RattlerGator

I have moved the blog to a new site and look to

be keeping it there although the transition has not

been as smooth as I had hoped. Posting a

YouTube video worked fairly easily over here

(or so I thought) before the move and I’m going

 to test it in the post as a means of trying to

determine why it isn’t initially working easily

over at the new site. This is part of the spice of

life, I guess. [Another part is working through

your difficulties and finding your errors -- that I

have done with respect to the videos, thank you

 kindly -- and those two videos may as well be

the lasts posts on this board for now; see you on

the other site]

Florida A&M University “Rattler Strike”

 

University of Florida “Orange and Blue”

 

 

A PROBABLE MOVE TO A NEW WEBSITE FOR THIS BLOG

In an attempt to modernize and streamline my blog, and with some exasperated prompting from the good folks at Pajamas Media, I’m in the early stages of finalizing a move of this blog to a new web address. It may, in fact, be sooner rather than later. Here is the new website address:

http://rattlergator.typepad.com/

Things aren’t necessarily clean and tidy, I’m currently having problems importing any of my old posts to the new site, and I still have quite a bit to figure out, but I can already tell that my personal approval of the potential at the new site has pretty much sealed the deal. I’m announcing this now because I may not post here for the next week or two while I force myself to learn the ropes at the new site and my trial period is still operational at the new site.

If you go check it out, you’ll see the barebones setup but you will also notice that I’m going to allow comments there – just to see how it goes. Of course, many websites allow for comments and no one takes advantage of the opportunity . . . at all. It’s a part of blogging that I’ve previously stayed away from for many reasons – most prominently, the old software I was using on this site (plus -- Steven Den Beste didn't use the dadgum things and that was good enough for me).

So, enough of that. I’ll be keeping the englishandwhite.com website and hopefully evolving it into a straight business page. Check out the new blog page if you would, please, and give me some feedback if you are so moved. Here are some basic points of emphasis associated with this change:

[1] If you have subscribed to my RSS feed, you will have to subscribe to the new one as I will be dropping the tool I’ve used to generate feeds here (they are automated at the new site);

[2] There is a change in e-mail address at the new site

[3] Have patience with the kid, there will probably be quite a bit of tweaking over the next few months as I learn how to play with the new TypePad toy.

I started blogging Memorial Day weekend, 2004. This seems like an appropriate time, approaching Memorial Day weekend, 2006, to move on the next phase of my blogging experience.

Wish me good luck, okay?

 

DISSCUSSING THE CONTENTIOUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS C.O.P.E. ACT

Julia Johnson, Chair of the Video Access Alliance and a force in Florida government for years now, recently testified at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce before their subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in support of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 (introduced as H.R. 5252). This bill is shaping up to be a huge congressional battle with the so-called “public interest” groups on the left lining up against the bill. In my brief review, the strongest argument in support of the bill was by Sonia Arrison:

The Internet, and the technologies that developed around it, has thrived precisely because of minimal government regulation. The idea that bureaucratic control of the old telcos spurred the growth of the thriving communications infrastructure we see today is palpably ridiculous.

New technologies driving the current economy were created in a world outside of the one where red tape was squeezing the air out of the telecom companies. While government was spinning its wheels trying to "create" competition between telecom companies, capital investment was fleeing the telecom sector and moving to more promising, less regulated places, like voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.

That’s a very strong point. Earlier in the piece she dismissed a claim made by Gigi Sohn that "without regulation, the vital Internet we know today would never have developed." Arrison wasn’t falling for it:

That's a laughable reinterpretation of history akin to Al Gore's insinuation that he created the Internet, and a twist of the facts worthy of George Orwell's "1984."

Removing the cloak to make plain what this battle is really all about, Arrison makes this point:

Under the guise of a principle called network neutrality--the idea that network owners should remain neutral with respect to the content they carry – pro-regulation forces are trying to increase their control over the information superhighway. Joining those who want greater government control of the Net are some content companies, like Google and Yahoo, which are currently engaged in a business struggle with companies such as Verizon and AT&T, which want to charge more for greater use of their broadband networks.

Google + Yahoo vs. AT&T + Verizon; now this is starting to make some sense. Arrison has a very persuasive point, though, and she closes with a flourish:

Companies should be allowed to choose the business model that works best in a market economy. History shows that a heavy regulatory regime such as the forced-access mandates under the 1996 Telecom Act was a disaster and put Americans at a disadvantage by slowing the deployment of high-speed Internet services. Those damaging regulations have been addressed through a combination of Federal Communications Commission actions, court decisions and technological changes, and the time is now to start treating telecommunications firms like any other technology company, not the other way around.

If Silicon Valley's technology companies take a deep breath and clearly consider their options, they will see that negotiating in the marketplace is eminently more preferable than submitting to government micromanagement. Some peoples' fantasies aside, it would be a serious strategic error to invite the bureaucratic regime into technology negotiations.

I’m convinced. Johnson’s firm listed these documents, I assume, in support of her position:

·        Internet Innovation Alliance
Complete Minority Ed Board Packet
[3.4 MB PDF]

·        Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (March 2006)
Measuring the Divide: African Americans' Access to the Online Universe
[3.3 MB PDF]

·        Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (February 2006)
African Americans and Broadband Communications
[156.0 KB PDF]

·        Telephia (January 2006)
Cell Phone Usage Highest Among African-American And Hispanic Consumers, According To Telephia
[43.6 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 13 (January 2006)
"In Delay There Is No Penalty": The Consumer Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform Delay
[181.3 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 13 (January 2006)
State-By-State Breakdown of the Consumer Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform Delay
[138.0 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 21 (July 2005)
Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure and Convergence
[325.8 KB PDF]

·        Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 21 (September 2005)
The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households
[391.8 KB PDF]

·        A New Future for Telecommunications Policy (November 2005)
Learning from Past Mistakes
[300.0 KB PDF]

·        The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute (October 2005)
Trends and Impact of Broadband in the Latino Community
[684.5 KB PDF]

·        GAO (March 2004)
Subscriber Rates and Competition in the Cable Television Industry
[270.1 KB PDF]

Reports seem to indicate there will be serious opposition in the United States Senate and the COPE Act of 2006 as presently constituted will likely be modified. Let the battle commence and may the least regulatory position prevail.

 

ASSESSING IRANIAN STRATEGY

Marc Schulman at American Future has a great post up citing a blog (Kosmoblog) which culled the information from a submission originally posted at Stratfor that (conceptually) sets a table still not acknowledged by many Americans:

In 1979, when the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini deposed the Shah of Iran, Iran was the center of revolutionary Islamism. It both stood against the United States and positioned itself as the standard-bearer for radical Islamist youth. It was Iran, through its creation, Hezbollah, that pioneered suicide bombings. It championed the principle of revolutionary Islamism against both collaborationist states like Saudi Arabia and secular revolutionaries like Yasser Arafat. It positioned Shi'ism as the protector of the faith and the hope of the future.

Since 1979 we (meaning, the world) have had an ongoing battle in the Islamic community of nations of who can be the most “radical” mickey-fickey on the block. In an American music context, this is something similar to the kind of stupidity easily observed in the rap world dispute of East Coast vs. West Coast – and just about as substantive (a mile wide, an inch deep).

However, given the continuing media revolution that just keeps evolving and evolving, any activity capable of projecting itself in such a manner that it is, in fact, perceived to be a “mile wide” is, by modern definition, a serious force.

The Iranians always saw al Qaeda as an outgrowth of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and therefore, through Shiite and Iranian eyes, never trusted it. Iran certainly didn't want al Qaeda to usurp the position of primary challenger to the West. Under any circumstances, it did not want al Qaeda to flourish. It was caught in a challenge. First, it had to reduce al Qaeda's influence, or concede that the Sunnis had taken the banner from Khomeini's revolution. Second, Iran had to reclaim its place. Third, it had to do this without undermining its geopolitical interests.

Now, if you’re doing a bit of thinking here and remembering Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, it is clear (is it not?) that side-by-side neighbors engaging in this kind of death spiral competition was a supremely dangerous situation where American interests are concerned, correctamundo?

Correctamundo.

Because of Iranian competition with Pakistan (via their Taliban surrogates in Afghanistan) to the East and Iraq on their western border, they had to make certain pragmatic alliances since 1979 (think Iran-Contra “scandal,” etc.) that caused them to be questioned as collaborators in the radical Islamic world. Iran, still engaged in a tricky long-term play for influence. Here is how they dealt with that perceived transgression:

Thus, the selection of the new president was, in retrospect, carefully engineered. After President Mohammed Khatami's term, all moderates were excluded from the electoral process by decree, and the election came down to a struggle between former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — an heir to Khomeini's tradition, but also an heir to the tactical pragmatism of the 1980s and 1990s — and Ahmadinejad, the clearest descendent of the Khomeini revolution that there was in Iran, and someone who in many ways had avoided the worst taints of compromise.

Ahmadinejad was set loose to reclaim Iran's position in the Muslim world. Since Iran had collaborated with Israel during the 1980s, and since Iranian money in Lebanon had mingled with Israeli money, the first thing he had to do was to reassert Iran's anti-Zionist credentials. He did that by threatening Israel's existence and denying the Holocaust. Whether he believed what he was saying is immaterial. Ahmadinejad used the Holocaust issue to do two things: First, he established himself as intellectually both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, taking the far flank among Islamic leaders; and second, he signaled a massive breach with Khatami's approach.

This, of course, created a problem for the Europeans who had been all-too-willing to play the role of punk ass surrender monkey so that they could triangulate (read: crap on) America. This was achieved by setting the United States apart from [1] the Islamic world, and [2] the E.U. When the Iranians decided (for political reasons) that they had to piss on Europe, too, our cultural betters across-the-way suddenly had their “uh oh” moment and had to back away from Iran. This, naturally, resulted in the rise of Iranian street credibility in the radical Islamic world and a growing conclusion that seems inescable:

In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well.

Or so they think. But, clearly, dealing with only one state dedicated to the pursuit of leadership in the radical Islamic community is far, far better than having to come to terms with two of them engaged in this race who not only are neighbors but are also supremely antagonistic toward one another.

The Bush Administration decision to press the battle in Iraq was a wise decision because it was the least bad decision among all possibilities.

 

YOUR HISTORY AND YOUR BOOKMARKS

Gerard Van der Leun has a long essay up on his site which includes this great paragraph:

The History of your browser tells me where you have been, but your Bookmarks tell me who you are. Mark Twain remarked, “You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is.” Bookmarks are the corn pone from which your 'pinions are baked, but if you have the kind of soul that has run "Clear History" on your life your 'pinions are not likely to have any foundation in the long history of Freedom but only to yearn towards a Utopian tomorrow that never knows.

And rarely learns.

And is an easily bored adrenalin-freak.

Does this describe someone within your circle of acquaintances?

 

VDH ON USG FOREIGN POLICY

Victor Davis Hanson asks his readers to consider the “context” when thinking through and analyzing American foreign policy under the Bush Administration post 9-11. His nations of interest? Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Hanson is of the opinion that:

After September 11, there were only seven sovereign countries in the Middle East that posed a real danger to the policies and, in some cases, the security of the United States — Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Ignoring the hysteria about the Sunni Triangle in Iraq, if we look at these states empirically, have they become more or less a threat in the last five years?

He then outlines what we seem to know about those seven nations today and he summarizes a favorable comparison. However, he does notice an apparent failure in the public relations communications coming from the administration:

What is lacking has been a consistently spirited defense, both unapologetic and humble at the same time, of our efforts since September 11.

First, the United States was not cynical in its efforts: no oil was stolen; no hegemony was established; and democrats, not dictators, were promoted. We were appealing directly to the people of the Middle East, not negotiating with Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein about their futures. No other oil-importing country in the world would have tried to pressure the Saudis to reform at a time of global petroleum shortages — not France, not China, not India.

Second, there were never good choices after September 11 [RattlerGator: this true point is repeatedly glossed over by the bitch-and-moan crowd].

Three, by the standard of Grenada, Panama, and the Balkans, our losses were costly. But . . . [RattlerGator: this is a poorly stated point because it uses the wrong conflicts for comparison, the very problem consciously committed by the left]

Four, the strategy was not wholly military or political, much less characterized by preemption or unilateralism. Iraq was not the blueprint for endless military action to come, but the high-stakes gambit that offered real hope of bringing about associated change from Pakistan to Tripolis once Saddam was gone and a constitutional government established in its place.

Five, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As we approach year five, there has been no subsequent attack on the United States. An entire intellectual industry has emerged to educate the West about radical Islamic fascism, something mostly lacking prior to September 11. Our enemies in al Qaeda are either dead, arrested, in hiding, or losing in Iraq, and the embrace of radical Islam through the Middle East at least now carries the consequence of fear of an unpredictable reaction on the part of the United States.

I happen to believe the “failure” to communicate this message has been less of a lapse in judgment and more of a decision to allow for the shaping of the 2006 federal elections battlefield.

These next few months will tell the tale.

 

MRS. INSTAPUNDIT SCORES!

In a column posted today on TCS Daily, Dr. Helen Smith (wife of Glenn Reynolds, the one and only Instapundit) sang the praises of Shelby Steele for his new book, White Guilt : How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Dr. Smith wrote:

Today's political left, according to Steele, has shifted from the old left approach of individual freedom, principles and responsibility, to the new left of dissociation. This new dissociated left has turned against democratic principles and instead engages in a victim mentality for blacks that keeps them on the plantation. The left's deal is that they will keep throwing out a few bones like affirmative action, as long as blacks will allow themselves to be reduced to their race and the left can take moral authority for "helping" them. As Steele points out, this is a deal with the devil. It results in the impotence of the left in solving social problems and less freedom and autonomy for blacks. How can social problems be solved by telling people that they remain victims because of their race (or gender, for that matter?)

To pick an example from my own profession, if psychologists spent their time telling their patients they were victims of mental illness (or racism etc.) and that they could only get better by coming to therapy, how could the patient ever develop autonomy, skills, and the ability to solve their own problems? It is the same with the race card on the part of the left -- victimhood will keep blacks maintained in the status quo, always looking to the left for validation and to enforce their "rights." But the same democratic principles that Martin Luther King used to discipline this country in the 60's are the same ones that will enable African Americans to become truly free and to continue to develop the personal responsibility and skills needed to solve the social problems that have plagued blacks in America for some time now.

Obviously, I second that emotion. Brick by brick, the foundation of that victimology plantation is going to be torn down.

Site maintenance is ongoing and should be completed within the next 24-72 hours.

 

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE: DAY 60 OF 60

Well, well, well. The state media is scared that Jeb just might pull off his effort to amend the Florida Constitutional so as to allow for an expansion of school vouchers after all. The possibility of extending the session one day is also on the table. This could be an action-filled day up here on Florida’s Capitol Hill.

Here are links from the Palm Beach Post on the action from yesterday:

·        A third of state property insurance market at risk 

·        Davis vows education improvement

·        Legislature 2006: Developments from day 59, May 4

·        Sweeping education changes OK’d

·        Marlins’ subsidy hung up in Senate

·        Bills sent to the governor Thursday

·        Legislature OKs oversight of vouchers

·        Citizens’ reform likely to be painful

·        Child-care advocates worried about shortfalls in budget

For today, these links will provide you the best way of following all of the remaining action.

Video feeds:

It’s still a better bet to go to the Florida Senate homepage and click on the live feed for the chamber you want to view. However, these also should work:

Senate -- Florida Channel 2;

House -- Florida Channel 3;

News aggregators:

Fort Report

Sayfie Review

Blogs:

St. Pete Times -- The Buzz;

Orlando Sentinel -- Central Florida Political Pulse;

Palm Beach Post -- Q: The Florida Politics Blog.

Things look better today for the Republican agenda and Jeb is showing that he is still a factor in state government.

If you’re going to try and track one bill – this is the bill you want to monitor: SJR 2170. Here is the history of the joint resolution, as of this morning:

S2170    JOINT RESOLUTION/CS/CS/CS by Education Appropriations;

Education;  Judiciary; Judiciary  (Similar H 1573, Compare 1ST ENG/H 0447, H 0467,  CS/S 1150)  Education; constitutional amendment to provide that every child deserves  equal opportunity to obtain high quality educ., regardless of his or her  family’s income, religion, or race & to provide that students in pre-k  through college who have disabilities or are economically disadvantaged,  or meet other legislatively specified criteria, may participate, as  provided by law, in educ. programs that include nonpublic schools, etc.  Amends s. 8, Art. IX. 

02/17/06 SENATE SPB 7106 submitted as a committee bill (SB 2170) by Judiciary; Filed 

03/03/06 SENATE Referred to Judiciary; Education; Education Appropriations 

03/07/06 SENATE Introduced, referred to Judiciary; Education; Education Appropriations -SJ 00173 

03/24/06 SENATE On Committee agenda-- Judiciary, 03/29/06, 3:30 pm, 401-S 

03/29/06 SENATE CS by Judiciary; YEAS  5  NAYS  3 -SJ 00374; CS read first time on 04/05/06 -SJ 00370 

03/31/06 SENATE Now in Education -SJ 00374; On Committee agenda-- Education, 04/04/06, 1:00 pm, 110-S 

04/04/06 SENATE CS/CS by Education; YEAS  6  NAYS  1 -SJ 00398; CS read first time on 04/06/06 -SJ 00413 

04/05/06 SENATE Now in Education Appropriations -SJ 00398 

04/13/06 SENATE On Committee agenda-- Education Appropriations, 04/18/06, 4:15 pm, 412-K 

04/18/06 SENATE CS/CS/CS by- Education Appropriations; YEAS  5  NAYS  3 -SJ 00503; CS read first time on 04/20/06 -SJ 00510 

04/20/06 SENATE Placed on Calendar, on second reading -SJ 00504 

04/28/06 SENATE Placed on Special Order Calendar -SJ 00696; Read second time -SJ 00692 

05/01/06 SENATE Read third time -SJ 00737; CS failed to pass; YEAS  23 NAYS  16 (requires 3/5’s vote of membership) -SJ 00737 

05/02/06 SENATE Motion to reconsider adopted 

You may also want to review SB 2234, this is the bill where the Republican leadership kept alive the voucher program for the 733 kids already in the program.

 

SFWMD SCIENTIST WINS USDA/ARS TECH TRANSFER AWARD

Francois Laroche is one of my best friends and works at the South Florida Water Management District. The District is a major American environmental agency responsible for the alert management of one of the world’s magnificent eco-systems. It gives me great pleasure to toot the horn of this old college buddy who was recently honored by the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

West Palm Beach, FL - Francois Laroche, of the South Florida Water Management District, received the 2005 technology transfer award of the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA/ARS). Laroche, a senior supervising environmental scientist, has been developing a database showing the locations and extent of melaleuca, an invasive wetlands plant.

To monitor infestations throughout Florida and in Mexico, Belize and the Caribbean basin, Laroche developed a list of collaborators outside Florida. Survey efforts and collected ecological information have been used to create a melaleuca treatment plan for Puerto Rico.

The SFWMD works cooperatively with the USDA/ARS Invasive Plant Research Lab (Fort Lauderdale, FL) to address complex problems of exotic plant invasions in natural and agricultural ecosystems.

Oh, hell!

He’s one of those Haitians, you know, who is always talking about his Island – and I love him for that. People love to talk trash about Haiti but he won’t have it. I’m always glad to come across a man who has pride of place – who also understands that I have the same. Now I’ve got to give him his props and I’ll probably never hear the end of it.

 

If they turn him loose to work his magic down on The Muck, melaleuca doesn’t stand a chance.

Way to go, Brave!

 

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE: DAY 59 OF 60

The battle over school vouchers continues in the Florida Senate and the Democrats have employed a procedural tactic to gum up the legislative flow in the final couple of days. A special session on the topic is possible, the legislation may be maneuvered through by sine die on Friday, or the whole effort may collapse. One thing is sure – the result of this is going to be some interesting internal hardball politics. Republican on Republican warfare is looking more and more likely.

In the meantime, look back on yesterday with this collection of stories from the Palm Beach Post:

• Riviera Beach mayor organizes rally to Capitol 
• Public records exemptions alarm activists 
• K-8 virtual schools' expansion headed for governor's signature 
• Voucher revival try snarls state Senate 
• Legislature 2006: Developments from day 58, May 3 
• Bill bars profs from Cuba, terror states 
• Marlins' stadium aid in reach 
• President Bush to attend Clay Shaw fund-raiser 
• Ad Watch: U.S. Senate race 
• House backs partial repeal of phone measure 

For today, these links will provide you the best way of following all of the remaining action.

Video feeds:

I had some problems yesterday with the Florida Channel. A better bet may be to go to the Florida Senate homepage and click on the live feed for the chamber you want to view.

News aggregators:

Fort Report

Sayfie Review

Blogs:

St. Pete Times -- The Buzz;

Orlando Sentinel -- Central Florida Political Pulse;

Palm Beach Post -- Q: The Florida Politics Blog.

To hell with Ohio, we are “the” bellwether state. The 2006 and 2008 elections are going to be an absolute war.

 

From Within The Veil:

CRASS POLITICAL COMMERCIALISM

W.E.B. DuBois said the problem of the 20th Century would be the problem of the color line; solidly within the color line in the culture of the United States stands African Americans, obscured from view by something similar to a veil -- those within are visible behind that veil, but precisely how clearly? Those within obviously see beyond that veil, but again . . . exactly how clearly? I believe the challenge of the 21st Century will prove to be the same as the challenge of the 20th Century but with this distinct difference: the “special” burden presented by the challenge (and that which must be shouldered) will no longer be on those from without the veil. No, the special burden in the 21^st Century will be on those of us within the veil. As it should be.

May 4, 2006

There’s a curious trend that I’m taking note of that quite likely has been present for years and only now am I noticing it because of my still relatively recent political switch. The trend in question is the use of a national stage to inappropriately try and establish your left-wing credibility at the expense of protocol and – oh, by the way – Republicans. This is accomplished by defecating on commonly accepted social norms of decorum.

The latest example is Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central. Invited as a featured attraction at an event where the President is the guest of honor, Colbert decided to engage in the dance that passes as cutting edge in New York these days. A recent commenter at Lucianne framed the situation well:

Colbert’s intentions were not to provide entertainment last Saturday night nor to even be funny, per se. Colbert USED the [White House Correspondents Association] dinner last Saturday night to further establish his extreme Lefty creds with his fan base. Much as an ambitious gang member commits a big crime, even murder, to establish his loyalty and dedication to the gang, Colbert gutlessly put a disrespectful and mean-spirited in-person ‘‘hit’’ on our President to impress [his] Lefty Kool-Aid drinking fan base. He succeeded in that self-serving regard.

Yes, he did. In a very calculated fashion.

You know there has to be (I hope) a growing exasperation among the grown-up’s on the left wing with this juvenile stupidity and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post verifies just this in his most recent column:

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you’re at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert’s lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

Of course, Colbert could care less about being rude, inappropriate or even a complete asshole. This was a commercial decision made in the comfort of knowing there will be no real repercussions to his bank account. Instead, he might actually increase his economic standing.

For instance, take a look at this definition of crass commercialism:

[It] is a term referring to articles of culture which are based mostly on capitalist pursuits, while masquerading as being material of substance.

Add a political angle, focus on a statement or performance made, and you’ve got the concept of crass political commercialism. One of the dual hypocrisies of the left wing and Black America is bitching about profits and money while being in serious pursuit of that very same thing.

I wrote about this type of behavior on September 9, 2005 and it fits entirely within the point of this column. Here is what I wrote then, while the Hurricane Katrina hysteria was in full effect and Kanye West had made his ignorant statement that President Bush doesn’t care about black people during (of all things!) a live concert fundraiser on NBC for victims of Hurricane Katrina:

* * *

Although Kanye West may be clueless by strategic design (just my suspicion), not all black folks are similarly afflicted, of course. David Porter at the Orlando Sentinel, for one, and I’ve been negligent in not singing his praises earlier. After first clearly stating that “Kanye West is way off base,” Porter continued:

West certainly was not the only one to throw down the race card. Some other blacks also accused the federal government of neglecting New Orleans because it has a black majority and rampant poverty.

The racial friction is unwarranted and counterproductive.

I’m no fan of President George W. Bush, but here’s a fact that can’t be denied: He was not slow to prepare for last week’s disaster.

Bush declared a state of emergency for Louisiana on Aug. 27. That was two days before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. The declaration started the process to assemble federal resources.

The racial criticisms made by West and others are an insult to the heroics of U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Air Force rescuers I watched on the television news. These guys have been descending on cables from helicopters and carrying New Orleans residents out of flooded neighborhoods. The rescues started on Aug. 29, the same day the hurricane hit.

And here’s an interesting thing that I noticed in those rescues. All of the men I saw come down from the helicopters were white. The majority of the people plucked from the rooftops were black. Yet those white rescuers didn’t seem to care what the victims looked like. The rescuers were energetic and compassionate. In one incident, a white Coastguardsman and a black guy stranded on a rooftop embraced as though they were brothers. Tears filled my eyes. That scene made me extremely proud to be an American.

Me, too.

The unforgivable sin committed by far too many folks all too willing to pimp for the Democratic Party is to stare into the face of a nation magnificently responding to a natural disaster in a colorblind manner yet still see nothing but a racial context to the disaster. Truly stunning ignorance has been on display. Porter, who felt the obligatory need to proclaim his non-love for George Bush, nevertheless must be an old-school black man because his ability to THINK is still intact:

The nightmare conditions at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center, where tens of thousands fled for help, wasn’t the fault of the military or President Bush. That blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of New Orleans officials.

Does it bother me that most of the victims in New Orleans were black and poor?

Absolutely. There really needs to be a serious discussion about chronic black poverty in America. But considering the crisis that we’re up against right now, the race discussion can wait until next week.

Is there room to improve the federal response to large-scale disasters?

Absolutely. But that discussion can wait, too.

By the way, many of people afflicted in Mississippi and Alabama by the hurricane were white. On Sunday, many of them complained they still had not received federal help.

This is not a racial matter. The scope of this disaster is mind-boggling. It covers an area greater than the size of Great Britain. There could be 10,000 dead. Throwing down the race card doesn’t achieve anything.

It’s obvious that Kanye West doesn’t get it.

Yet it’s clear that easing the agony of our Gulf Coast neighbors will require Americans of all colors to work together.

The sad fact is that maybe Kanye West “does” get it, has methodically made his calculation, and decided that he just doesn’t give a damn about all that – what he gives a damn about is his career. [RattlerGator: crass political commercialism is used to advance one’s bank account]

Less than a month ago [August 2005], I was driving into Tampa to visit one of my sister’s and listening to a local black radio station. They were discussing the upcoming Video Music Awards in Miami and Kanye West was the subject of the discussion. The disc jockeys were giving West much props for confronting homophobia in the hip-hop community of artists. They played a fairly long soundbite where he lamented single-parent homes headed by females and the subtle ways that boys in such environments may pick up habits that peers then interpret as “gay.” Once tagged in this manner, many of these kids then go looking for group-acceptance that is, essentially, male-acceptance. The simplest, quickest expression available to them, in an attempt to “man-up,” is gay-bashing. At least that’s the way I interpreted what he was saying.

Of course, anyone who has heard even a little bit of rap music knows just how deep the anti-gay sentiment runs. Such a sentiment closely mirrors the feelings of the black community. But because of the likely perception that he is championing gay rights, I suspect that Kanye West has been “tagged,” so-to-speak, as soft (Jesus Walks is not a standard rap song) and maybe a little too brainy (or what passes for brainy in the rap world) and maybe a little too gay-friendly.

So, how do you shore up your bona fides and reassure the fan base while simultaneously locking down your spot as one of the “conscious” young rappers?

Bash President Bush in a highly public manner that will piss off as many white people as possible. Pipsqueak mission accomplished.

No, I don’t think Kanye West’s statement came from the heart. Instead, just like Janet Jackson’s tit at the Super Bowl, it was a crass marketing maneuver carefully planned in advance as only a “conscious” rapper could.

At a time of an historic natural disaster, how juvenile, how sad. More telling, though, is West’s minstrel-like mimicking of the juvenile need to seek group acceptance in the most narcissistic manner possible.

* * *

Now we have yet another example of this type of juvenile behavior at the expense of President Bush. Richard Cohen’s column is reassuring in the sense that this level of blatant stupidity is called out for what it is.

More grown-up’s on the left wing need to stand up to being used in this manner.

 

THE TRANSFORMATION EFFORT THAT SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF OUR ATTENTION: THE STATE DEPT.

Wretchard has a good post up on the interesting writings of retired Army General Barry McCaffrey vis-à-vis the attacks on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. [UPDATE: please read the Big Lizards review of the post by Wretchard] More interesting to me (because I already believed what McCaffrey has come to believe) were Wretchard’s points on transformation within the United States Government:

Whether or not Donald Rumsfeld has been going about it the right way he may have been conceptually correct in emphasizing the transformation of the US Armed Forces even at the expense of accepting certain risks. The question is why other agencies have not followed suit. When Secretary Rice announced her intention to transform the State Department in January 2006, it was given scant coverage and treated largely as a non-event.

Not many would quarrel with the lofty goals, but how was this going to affect American diplomats and the work they do? Rice and senior officials explained what this would mean. There would be a new focus on regional solutions to address such issues as counter-terrorism, drug trafficking and disease. America’s diplomats will be required as part of their career advancement to serve in hardship posts like Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria. More Foreign Service officers will be based outside of our embassies which are located in world capitals (American Presence Posts) and some will do their diplomatic work making contact with foreign nationals by managing newly created Internet sites (Virtual Presence Post).

Rice said we do not now have the right numbers of people in the right places. As an example, she said, “we have nearly the same number of State Department personnel in Germany, a country of 82 million people, that we have in India, a country of one billion people.” Rice concedes these shifts in priorities will be “the work of a generation” but she said it will start this year with a “down payment” by shifting 100 positions, mostly now based in Washington and Europe, to “countries like China and India and Nigeria and Lebanon.”

And that's why they haven't followed suit. Rice's efforts are a testimony to how hard it is to transform an institution as large as the State Department, where it is only possible to shift "100 positions" in a work that will last a "generation". It's reasonable to assume that if the Secretary of State had forced the pace of change in the first year of the war instead of the fifth that there might now be an Ambassador's Mutiny calling for the Secretary's head, because there is a definite tradeoff between changing to meet the future and performing the job at hand.

This is one of the very real and substantive reasons why Dubya is getting so much blowback from the institutionalized crowd in D.C. This administration is genuinely doing the hard job that must be done, transforming essential agencies that have either strayed from their crucial missions or in need of adaptation for the 21^st century. Or both.

The CIA, the Defense Department, the State Department – the work in all of these agencies must go forward and I’m afraid the Democrats would severely screw that transformative work up.

 

FAREWELL OLD SOLDIER

Earl Woods, a true Buffalo Soldier, has died in California at the age of 74. A few years ago, Golf Digest did a good interview that is worthy of citing at this moment it seems to me:

The man had lived quite a life even before his son Tiger came along in 1975. As the first black scholarship baseball player in the old Big [8] Conference, Earl Woods developed into a catcher with the skills to play professionally. He chose instead to complete his education at Kansas State and enter the military service, which included two tours in Vietnam. It was there that he met Vuong Dang (Tiger) Phong, the South Vietnamese Army colonel who was a close friend and an inspiration for the son who would grow up to become the most influential athlete in the world.

Tiger Woods' birth signaled the start of more than one new life, and Earl and Tida Woods made the most of it, organizing their lives around their son and the game he loved. By the time Tiger started playing in national amateur events, his nerves had been hardened by psychological techniques his father had learned as part of training as a prisoner-of-war interrogator.

Tiger has taken a big step toward his dream of breaking Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 professional major championships, and now that he has taken command of his career, his father has more time to be a fan. Earl Woods, 69, joins his son at a handful of tournaments (mostly the majors and tour events with Tiger Woods Foundation clinics scheduled nearby), more often watching the action on television from the couch at his hotel -- a concession to diabetes and circulation problems in his legs.

Now this life is over and his known journey comes to an end.

Buffalo Soldier.

Green Beret.

Lieutenant Colonel.

American.

In fact, quintessentially American.

 

Well done, my man, well done.

 

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE: DAY 58 OF 60

Well, the Florida Senate is providing all of the drama in these final days. The Republican leadership is working to regain control of the agenda and allow school vouchers vs. the shadow government, working through so-called “moderates,” as they endeavor to continue muddying the issue. Bet on the shadow government; it will be a major achievement if the Senate President can pull this off.

For a look back at Day 57, click here. For today, these links will provide you the best way of following all of the remaining action.

Video feeds:

Senate -- Florida Channel 2;

House -- Florida Channel 3;

News aggregators:

Fort Report

Sayfie Review

Blogs:

St. Pete Times -- The Buzz;

Orlando Sentinel -- Central Florida Political Pulse;

Palm Beach Post -- Q: The Florida Politics Blog.