"It doesn't  work, so don't change it."
That is the illogical approach which the United States uses to continue its failed War on Drugs, begun by President Nixon in 1971. The illogic can be measured: 76% of Americans agree that the war has failed; 73% are against legalizing any kind of drugs; 60% specifically oppose legalizing marijuana; and only 19% believe in identifying drug addiction as a health problem which should be approached with treatment and education.

March 2009

§ American Jews are expressing dismay and disappointment at what they see as a less-Israel-friendly attitude than previously by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Former President Jimmy Carter, of course, has been labeled as anti-Israel primarily because his book about the Palestinians was definitely one-sided. Reading The Reagan Diaries offers yet another take on all this: Although Ronald Reagan was identified as a friend of Israel, his book contains more than 50 references to Jews and Israel, more than about any other country or group of constituents. They begin on page 14 with, "I'm disturbed by the reaction & the opposition of so many groups in the Jewish community. First of all, it must be plain to them, they've never had a better friend of Israel in the W.H. than they have now."

§ About Rush Limbaugh
Keep in mind, I'm a libertarian/Republican. The guy is losing it. He has become obsessed with himself, rather than with the issues, the causes for which he claims to speak. Left to himself, he would become a blathering boor and bore. Except that, the Democrats have been baited into attacking him professionally and personally, causing even those who are embarrassed by Rush to rush to his defense. Dumb move. -- FJV

February 2009

§ Another argument for legalizing drugs? Mexico now joins Colombia and Afghanistan as a country whose very existence is threatened by organized drug cartels. Another reason to conclude that the pluses and minuses of legalization would be better in many ways than the pluses and minuses of the stupid, costly, deadly, ineffective "war on drugs."

An argument against legalizing drugs? Comparing drugs to alcohol makes no sense. Drinking alcohol has been part of western civilization forever. Wine is imbedded in the culture "going back to the Odyssey and the Torah." Marijuana, heroin, and cocaine "do not share this distinguished pedigree. . . . Most people who drink alcohol don't drink it to get drunk. In contrast, everyone who smokes marijuana or crack does so to get high."

Rebuttal? So what? An individual should have the right to get drunk or high. If he harms someone or destroys property while drunk or high, his "diminished capacity" should in no way diminish his responsibility.

January 2009

Inexperience quickly begins to show
As Obama signed his executive order to close Guantanamo, he reportedly asked White House Counsel Greg Craig, "Is there a separate executive order with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees?'

Craig's reply: "We will be setting up a process." Or, as Detroit News columnist Frank Beckmann puts it, we'll "figure it out later."

About unlawful combatants
Has Obama's Attorney General choice changed his mind?
In a 2002 CNN interview, Eric Holder said: "One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance. Mohamad Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we we now be calling him a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."

Barack blames recession
Says he can't keep campaign promises
Let's see, now., he was so caught up in preparing to change things that he missed last year's daily headlines about the country's economic problems. Was it inattention or bad judgment? Was he lying? Gives one a lot of confidence in him, eh? We'll know by summer whether Obama can do more than give speeches.

To be fair. Republicans have to be very happy that McCain lost.

Caroline Kennedy, or not, makes no difference
Except as it affects the internal politics of the Democratic party, it make no difference to the nation whether the inexperienced and unaware Caroline is appointed to replace Hillary. Obviously, while Kennedy moves through her learning curve, she will be told how to vote by her senior colleagues. In effect, her votes will the the same as if a knowledgeable and and experienced politician is appointed.

Learning from FDR's mistakes
"At no time in the first eight years of the New Deal did unemployment drop below 15 percent. At no time did economic activity reach levels comparable to those of a decade earlier . . . and so this bold, active, and creative moment in our history proved to be a failure at its central task.

"[About the NRA] No one in the federal government had any experience or expertise in managing an economic project of this magnitude: control quickly moved to the corporations themselves, with no better results." -- The New Republic, Dec. 31, 2008

That conclusion from a respected left-of-center magazine might give Barack and stimulus package enthusiasts a moment of hesitation. -- FJV

December 2008

History's effect on legacy
Harry Truman and John Kennedy: Harry left office with one of the lowest approval ratings ever (lower than Bush's, at this moment); John had a high approval rating when he was assassinated. Today, Truman is recognized as one of our better presidents, specifically in foreign affairs. Kennedy's stature continues to diminish, both personally and politically. Time will/does tell.

A Monument for Obama?
Whether in jest or sending up a trial balloon, Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens suggests that a statue of Barack Obama be immediately commissioned. He cites Time Magazine's effusive Person-of-the-Year profile and Obama's self-glorification as perhaps justifying a statue of a living person. An aircraft carrier has been named after Bush One, Stephens points out. And there is no doubt that, as the first Black president, Barack is somehow "historic" even if "he turns out to be . . . a bad president."

I'm considering writing to Pope Benedict, in Rome, and asking him to begin canonization proceedings to declare Obama a saint. We might have a Saint Barack in our lifetime. (Rome? Perhaps this item should appear under VersagiVoice's International heading. Or, I could establish a new heading, like Universal or Heavenly.)

§ Is anything the Clintons do ever straightforward and clear? Now we have the release of information about Bill's receipt of millions from foreign sources, including countries, to free the way for Hillary's confirmation. BUT, already the questions arise about loopholes in the conditions for accepting future contributions. Opaque  spots in the "transparency." Is her confirmation for secretary of state as "inevitable" as was her nomination for president?

§ During the presidential campaign, I labeled Obama a "Black Clinton." You know, speaks well, has charisma, lies smoothly by omission and commission and diversion and evasion. Now, in Governor Blago, Illinois has its White Kwame Kilpatrick. "Hell no, I won't go. I haven't done anything wrong. You'll have to beat me in the courts." . . . All Democratic scandals that Republicans are beginning to label, "the gift that keeps on giving."

Whom do you hate most?
That has to be a common question as we read, watch, or listen to the debate over saving, or not, the Detroit 3.:Disgracefully posturing politicians? Auto executives behaving like fish out of water? Union leaders defending their hard-fought gains?

Seeking TV exposure, our elected officials behave like power-mad boors, even as they display their principled preferences for capitalism or socialism. (Those who want to fire this or that executive will undoubtedly soon demand that his replacement needs to be approved by the Senate.) The pleading auto execs come across as unsure how to behave outside their own arena, where they are all-powerful. One has to assume that quite a few congressmen and senators won't be receiving as much financial support as in the past. Labor leaders have behaved the most like valiant soldiers: fighting back hard, reluctantly but very publicly offering symbolic concessions.

Nothing they do, or don't do, will make much difference long-term.

For at least 20 years, the auto industry has been pretending it doesn't know that -- in the U.S. and worldwide -- they can produce more cars than can ever be sold each year. As the foreign firms set themselves up in the U.S., the market share dropped for each of the Detroit 3. That overcapacity still exists. Nothing that comes out of Washington can prevent the downsizing of the Detroit 3 or the reduction of the 3 to the 2. Bailout, bridge loan, or not, four years from now the U.S. auto industry will have settled into its appropriate size in terms of production, number of office and factory employees, and new compensation-levels for all of them.

Then there's Chicago
Those frequent and sometimes frantic statements stressing that Obama, himself, is not, yet, an issue in the Chicago scandal, suggests that we will soon be hearing phrases like "plausible deniability."

Would proportional representation be better?
At a time when some Americans are wondering whether our 2-party system provides enough choice, a British Labour leader praises our method of electing presidents and writes that Europe's' parliamentary system generates politicians who are "machine professionals who crawl up the greasy role of power." Other observers remind us that Brown replaced Blair as Prime Minister without a vote of the people. Those of us who dislike the proportional voting and votes of no-confidence which characterize parliamentary elections visualize what our recent history might have been like under such a system.

• Truman would have been ousted. The President was right to fire the General, to maintain civilian control over the Military -- but for the wrong  reason. The public was overwhelmingly in MacArthur's corner, both about his specific Korean strategy and about his overall resistance to micromanaging by politicians. It would have been popular but wrong to toss Truman out.

• Kennedy would surely have been evicted, justly, either for the Bay of Pigs disaster or for the muddled diplomacy which brought on the Cuban Missile Crisis. (More recent histories suggest that his then-concealed illnesses and pill-popping distorted his judgment.)

• Reagan might have been in danger over the Iran/Contra mess.

• Nixon would have survived a multi-faction, parliamentary vote.

• Carter's overall incompetence would have put him in danger of being booted over both domestic/economic policy and foreign policy.

• Eisenhower would have had the smoothest sailing.

• Re Bill Clinton, the same Labour leader cited above writes: "A European leader who flubbed health care reform and saw his party lose control of the legislature, as Bill Clinton did in 1994, could never have survived."

• Bush, the Second would not have made it through his second term.

All that said, I prefer our 2-party system. -- FJV

§ Completely unrelated
We need an immediate investigation into how and why, in less than two months, the oil companies conspired to cut the cost of gasoline in half.

§ Who needs the United Nations?
Useless in Darfur, helpless re the Russian-Georgian conflict.

Better the multi-lateral approach with which President Reagan ended the Cold War and helped accomplish liberation of the captive Eastern European nations. As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher commented, Reagan "won the Cold War without firing a shot . . . with a little help from his friends." Those friends, one writer has suggested, "included, besides Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa, Helmut Kohl, Vaclav Havel, Italy's Francesco Cossiga, arguably Mikhail Gorbacheve, and the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union."

No reason, today, why we can't encourage Germany and France and the European Union to continue their efforts to address the Russian-Georgian conflict. Multi-lateral, bilateral, unilateral as appropriate are the ways to address  regional issues. Who needs the United Nations? -- 27 Aug 08

Too many Americans are "whiners"
The media understandably and appropriately provide daily reports on economic problems of individuals and of governmental entities at all levels. What's missing are helpful reminders that there's more to it than the problems described. Consider:

• 94%-plus of homeowners are not facing foreclosure.

• The Eurozone countries -- forever increasing benefits like unemployment pay, extending the time that benefit can be collected, forcing unionization, and making it impossible to hire and fire employees as needed -- have double and triple the unemployment rate of the United States.

• In the last seven years, the United States generated more jobs than the entire European continent.

We're probably doing something right. Mention that now-and-then, guys. -- 09 Jul 08

"You People"
Campaign charges of racism have quickly spiraled out of control, unfortunately mostly by Obama supporters, who seem to equate any questioning about Barack's positions or campaign tactics as a bigoted attack. So this is a good time to repeat a message which VersagiVoice has presented before.

It is illogical and conveniently hypocritical for those who stress their group identity and its uniqueness -- who seek benefits as a group; who take offense as a group; who claim rights as a group; who boast of accomplishments as a group -- to complain when someone acknowledges their self-proclaimed group identity and refers to them as "you people."

On occasion, it is as appropriate to say "you people" as to say "my people."

Forget Dems vs. Repubs: The very latest mess re Obama's church and pastor is a catastrophe for everybody. -- 12 Mar 08

The Democrats are back, so --
The white flags are flying
President Bush has withdrawn several of his nominees for the Federal Courts, rather than battle for them with the newly elected Democrat Congress. Some will consider that wise, that he is suggesting to the legislators that he is willing to work with them; others will think it cowardly.

About foreign affairs, the Democrats are flying several white flags of surrender -- notifying our friends and enemies that Americans are cowardly and will back down if we can't press a magic button which simultaneously solves our and all the world's problems without sacrifice.

In Iraq or on its borders; forward-based somewhere else in the area, the United States's self-interest will require our military presence in the Mideast and Asia Minor for at least 50 years. Think Europe. Think Korea. Where no military threat exists, diplomacy (even despised "dollar diplomacy") will do the trick. Think South America.

For comparison: We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: it is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for  without victory, there is no survival. -- Winston Churchill

From another Englishman: It is almost incredible to me that so much of Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of global terrorism is somehow our fault. . . . It is the extremists, not us, who are slaughtering the innocent and doing it deliberately. . . . The terrorists do not want Muslim countries to modernize. . . . If we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight for it  . . . not just in our own countries but the world over. . . . This requires, across the board, an active foreign policy of engagement, not isolation. . . . Let me be quite plain here. I do not always agree with the United States. Sometimes it can be a difficult friend to have. . . . [But] The danger with the United States is not that it s too involved in the world. The danger is that it might pull-up the drawbridge and disengage. .-- Tony Blair

New Deal revisited
"The New Deal administration of President Franklin Roosevelt, from 1933 to 1940, failed to restore American employment and industrial production to their 1929 levels . . . [but] the Second World War . . . brought complete economic recovery and a massive victory." -- Collins Atlas of World History

Speed Kills -- NOT!
In 1995, when the 55 miles per hour speed limit was repealed, predictions of disaster included:

• "History will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life." -- Ralph Nader

• "[There will be] 6,400 added highway fatalities a year and millions of more injuries." -- Judith Stone, Highway Safety Advocate

• "Allowing speeds to rise above 55 simply means that more Americans will die and be injured on our highways." -- Federico Pena, Clinton's Secretary of Transportation

Instead, between 1995 and 2005, the highway fatality rate dropped 16%; injuries dropped 37%, and crashes dropped 33%. For whatever reason, even pedestrian deaths dropped 16%.

The 1974 speed limit was primarily enacted to save gas and oil during that era's come-and-go "energy crisis," but safety advocates immediately assumed there would also be many fewer accidents and deaths on the highways. 

A tabulation in the 07 July 2006 Wall Street Journal summarizes the data.

Providing perspective re gasoline prices
As I write this, gasoline prices are down from their $3.00-plus highs, though they will likely rise again. Even so, this tabulation, derived from one published in April 2006 by the Detroit News, provides instructive context for those who deplore the "excess" profits of oil and gas companies.

"Looking now at the county black population as a whole, it is fair to characterize it as poor and ignorant. Perhaps ten per cent compose the well-to-do and the best of the laborers, while at least nine per cent are thoroughly lewd and vicious. The rest, over eighty per cent, are poor and ignorant, fairly honest and well meaning, plodding and to a degree shiftless, with some but not great sexual looseness. Such class lines are by not means fixed; they vary, one might almost say, with the price of cotton. The degree of ignorance cannot be easily expressed. We may say, for instance, that nearly two-thirds of them cannot read or write. This but partially expresses the fact. They are ignorant of the world about them, of modern economic organization, of the function of government, of individual worth and possibilities, -- of nearly all those things which slavery in self-defense had to keep them from learning. Much that the white boy imbibes from his earliest social atmosphere forms the puzzling problems of the black boy's mature years. America is not another word for Opportunity to all her sons." 

"Free! The most piteous thing amid all the black ruin of war-time, amid the broken fortunes of the masters, the blighted hopes of mothers and maidens, and the fall of an empire, -- the most piteous thing amid all this was the black freedman who threw down his hoe because the world called him free. What did such a mockery of freedom mean? Not a cent of money, not an inch of land, not a mouthful of victuals, -- not  even ownership of the rags on his back. Free! On Saturday, once or twice a month, the old master, before the war, used to dole out bacon and meal to his Negroes. And after the first flush of freedom wore off, and his true helplessness dawned on the freedman, he came back and picked up his hoe, and old master still doled out his bacon and meal." 

"Guerrilla raiding, the ever-present flickering after-flame of war, was spending its forces against the Negroes . . . "