq and talk to Iraqis who are organizing for democracy, development, and human rights. Let them talk to the families that lived under constant, humiliating, Baathist rule. Let them see some of the roughly 300 mass graves of opponents of the regime who were brutally slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands. Then they will find out who the devil really was."

I can't say it better."

Let me quote Friedman again:

"Most NATO countries (I hope) would prefer a decent outcome in Iraq, but a determined minority, more worried about an American success than an Iraqi failure, is holding NATO back. So let the record show that when Iraq finally decided to hold a free and fair election, all the bad guys decided to come and "vote" and all the good guys sat on the fence, dangling their legs, eating pistachios."

Come on liberals. Put your anti-Bushism to the side. Drop the addiction.

How do you want to be remembered?

In Iraq, you have a chance to be remembered as one of those who stood for elections and women's rights!

Go ahead and invest your energies supporting the people of Iraq. They need your support.

Put the bottle of anti-Bushism away for 30 days and support the first free elections in Iraq's history.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Merry Christmas '04 and a Happy New '05

Merry Christmas. Happy New Year!

2004 was another good year. We got older and hopefully wiser. We enjoyed good health.

And '04 marked my 17th consecutive year of jogging. I have "jogged" 3 miles every other day since 1987. I am proud of that!

Let me do some quick math. 3 miles multiplied by 181 days times 17 years. That's 9200 miles! Is my math right?

My next goal is 10,000 miles. Then I can shoot for 20,000 in the next 17 years!

God bless America. We reelected Bush and the Senate has 55 Republicans. The House stayed Republican, as it has been since '94.

So we can't complain.

Bush is the first President since FDR '36 to increase his party's totals in back to back elections. For the record, the Republican used to say that FDR was a moron, too!

I stuck with Bush all year. Why? Because Bush is a leader. Bush will make decisions and that's what you want from a President.

Bush faces some tough domestic challenges:

Social Security needs fixing. We need privatization, as they have in Chile. The federal government should guarantee and continue existing distributions. But younger employees, those under 40, should have investment choices. It's simple. We fix it now or the system goes broke.

The tax code needs to be revamped. I want the elimination of the income tax. Let's replace it with a national sales tax. We have a US$ 15 trillion economy. A national sales tax should provide Washington with plenty to run the federal government. It will also eliminate paperwork, which is a drain on the economy and specially the small business sector.

The deficit is a problem too. Economic growth is the answer. The economy is growing again.

We need some new ideas on health care. Medical savings accounts are a market solution, where people can spend their own money. We need to get the government out of health care. The role of government should be to provide access to those who lose their jobs or suffer some economic calamities. It can do so with vouchers or tax credits. But doctors and hospitals should stay private. Lawsuit reform is also a big problem in the cost of health care. Doctors practice defensive medicine because they are afraid of lawsuits. That has to stop. Bad doctors should be punished. Good doctors should be allowed to work without the fear of mad litigation.

On the international front, Iraq will go on for a while. The elections will demonstrate that the Iraqi people want a better future. Millions will risk their lives to vote.

I believe that NKorea will be resolved by the Chinese. They don't want some Cold War relic with nuclear weapons on their border. The new China is more interested in economic growth than coddling Mao's old friends. Don't be surprised if the Chinese use their magic to remove the little idiot.

Iran is another mess. So far, the Europeans have paid some visits to Tehran. What are Europeans going to do? What are they going to say: Cut it out or we are going to pay you another visit!

Iran will listen when Bush speaks. And Bush will speak on this very soon. By the end of 2005, Iran will stop building the nuclear plant or B-1s will reduce it to rubble.

The US Mexico border is a mess. It is a national security vulnerability.

I support the work visa program. It is only fair. But, Mexico needs to do more to attract foreign investment. It needs to privatize PEMEX and invest in more infrastructure.

Again, Bush will be bold. This is not the kind of man who walks away from tough problems.

I call this leadership.

Leadership is the difference between Reagan and Carter.

It is why we remember Churchill rather than Chamberlain.

Leadership is Truman, who is my favorite Democrat. Truman fought for the minimum wage, and other liberal issues, but he was always ready to fight and defend the US.

Leadership is FDR going to war with Hitler's Germany even though it was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor. Why? Because FDR understood evil. He understood that evil must be defeated.

Why does Bush drive so many liberals crazy? He is a leader and the liberals don't have any leaders. Liberals just hate Bush, which is not enough to win elections!

Why have the Democrats lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections? There are two answers:

The first answer is national security. The American people do not believe that liberals have the stomach to defend the country.

The second answer is secularism. The US is a religious country. It was settled by men and women who cherished their Judeo Christian traditions.

Americans support the separation of church and state. However, they do not think that it means the separation of people from their religious traditions!

The Democrats have aligned themselves with those who want to shut down Christmas parties. It's bad idea and horrible politics as well!

The Democrats are doomed until they nominate a person who can defend the country and feels comfortable with faith. The closest thing they have is Joe Lieberman but he can't win the nomination.

The Texas Rangers and baseball

Baseball is a distant second to the Cowboys in the Dallas area. Why not? The Cowboys have played in 7 Super Bowls since '71. The Rangers were swept by the Yankees in three divisional series.

The baseball season in North Texas is usually over by mid-July as the Cowboys get their training camps underway. By Labor Day in Dallas, most people are talking football!

But the '04 Rangers were special. They won 89 and finished 3 games behind the Angels. They were eliminated by the Angels in the 158th game of the season.

No surprise about the Angels. I predicted that Anaheim would win. But no one in their right mind could have predicted 89 wins for the young Rangers.

Congratulations to Michael Young. He moved from 2b to shortstop and replaced ARod. Young was selected to the All Star team and became the team leader.

More congratulations to Hank Blalock and Mark Texeira, the infield corners who had great seasons. They are both 22 and will get better and better.

And there is Francisco Cordero, who was an automatic save coming out of the bullpen. Ryan Dreese, another youngster, became a reliable starter winning 14 games.

It won't be easy in '05. The Rangers still need more pitching. But things are looking bright and baseball is fun in north Texas again.

Can't forget the Houston Astros. They also had a great season. I am sorry that Biggio and Bagwell did not get into the World Series after 17 years with the Astros!

What about the Boston Red Sox? They were great. They were down 0-3 to the Yankees and came back to win the Series.

Curt Schilling. What a performance in game 6 of the ALCS. Curt is a Republican too, which just makes it perfect!

Johnny Damon. What a great post-season. Get a shave and a haircut, Johnny!

The Dallas Cowboys

Sorry. But this is a sore subject. I won't say too much more. I just hope that Vinny Testaverde is not our QB next year. Vinny is not the sole problem. But he is not the future either. It's time for the Cowboys to draft a QB!

Remembering Reagan

We lost Reagan in '04. We knew that he was dying but it was still tough to accept. The funeral was great.

Many of us became conservative activists because of Reagan. He picked us up after the Watergate scandal and the election of Jimmy Carter in '76.

The Carter presidency was weakness compounded by more weakness.

It was Reagan who stood up for the US during the late 1970s. It was Reagan who said in 1980 that the US was the shining city in the hill. It was Reagan who rebuilt the US military.

It was Reagan who was so unpopular in Europe. They used to call him a crazy cowboy. I remember all of those "nuclear freeze" demonstrations in European capitals.

In 1984, Democrats said that Reagan cut taxes for the rich and made us unpopular around the world. In 2004, they said the same thing about Bush.

Conclusion: The Democrats have nothing new to say, which is another reason that they can't win elections!

We remember Reagan because he seeded the modern Republican party. He connected with Americans and made us very proud again.

I will always remember Reagan because of his smile and optimistic outlook. He was the greatest! He was a winner!

God bless Ronald Reagan.

Merry Christmas and a very Happy New year to all of you.

Saturday, December 11, 2004


In the early 1920's, the business of baseball was in deep trouble. The White Sox scandal had rocked the game and the owners were concerned about the future of their business.

Want a quick history of the White Sox scandal? Watch the movie "Eight men out". This is the kind of movie that even your wife would love. It is a drama rather than a sports movie.

Another movie, "Fields of Dreams", also touches on this subject, specially as it relates to Shoeless Joe Jackson.

The business of baseball in the 1920's was saved by two men.

The first one was Babe Ruth, who brought the mystique of the home run to the game. The Babe put fans in the seats and made millions for the owners. He was the greatest professional athlete of the 20th century.

The Babe and Ronald Reagan were born on February 6th. Was the Babe the Reagan of baseball. Or was Reagan the Babe of politics. It's a tough call!

Ruth set the two most cherished records in sports----60 homeruns in '27 and 714 for his career. The Babe's last homerun, the 714th, was a monster shot to deep right center. It was a fitting farewell to the game.

The season record stood until Maris hit 61 in '61. And Aaron passed the Babe in '74 and finished with 755.

Barry Bonds (703) is now on the verge of passing Ruth and Aaron. Can we trust his record? Will it be tainted by steroids? Or, what about Bonds' 73 in '01?

No one has ever questioned what Maris did in '61 or Aaron's amazing consistency.

Will anyone believe what Barry Bonds did?

The second man was Judge KM Landis.
He was hired by the owners to run the game. Landis demanded total and absolute power. The owners reluctantly gave it to him.

Landis was great for the game. He was the last word and usually made the right decision. His biggest mistake was segregation but he was not alone on that issue. Most owners supported keeping the black players out of the major leagues.

On balance, Landis was good because he was the CEO that major league baseball desperately needed after the White Sox scandal.

Baseball desperately needs a CEO today.

Baseball has been rocked by another scandal, the steroids problem. Baseball needs to regain its credibility with the fans.

Bud Selig is a nice man. He has made some good changes, such as the wild card and inter-league play. But Selig has few powers. The players' union sees Selig as one of the owners rather than an honest broker.

Baseball is in a constant tug of war between the owners and the players' union. No one has the last word so the tough issues are not settled.

Baseball needs labor peace and it won't have it until someone forces the players and owners to sit down and discuss the big problems.

Baseball can not continue operating under these labor agreements that get resolved at the last minute or with a strike.

Steroids is one of those issues.

A strong commissioner would have forced both sides to settle this 10 years ago. He would have required drug testing. He would have acted in the "best interests" of the game.

A strong commissioner would have addressed the financial disparity among teams.

How can you have the Yankees with a $170 million payroll and several teams around $40 million? It makes no sense.

A strong commissioner would have imposed a salary cap and would have restrained the mindless expansion of the 1990s. Major league baseball did not need 4 new teams in the 1990s. It would have been better to relocate a Montreal or Oakland than to bring in more teams.

So let me nominate George Will for commissioner. He loves the game. He understands the history of the game.
How much does Will love the baseball? Read "Men at work". Will wrote this masterpiece in 1990 and it is required reading for any baseball fan.

Will understands that baseball is bigger than the current owners or players.

Will for commissioner.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004


The Oil for Food scandal is finally on page 1 of the American press. And it will stay on page 1 for some time.

This is a scandal. Or to paraphrase Saddam: This is the mother all of financial scandals!

Let me recommend Senator Coleman's article on The Wall Street Journal calling on Kofi Annan to resign. (www.opinionjournal.com)

Bill Safire has a great column in The New York Times about Kofi Annan's son. (www.nytimes.com)

Or read Dick Morris' call for massive changes at the UN: www.thehill.com/morris/120104.aspx

Pres. Bush made it clear that:

"It's important for the integrity of the organization to have a full and open disclosure of all that took place with the oil-for-food program...."

Pres. Bush has to speak in diplomatic terms.

I do not.

As far as I'm concerned, the UN needs to come clean or the United States should stop paying dues.

What gives me the right to make this statement? I am an American taxpayer.

The US pays 20% of the UN dues and gets 100% of the criticisms.

My taxes are financing this orgy of irrational anti-Americanism and I don't want to take it anymore.

Let's take the millions that we pay in dues and give that money to the poor souls of Sudan.

The UN can not find consensus to help Sudan. There is a terrible human tragedy underway in Sudan but the UN can not decide on a course of action.

Yet, they can find the time to issue resolutions against Israel and the US.

Or, they can find time to insult our intelligence by naming Cuba or Syria as heads of the human rights commissions.

Sorry. No more!

We pay the bill and we are not going to pay anymore unless there are some massive attitude adjustments at the UN.

The "pachanga" is over in New York.

What is alleged about the UN and Iraq?

It is alleged that Saddam Hussein was using the Oil for Food Program to pocket billions and buy favors from France and others.

It's time for the US to make it very clear----the party is over!

The UN will clean up its act or we won't pay our dues anymore.

Step 1: Kofi Annan must go.

Step 2: Chirac must come clean on Saddam bribes.

Or we don't pay 20 % of the dues anymore.

So come clean Kofi Annan. Tell the truth Jacques Chirac.

Who stole US$ 21 billion from the Iraqi people?

Who took bribes to support Saddam at the UN Security Council?

What countries were selling arms to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions?

As I said, Sen. Coleman of Minnesota is leading a very complete investigation in the Senate. The House is also doing its own inquiry under Congressman Hyde. Paul Volcker is conducting a review in the UN.

The truth will come out.




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog